HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-2015 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the PlanningCommission 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
August 12, 2015Wednesday6:00 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 July 22, 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 tofive 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 hearingor 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 $279and 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.
1.159 Broad Street.AP-PC 32-14: An appeal of the Community Development
Director's decision approving a minor subdivision of a 14-acre parcel into 4 parcels
and a 13.27-acre remainder parcel, with a categorical exemption from CEQA; R-1
zone; Cheryl McLean and Andrew Christie, appellants;Andre, Morris, & Buttery,
applicant.(Walter Oetzell)
STUDY SESSION:
2.Fire Master Plan Update –Briefing by City Staff and Consultant (Garret Olson)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3.Staff
a.Agenda Forecast
4.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Walter Oetzell
Meeting Date:August 12, 2015
Item Number:1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT:Appeal of the Director’s decision approving the subdivision of a 14-acre parcel into
four parcels and a 13.2-acre remainder parcel
ADDRESS: 159 Broad, San Luis Obispo BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
e-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE #: $33& 32-14 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1), denying the appeal and upholding
the Director’s approval of the subdivision.
SUMMARY
Appellant Cheryl McLean
Representative Andrew Christie, Director,
Santa Lucia Chapter of the
Sierra Club
General Plan Open Space;
Low-Density Residential
Zoning Conservation / Open Space
(C/OS-20);
Low-Density Residential (R-1)
Appeal Date April 23, 2015
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines § 15315:
Minor Land Divisions)
The Subdivision Hearing Officer approved an application, filed by Michael Morris, of Andre,
Morris & Buttery, to subdivide a 14-acre parcel into 4 parcels and a remainder parcel. The
subdivision will create four new small residential parcels, each surrounding one of four existing
residences on Bressi Place, and a remainder parcel measuring just over 13 acres in area.
ZR
PC1 - 1
MS 32-14(159 Broad)
Page 2
On April 23, 2015 an appeal of the Hearing Officer’s decision was timely filed by Cheryl
McLean, who is represented by Andrew Christie, Director of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the
Sierra Club. The reason for the appeal is described as follows:
Lack of Open Space easement; protection required due to potential future
development facilitated by subdivision.
COMMISSION PURVIEW
Pursuant to § 16.10.140 of the City’s Subdivision Regulations (SLOMC Title 16), the Planning
Commission may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any ruling of the Director on a tentative
map and may make such findings consistent with the Subdivision Regulations, the Subdivision
Map Act, or any other applicable regulations.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information and Setting
The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel, just under 14 acres in size, west of Broad Street
and south of Serrano Drive. Access to the site is taken from Broad Street, between 153 and 181
Broad, by a common driveway shared with 161 Broad. Access is also taken from Serrano Road
by Bressi Place, a private street.
Table 1: Site Data – Original Parcel
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 602,980 square feet (about 13.85 acres)
Width: varies; about 250 to 750 feet
Depth: varies; extends about 1400 feet (north-south)
Street Frontage: ±40 ft. (Serrano); ±90 ft. (Broad)
Present Use &
Development
Four single-family dwellings (Bressi Pl)
Single-family residence, barn, accessory structures (159 Broad St)
Topography Elevation: Min. ±250 ft.; Max. ±445 ft.
Slope: Gentle, increasing to moderate in a southwest direction, toward
Cerro San Luis
Natural Features: Two unnamed creeks; open space
Access From Broad Street, by common driveway south of 153 Broad
From Serrano Drive, by Bressi Place (a private street), east of 641 Serrano
Surrounding Uses North & East: Low-Density Residential (R-1); Single-family residences
South & West: Open Space (C/OS-20); Northeast flank of Cerro San Luis
Most of the subject parcel lies within an Open Space area north and east of Cerro San Luis. An
unnamed creek travels in an easterly direction across the middle of this open space toward a
culvert near the common driveway entrance on Broad Street.
PC1 - 2
MS 32-14(159 Broad)
Page 3
The northerly portion of the property is within a Low-Density Residential area. Within this
portion, at 159 Broad, is a house built in the late 1920s, abarn, and several associated accessory
structures, all accessed by the common driveway from Broad Street. In the early 1950s, 4 single-
family residences were built on Bressi Place, near Serrano Drive (114, 115, 122, and 123 Bressi).
The area is characterized by substantial open space to the southwest, around Cerro San Luis, and
low-density residential neighborhoods to the north and east along the periphery of the open
space.
Minor Subdivision
The subject parcel is proposed to be subdivided into four smaller parcels1 and alarge remainder
parcel via a parcel map. The result will be to create a parcel around each of the four existing
residences on Bressi Place. The total area of the four parcels being created is less than 5% of the
total area of the original parcel. Each of the proposed lots is fully developed. No physical
development is proposed with this project, apart from minor modifications to portions of the
existing residences on Bressi Place and limited improvements along Bressi Place for
conformance to current Engineering Standards (as described in the conditions of approval within
the draft resolution, Attachment 1).
Table 2: Parcel Information
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.)
Parcel 1 (114 Bressi) 6,290 57.5 109
Parcel 2 (122 Bressi) 6,112 55.5 110
Parcel 3 (123 Bressi) 6,348 57.8 110
Parcel 4 (115 Bressi) 6,244 57.5 109
Remainder Parcel 577, 986
(13.27 ac)
Subdivisions are evaluated for conformance to the City’s Subdivision Regulations, which were
adopted to promote public health, safety, and welfare, orderly development, resource protection,
and enhancement of land values (§16.02.020). As discussed in the original staff report
considered by the Community Development Director on April 15, 2015 (Attachment 5), the
subdivision was found to be consistent with the policies and standards of the City’s General Plan,
Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and Engineering Standards, and was
approved, subject to several conditions (see Draft Resolution, Attachment 1).
1 Pursuant to Government Code section 66424.6(a)(1), a “designated remainder shall not be counted as a parcel for
the purpose of determining whether a parcel or final map is required.”
PC1 - 3
MS 32-14(159 Broad)
Page 4
EVALUATION OF APPEAL
The appellant raises concern about the absence of an easement dedicating land within the
subdivision to be preserved as open space. She contends that this minor subdivision of the
property facilitates future development, and makes such an easement necessary to protect open
space.
Staff believes that this minor subdivision does not facilitate future development, and notes that
apart from the minor improvements to existing structures and facilities discussed above, no
development of the property is proposed with this application. As this subdivision involves no
additional development, it has no impact on open space resources. The burden of dedicating land
for open space would substantially outweigh any impacts to open space resources that could
result from this minor subdivision. Thus, it is not appropriate to require dedication of land
through an “open space easement” as a condition of approval of this minor subdivision, and such
a requirement would be inconsistent with the standard of “rough proportionality” established by
case law.2
Furthermore, the City has clear policies in place for the preservation of open space resources and
programs to support implementation of those policies. When development of the property is
proposed, the impact of that development on the physical environment will be assessed and
appropriate conditions, exactions, dedications, and environmental mitigations will be developed
to ensure orderly development and protection of natural assets, including open space resources.
Protected open space
Open Space designation. Growth Management Policies in the General Plan call for permanent
protection of open space resources. The Open Space land use designation provides for the
protection and preservation of the community’s natural and historic resources.3 The southerly
portion of the original parcel, roughly two-thirds of its area, is currently protected as open space
by its designation as Open Space in the General Plan (Conservation/Open Space Zone), and by
its location within the City’s Greenbelt and beyond the Urban Reserve Line, and (see aerial view,
Attachment 4).
Developable area
Low-Density Residential. The northerly third of the property is designated for Low Density
Residential use, and is within the Urban Reserve Line. Opportunity for open space protection
within this area is limited to the protection of natural resource areas deemed worthy of
permanent protection, such as wildlife habitat and habitat corridors,4 and creeks that provide
wildlife habitat, backyard retreats, and viewing pleasures.5 No such resources are imperiled by
this minor subdivision, since no development is proposed with, or permitted by, the subdivision.
2 See CEQA Guidelines § 15041; Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994) 512 U.S. 374, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City,
(1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854.
3 General Plan (May, 2015) Land Use Element, pg. 1-31 and Policy 1.8.1, pg. 1-35
4 General Plan (May, 2015) Land Use Element, Policy 6.2.2, and 6.3.1
5 General Plan (May, 2015) Land Use Element, § 6.6
PC1 - 4
MS 32-14(159 Broad)
Page 5
No development approvals or facilitation. The Hearing Officer’s decision to approve minor
subdivision of the parcel grants no approval to further develop the property, and does not alter or
affect the restrictions under which development may occur on the property. All of the property
outside of the four lots created around the existing houses on Bressi Place is designated as a
remainder parcel in this minor subdivision. As such, the subdivider may not further divide the
property by way of a minor subdivision (which would constitute illegal “quartering” or “4 by
4”). Development of the southerly two-thirds of the property remains restricted by its designation
as Open Space.
Open space protection upon development of property. Further division of the property, or
proposals to build structures on the property, would require City review through a subdivision
application or through architectural review,processes that involve environmental review of the
site and surroundings, and consideration of required improvements, dedications, impact fees, and
other appropriate conditions of project approval. It is within the context of processing
applications for further subdivision or development of the property, and analysis of the
environmental impacts of proposed development, that consideration of the dedication of land for
open space is appropriate.
At that time the impacts of development of the property on open space resources will be assessed
and mitigation measures for open space protection that are properly connected and roughly
proportional to that impact can be developed. Under the direction of the City’s Natural
Resources Manager appropriate action will be taken to protect open space resources against
impacts from any future development proposed for this property.
CONCLUSION
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan identifies the City’s natural setting as its
greatest strength, and the community strongly supports the acquisition and maintenance of open
space.6 The City takes various actions to protect open space, including the acquisition of land for
open space, setting conditions of subdivision and development approvals consistent with General
Plan goals and policies, and obtaining dedications of fee ownership or easements.
Requiring dedication of land for use as open space as a condition of approval of this minor
subdivision is not appropriate because such a requirement is excessive, given that the minor
subdivision effectively only creates property lines around existing residences, which has no
physical impact on open space resources. As such, imposing a condition of approval for the
dedication of land for open space is not “roughly proportional” to the impacts of this minor
subdivision.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The tentative map and associated exhibits were forwarded to several City departments (Building
& Safety, Fire, Public Works, Utilities, Natural Resources) for review. Comments received from
6 As indicated by responses to the Quality of Life and Future Development Survey conducted by the City in 2012
PC1 - 5
MS 32-14(159 Broad)
Page 6
these departments were incorporated into recommended conditions of approval of the
application.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on this evaluation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this appeal and
uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer to approve the minor subdivision, based on the
findings set forth in the attached draft resolution.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the application to a future hearing date, with direction to the
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Deny the appeal, but modify the decision of the Subdivision Hearing Officer and approve
the minor subdivision based on modified findings and conditions of approval.
3. Grant the appeal and deny the minor subdivision based on findings of inconsistency with
the Subdivision Regulations, Subdivision Map Act, General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or
Community Design Guidelines. This action is not recommended, because staff finds that
the subdivision, as conditioned, is consistent with applicable policies and standards and
that a requirement to dedicate land for preservation as open space is not consistent with
the standard of “rough proportionality” between required dedications and project impacts.
No new development is proposed or facilitated by the subdivision, so the subdivision
would have no impact on open space resources. Furthermore, open space resources are
protected by the current designation of most of the property as Open Space in the General
Plan, and by General Plan policies and programs that will preserve and protect open
space resources against future development of the property.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Assessor’s Parcel Map
4. Tentative Parcel Map
5. Aerial photograph
6. Minor Subdivision Hearing Agenda Report
PC1 - 6
RESOLUTION NO. PC-####-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL INTO FOUR PARCELS
WITH ONE REMAINDER PARCEL,AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT
AND ATTACHMENTS DATEDAUGUST 12, 2015 (159 BROAD, AP-PC 32-14)
WHEREAS,on April 15, 2015 the Community Development Director of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
MS32-14, Mike Morris of Andre, Morris & Buttery, applicant; and
WHEREAS,on April 23, 2015 Cheryl McLean, a resident of Mission Lane in San Luis
Obispo, represented by Andrew Christie, Director of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club,
filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s Decision approving the tentative map
; and
WHEREAS,on August 12, 2015 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, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the decision of the
Community Development Director approving the tentative map; 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 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.That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
2.The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan, including
compatibility with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in
the General Plan.
3.The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1 - 7
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 2
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
4.The design of the tentative map is not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial
environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, since the subdivision will occur on a developed site within an urbanized area and
the approval of this subdivision does not grant any variances or exceptions from
applicable regulations or standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations.
5.The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through, or use
of property within, the proposed subdivision since required easements will remain in
place following the subdivision and will be applicable to the newly-created parcels; and
code requirements require the recordation of new easements and the relocation of utilities
wherever necessary to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and
Public Works Department Director.
6.The proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those
working or residing in the vicinity. The property is not subject to fault rupture or
landslide hazards. Settlement and liquefaction hazards are addressed through site-specific
investigations and site preparation, and no development is proposed with this subdivision.
7.There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning.
8.A variance allowing a minor relaxation of yard depth standards will not constitute a grant
of special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity with the same zoning. Minor relaxation of yard standards would be
considered for property in the same vicinity and zone under similar circumstances.
9.A variance allowing a minor relaxation of yard depth standards will not adversely affect
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the
vicinity. Buildings on the site are subject to building and fire safety standards and codes
related to fire resistant construction and emergency egress.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is a minor division of land, as
described in §15315 of the CEQA Guidelines. It consists of the division of property into four
parcels in an urbanized area zoned for residential use. The division is in conformance with the
General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance and no variances or exceptions from regulations or
standards of the Subdivision Regulations are requested or required. The parcel has an average
slope less than twenty percent, and all services and access to the proposed parcels are available.
The parcel was not involved in any division of a larger parcel within the previous two years.
SECTION 3. Action. The Commission hereby denies the appeal and upholds the
decision of the Community Development Director approving the tentative parcel map for the
PC1 - 8
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 3
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
subdivision of one parcel into four parcels with a remainder parcel at 159 Broad, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Improvements to residences: Prior to the recordation of the final map, the existing
residences will be modified as necessary to comply with applicable current building and
fire safety codes, particularly those related to fire resistant construction and emergency
egress from rooms. Plans for permits to make these improvements shall clearly show the
new property lines between the existing buildings and specify materials of construction to
show compliance with building and fire safety codes and standards.
2. Fire resistant construction: Plans submitted for improvements to residences for
compliance with building and fire safety codes will clearly demonstrate that building
exterior walls and projections comply with Table R302.1(1) of the California Residential
Code (CRC). Exterior walls less than 5 feet from property lines will be clearly specified
to be “1-Hour Fire Rated Walls.’ Details will be shown on plans indicating the materials
of construction to justify the fire rating, including stud spacing and interior wall covering.
The extent of any projections will be clearly shown on building elevation and section
drawings, and compliance with the maximum allowed dimension into the proposed
reduced yard, as set forth in CRC Table R302.1(1) will be demonstrated. The fire rating
will be clearly detailed. No projections are allowed within 2’ of property line.
3. Emergency egress: Any windows of sleeping rooms that are replaced will conform to
current standards and requirements related to light and ventilation and emergency egress.
4. Window and door openings: Plans submitted for improvements to residences will clearly
indicate the percentage of window and door openings along property lines.
5. Guest Parking: Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, an exhibit will be submitted
for review by the Community Development and Public Works Departments depicting the
location and dimension of guest parking spaces required by Subdivision Regulations for
flag lot subdivisions (§16.18.060(F)). The guest parking space for each residence will be
located in a logical and consistent location, and will be improved with a surface that is in
compliance with the City’s Engineering Standards for parking areas.
6. Depth of Other yards: The relaxation of “other yard” depth standards is limited to the
yard areas between the existing residences on the proposed Parcels (1-4) and the
proposed interior lot lines between them. The minimum depth required is reduced to the
distance between the existing building walls and the proposed interior lot lines, where the
distance is less than 5 feet, as depicted on the tentative map.
7. The subdivision shall be recorded with a parcel map. The parcel map preparation and
documentation shall be in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Regulations,
PC1 - 9
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 4
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map shall use U.S.
Customary Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards.
8.A separate subdivision improvement plan submittal is not required. The building plan
submittal may be used to show all required public and private subdivision improvements.
Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate
encroachment permit and associated inspection fees based on the fee schedule in effect at
the time of permit issuance. A separate subdivision base improvement plan review fee
and map check fee will be required for the review of subdivision improvements in
accordance with the most current fee resolution.
9.Final lot line locations and building setbacks shall consider building allowable area
analysis, exterior wall protection, projections, exiting, and the location of building service
equipment in accordance with the uniform codes and to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. Any necessary analysis and/or exhibits shall be submitted for review and shall
be approved prior to recordation of the map.
10.The building plan submittal shall include the bearings and distances for all property lines
in accordance with the map. The final map shall show and label all survey monuments
located on the property. The plan shall show and label all existing and proposed public
and private easements along with any Public Utility Easements (PUE’s) in the favor of
the several wire utilities (PGE, ATT, & Charter, etc.) and the Gas Company.
11.A separate building permit is required for any parking, access, utility, site, or drainage
improvements. The building plan submittal shall show all existing public and private
utilities and improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director prior to recordation of the parcel map.
Unless otherwise waived or deferred, the site and utility plans shall include drainage and
circulation improvements, water, sewer, storm drains, gas, electricity, telephone, cable
TV, and any utility company meters for each parcel if applicable. Any utility relocations,
demolitions, and/or other on-site work shall be completed with proper building permits
and receive final inspection approvals prior to recordation of the parcel map. Otherwise,
easements shall be prepared and recorded to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, Public Works Director, and the serving utility companies.
Easements may be recorded separately or as blanket easements
12.Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, bridge
structures, common utilities, and common drainage improvements shall be shown and
referenced on the final map and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the map
recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as
blanket easements. Maintenance agreements shall be recorded for any common facilities
prior to or concurrent with the map recordation.
PC1 - 10
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 5
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
13.The building plan submittal shall show the Bressi Place and Serrano Drive street name
signs to be upgraded per City Standard #7250. The standard requires a reverse of the sign
colors between the public Serrano Drive and private Bressi Place street name signs.
14.A new curb ramp shall be required on the east corner of the entrance to Bressi Place. The
building plan submittal shall show the new curb ramp on the Bressi Place intersection
with Serrano Drive in accordance with City Engineering Standard #4440. The driveway
entrance may need to be narrowed to accommodate the ramp construction. The existing
westerly curb ramp shall be shown to comply with current City and ADA Standards or
shall be upgraded and/or replaced to comply.
15.The City’s Subdivision Regulations normally require complete frontage improvements
(curb, gutter, and sidewalk, etc.) as a condition of subdivision. The City supports the
deferral of said improvements along the Broad Street frontage. A covenant agreement
shall be recorded for the deferral of the Broad Street frontage improvements in a format
provided by the City concurrent with or prior to final map recordation.
16.If additional parking spaces at the dead end of Bressi Place are needed to satisfy parking
requirements, or are proposed to provide additional parking, a parking easement shall be
recorded prior to or concurrent with the final map for the. The parking easement shall be
recorded on the Remainder parcel in favor of Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4.
17.The parking area at the end of Bressi Place shall be upgraded to comply with City
Engineering Standards. The parking, if formalized, shall be upgraded to comply with the
Parking and Driveway Standards. Alternate paving material may be supported but shall
be designed to minimize the tracking and erosion of dirt, gravels, and debris into the right
of way. The building plan submittal shall show all required parking lot improvements,
dimensions, space dimensions, maneuverability, materials, space and aisle slopes,
drainage, pavement marking, signage, and striping in accordance with the Parking and
Driveway Standards. If not improved, the existing unimproved area shall be fenced off,
landscaped, or otherwise delineated to preclude the use as a parking area.
18.The final map, additional map sheet, and building plan submittals shall show the existing
encroachments from adjoining parcels, including the fence along the east side of the
Bressi Street entrance and the common fence along the northerly property line of Parcel
1.
19.The final map shall show the correct street widths for Serrano Drive and Bressi Place and
shall reference the associated offers of dedication, including the Grant Deed recorded in
Volume 1122, Page 419 of Official Records of the County of San Luis Obispo.
PC1 - 11
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 6
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
20.The building plan submittal shall include a topographic survey and shall include the
existing grading and drainage for the undeveloped upslope areas, developed parcels and
private street for reference. The plan shall show any existing or proposed drainage
improvements, swales, pipes, inlets, etc. The plan shall show and reference any areas of
historic run-on or run-off. The plan shall show and reference the location of the existing
sump/low point(s) on Bressi Street and shall include any required improvements and
easements needed to maintain historic base flow and safe overflow areas.
21.The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan for reference. The
plan shall show and label all public and private utilities, overhead wire utilities,
appurtenances, and utility company meters.
22.The building plan submittal shall show all water meters to be upgraded by adding a
concrete collar in accordance with City Engineering Standard #6210.
23.The building plan submittal shall show the relocation of the electrical and telecom wiring
drops to Parcel 1 to eliminate the encroachment across proposed Parcel 4. If a mid-span
drop is not authorized by the serving utility companies, an additional joint utility pole or
undergrounding may be required. All work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
respective utility companies and the Public Works Department.
24.The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed tree plantings for
reference. The plan shall include the species and diameter of each tree. The building plan
submittal shall show street trees along the private street as a condition of the subdivision.
Street trees are generally required at a rate of one 15 gallon street tree for each 35 linear
feet of frontage. One additional street tree shall be planted in the front yard planting area
on Parcels 1, 3, and 4. Tree species and planting requirements shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist.
25.Each existing sewer lateral(s) serving the four existing residences to the point of
connection at the City main must pass a video inspection, including repair or
replacement, as part of the proposed subdivision project. The CCTV inspection shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Utilities Department and any necessary repairs
shall be made prior to recordation of the proposed subdivision.
26.Public utility easements shall be maintained across proposed residential parcels. A private
utility easement shall be established for the private sewer lateral from 161 Broad
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-016-001).
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
PC1 - 12
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 7
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 12th day of August, 2015.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 13
R-1
C/OS-20
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1-PD
R-1
R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4-PD
R-1-S
R-1
R-1 R-4R-1 R-4-PD
R-1
BR
O
A
D
SERRANO
LUNETA
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
MURRAY
PE
N
M
A
N
A
L
M
O
N
D
B
R
E
S
S
I
PA
L
O
M
A
R
H
I
L
L
BE
N
T
O
N
MISSION
VICINITY MAP File No. MS 32-14
& VAR-0688-2014
159 Broad ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 14
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 15
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 16
PC1 - 17
Low Density Residential
Open Space
BR
O
A
D
SERRANO
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
B
R
E
S
S
I
R-1
C/OS-20
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1R-1 R-1-PD
R-1
141
156
108
112699655
122
114
770730 780
671667
235
160
148
132
164
228
205
629
211
219
223
249
207
141
137
129
785725743755777
191
161
159
595 605 623 641
115
123
650580
704
672668
217
130
172
180
153
181
185
624
616
608
203
159 Broad
Urban Reserve Line
Creeks
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1 - 18
Meeting Date:April 15, 2015
Item Number:1
MINOR SUBDIVISION HEARING AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Subdivision of a 14-acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 13.2-acre remainder parcel;
reduction in the required depth of “other yards.”
ADDRESS: 159 Broad BY:Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
e-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE #:MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2014 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt a resolution (Attachment 3), approving the tentative parcel
map, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SUMMARY
Applicant Mike Morris;
Andre, Morris & Buttery
Representative Steve Webster;
RRM Design Group
General Plan Open Space;
Low-Density Residential
Zoning Conservation / Open Space
(C/OS-20);
Low-Density Residential (R-1)
Site Area 606,896 sq. ft. (13.93 ac.)
Submittal Date Feb 21, 2014 (MS)
Dec 9, 2014 (VAR)
Complete Date Mar 23, 2014 (MS)
Mar 19, 2015 (VAR)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15315:
Minor Land Divisions)
Mike Morris, of Andre, Morris & Buttery, has filed an application to subdivide a large parcel of
land in the northwest portion of the City, near the intersection of Broad Street and Serrano Drive.
The subdivision will create four parcels, each surrounding one of four existing residences on
Bressi Place, and a remainder parcel just over 13 acres in area.
An application was also filed to request a variance from minimum depth requirements for “other
yards” between twohouses. Because they were built less than ten feet apart from each other, the
depth of the yards between them are slightly less than current minimum standards.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 19
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It
is a minor division of land, a class of project that does not have a significant effect on the
environment. It is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of
environmental documents as described in CEQA Guidelines §15315 (Minor Land Division).
The property to be divided is located within an urbanized area zoned for residential use. As
discussed in this report, the subdivision is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning. No
variances or exceptions are required,1 services and access are available to the parcel, and the
parcel has an average slope under 20%. The parcel was not involved in any recent subdivision.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information and Setting
The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel,just under 14 acres in size, west of Broad Street
and south of Serrano Drive. Access to the site is taken from Broad Street, between 181 and 153
Broad, by a common driveway shared with 161 Broad. Access is also taken from Serrano Road
by Bressi Place, a private street.
Table 1: Site Data – Original Parcel
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 602,980 square feet (about 13.85 acres)
Width: varies; about 250 to 750 feet
Depth: varies; extends about 1400 feet (north-south)
Street Frontage: ±40 ft. (Serrano); ±90 ft. (Broad)
Present Use &
Development
Four single-family dwellings (Bressi Pl)
Single-family residence, barn, accessory structures (159 Broad St)
Topography Elevation: Min. ±250 ft.; Max. ±445 ft.
Slope: Gentle, increasing to moderate in a southwest direction, toward
Cerro San Luis
Natural Features: Two unnamed creeks; open space
Access From Broad Street, by common driveway south of 153 Broad
From Serrano Road, by Bressi Place (a private street), east of 641 Serrano
Surrounding Uses North & East: Low-Density Residential (R-1); Single-family residences
South & West: Open Space (C/OS-20); Northeast flank of Cerro San Luis
Most of the parcel lies within an open space area north and east of Cerro San Luis. An unnamed
creek travels in an easterly direction across the middle of this open space toward a culvert near
the common driveway entrance on Broad Street.
1 The associated variance request pertains to a minor relaxation of development standards applicable to the existing
residences, as allowed by Chapter 17.60 of the City’s Zoning Regulations. This project does not require any
variances or exceptions in order to result in conforming parcels.
PC1 - 20
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 3
The northerly portion of the property is within a Low-Density Residential area. It contains, at
159 Broad, a house built in the late 1920s, abarn, and several associated accessory structures, all
accessed by the common driveway from Broad Street. In the early 1950s 4 single-family
residences were built on Bressi Place, near Serrano Drive. Another unnamed creek runs across
this portion of the property, underneath Bressi Place in a closed conduit.
The area is characterized by substantial open space to the southwest, around Cerro San Luis, and
low-density residential neighborhoods to the north and east along the periphery of the open
space.
Project Description
The project consists of the subdivision of aparcel into four smaller parcels and alarge remainder
parcel, and modifications to the walls and windows of two houses on Bressi Place to provide fire
protection and emergency egress in compliance with current building codes. The result of the
project will be to create a parcel around each of the four existing residences on Bressi Place. No
further development is proposed with this project.
Table 2: Parcel Information
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.)
Minimum (R-1): 6,000 50 90
Parcel 1 (114 Bressi) 6,290 57.5 109
Parcel 2 (122 Bressi) 6,112 55.5 110
Parcel 3 (123 Bressi) 6,348 57.8 110
Parcel 4 (115 Bressi) 6,244 57.5 109
Remainder 577, 986
(13.27 ac)
EVALUATION
Subdivisions are evaluated for conformance to the City’s Subdivision Regulations, which
implement the state’s Subdivision Map Act. These regulations were adopted for several purposes
related to public health, safety, and welfare, orderly development, resource protection, and
enhancement of land values (§16.02.020). Subdivision of land must be consistent with the
policies and standards of the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design
Guidelines,and Engineering Standards.
General Plan
This project is consistent with the policies and programs set forth in the elements of the City’s
General Plan. The parcel to be divided lies within an Open Space area and a Low Density
Residential area. The portion within the Open Space area is part of the remainder parcel, and will
continue to be used as open space. The four new lots being created lie within the Low Density
Residential area and are already developed with four single-family residences. This portion of
PC1 - 21
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 4
the property will continue to be used for residential purposes. No further development is
proposed, except for minor modifications to two of the residences to meet building code
standards for fire safety and emergency egress from sleeping rooms.
The property is not subject to fault rupture or landslide hazards. Settlement and liquefaction
hazards are addressed through site-specific investigations and site preparation, and no
development is proposed with this subdivision. The property is not located within a fire hazard
severity zone or a flood hazard zone, and is well outside any airport hazard area. As no
development is proposed, nor any changes to the open space lands, the subdivision will not
impact natural, scenic, or cultural resources. With no change in the intensity of residential
development, no additional demand is generated for water, sewer, parks, police, fire, or other
public services and facilities.
Subdivision Regulations
The Community Development Director reviews tentative maps for minor subdivisions
(§16.04.030). The resulting parcels must conform to the design and improvement standards set
forth Chapters 16.18 and 16.20 of the Subdivision Regulations. New parcels are to be compatible
with existing neighborhoods, the natural environment, and the health and safety of City residents
(§16.18.010).
General design requirements:General design requirements are intended to ensure that lots are
practical for their intended use, natural contours are preserved, and new subdivisions are
integrated with existing subdivisions. The four parcels resulting from this subdivision will
surround existing homes that are integrated into the adjacent neighborhood along Serrano Drive.
Natural contours will be preserved, as no grading or retaining walls are proposed as part of this
project.
Flag lots: The new lots front on Bressi Place, which is a private street. The result is a “flag lot”
arrangement in which the lots are situated behind other lots, with access to Serrano Drive
provided by an access easement over Bressi Place. Standards for flag lots are described in
§16.18.060.
For compliance with these standards, Bressi Place will be owned in fee by Parcel 4, the lot
farthest from the street. Other lots will use Bressi place as an accessway by means of the
proposed access easement. The accessway is 205 feet long and more than 40 feet wide, satisfying
the minimum required 20 foot width. The frontage along Serrano is 40 feet; wide enough to
accommodate the accessway while also meeting the required 20 foot street frontage for the
original lot, as required by §16.18.060(B).
Street yards along Bressi are at least 20 feet deep and provide adequate area for any necessary
screening shrubs or trees between the accessway and the residences. An additional off-street
parking space is provided in front of each residence, as depicted in a separate parking layout
exhibit (Attachment 2). The parking layout should be revised to place a guest space in a logical
and consistent location in front of each house prior to recordation of the final map (Condition
#5).
PC1 - 22
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 5
Lot dimensions and location:As shown in Table 2 above, each lot created by this subdivision
meets minimum area and dimension standards applicable to the Low Density Residential (R-1)
Zone. The lots are about twice as deep as they are wide, with a ratio of length to width around
2:1. Lot lines are oriented perpendicular to Bressi Place. Each lot has more than 50 feet of
frontage along the Bressi Street access easement.
Natural resource preservation and creeks:As discussed in the project description, two unnamed
creeks pass through this property. No development is proposed with this project, so the project
will not introduce any impacts to the creeks.
Physical Improvements: The City’s Public Works Department has reviewed the project plans and
identified required physical improvements to the property. These requirements have been
incorporated into conditions of the subdivision approval.
Zoning Regulations
The subdivision conforms to the design standards and use limitations described in the City’s
Zoning Regulations. Single-family dwellings will occupy the parcels within the Low-Density
Residential (R-1) portion of the property. The remainder parcel contains the portion of the
property within the Conservation/ Open Space (C/OS-20) Zone, and this portion will continue to
be used as open space. While the area of the parcel within the open space area is less than 20
acres, and the yards between two of the houses in the residential area are 1 foot shallower than
current requirements, the Zoning Regulations allow for the reasonable use of nonconforming
lots, and contain provisions allowing the minor relaxation of standards related to the minimum
depth of yards.
Lot area and dimension:Most of the original parcel is within the Conservation/Open Space Zone
(C/OS-20), a zone applied to areas that are most suitable for open space to protect natural
resources from disruptive alterations. Within this zone, a minimum parcel size of 20 acres is
required (§17.32.020(B)). The original parcel is less than 20 acres in area, but is considered a
“nonconforming lot”, as described in §17.12.010. At this time, the opportunity does not exist to
merge parcels, as adjacent property is not held under common ownership with the subject parcel.
Furthermore, the total land area within the C/OS Zone is not reduced, and no development is
proposed within the zone.
Division of the property occurs along the northern edge of the parcel, within the Low-Density
Residential (R-1) Zone, and as described above (Subdivision Regulations—Lot dimensions), the
four new parcels exceed the area and dimension requirements applicable to that zone.
Yards: Street yards are provided, and they are deeper than the 20 foot minimum depth required
in the zone. Because the existing houses were built less than 10 feet apart from each other, the
resulting depth of the “other yards” between each house and the interior lot lines between them is
less than the current standard (5 feet) in the R-1 Zone.
PC1 - 23
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 6
Table 3: Other yard depth
Depth(ft.)
mix/max
Max. Variance
(from 5ft.)
Parcel 1 (114 Bressi) 3.8 to 4.0 1.2 ft.
Parcel 2 (122 Bressi) 4.8 to 4.9 0.2 ft.
Parcel 3 (123 Bressi) 4.8 to 4.9 0.2 ft.
Parcel 4 (115 Bressi) 3.6 to 4.0 1.5 ft.
The Community Development Director can relax yard requirements through the variance
procedure (§17.60.020), and such a variance has been requested. The existence of four single-
family residences on the same parcel is an uncommon circumstance in a Low-Density
Residential Zone. Similarly situated property in this zone would be given the same consideration
for such a relaxation of the “other yard” depth standard, where appropriate. Therefore, aminor
relaxation of this standard for this property is not a grant of special privilege. Given the minor
nature of the variance and the fact that the residences have been safely occupied since their
construction, the variance would not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.
Certain modifications will need to be made to the residences to meet building code standards
related to fire safety and emergency egress. Any approval granted to this tentative parcel map
should be subject to the condition that these modifications be made before the final map may be
recorded (Conditions #1-4).
Coverage:Each house is about 900 square feet in area, resulting in lot coverage of less than 20%
on each lot, well below the maximum 40% limit applicable to the R-1 Zone.
Parking:Sufficient parking is available. The houses were built with single-car garages. Because
additions are not being made to the houses, this is a legal non-conforming situation and the
Zoning Regulations do not require that additional parking spaces be provided. It should be noted
that, as a practical matter, the driveway area leading to the garage spaces is available for informal
use as parking, consistent with Front Yard Parking regulations (§17.17.055). Additional parking
will also be available in the guest spaces that are provided as required for “flag lot” subdivisions.
Community Design Guidelines
The City’s Community Design Guidelines describe the expectations and preferences for the
quality and character of new development. The applicability of these guidelines is limited, since
the project involves only four small residential parcels and no new development. The subdivision
is consistent with these guidelines in that it is in scale with, and integrated into, the surrounding
neighborhood.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The tentative map was forwarded to several City departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Public
Works, Utilities, Natural Resources) for review. Comments received from these departments
have been incorporated into recommended conditions of approval for this project.
PC1 - 24
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION
Based on this evaluation, staff recommends that the Community Development Director grant a
variance relaxing the required minimum other yard depth standard, and approve the tentative
parcel map, based on certain findings and subject to several conditions of approval, as set forth in
the attached draft resolution.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Continue consideration of the application to a future hearing date, with direction to the
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2.Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations,
General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Vicinity Map
2.Parking Exhibit and Map Detail
3.Draft Resolution
PC1 - 25
Memorandum
Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Doug Davidson /Kim Murry, Deputy Directors KM
DATE: August 12, 2015
SUBJECT: Fire Master Plan Update
Citygate Associates was engaged by the City to update the 2010 Fire Master
Plan to address standard of coverage for the City. The update includes an
evaluation of response time and staff needs. One focus of the Update is
emergency coverage for the projected development in the southern part of the
City, particularly the Margarita Area and Chevron Tank )arm property in the
Airport Area. Fire Chief Olson and Stewart Gary from Citygate will brief the
Commission on the Update’s preliminary findings and obtain input on fire
service policy implications and service options.
PC2 - 1
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 22,2015
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, William Riggs,
Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent:Commissioners John Fowler and Ronald Malak
Staff:DeputyCommunity Development DirectorDoug Davidson, Assistant
Planner Kyle Bell, Transportation OperationsManager Jake Hudson,
Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary
Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of May 27, 2015,were approved as amended, Commr. Draze abstaining.
Minutes of June 24, 2015,were approved as presented, Commr. Riggs abstaining.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no commentsfrom the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.1144 Chorro Street.USE-1127-2015: Review of use permit to establish a new
bowling alley, nightclub use, and restaurant with late-hour alcohol services in the
Historic Downtown Commercial zone, with a categorical exemption from
environmental review; C-D-H zone; Discovery San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner,presented the staff report, recommendingthat the
Commissionadopt aResolution allowing a new bowling alley,nightclub use and
restaurant with late hour alcohol services in the Historic Downtown Commercial zone,
based on findings and subject to conditions,which he outlined.
Jeremy Pemberton, applicant representative, summarized the history and concept of
the projectas an establishment that can cater to all segments of the local population;
noted a desire to amend project conditions relating to hours of operation, allowing
operation until 2:00 a.m. rather than staff’s recommendation of 12:00 a.m.Pemberton
clarified that service of alcohol is designed to be alternated between different areas of
the building, rather than served from all five bars at once.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2015
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Barry Goya,SLO, spoke in support ofthe project as a unique enterprise in the San Luis
Obispoarea, and of allowing it to remain open and serve alcohol until 2:00 a.m.
Madeline Moor, project investor, spoke in support of the project; noted the sophisticated
controls that will regulate service of alcohol and other operations at the site; clarified
that the alcohol license covers the entire building regardless of the division of uses.
Mark Rawson, applicant representative, spoke in support of the project and allowing
the businessto operate until 2:00 a.m.
ThereseCron, SLO, spoke in support of the project as unique and a valuable attraction
for both locals and tourists.
Don Delay, SLO, notedconcernabout components of the project including late-night
alcohol service, the assumed need for security, and the impacts of noise and sidewalk
queuing in the downtown core.
Paula Delay, SLO, noted concern about the project as catering to certain populations
who have historically contributed to deterioration of the safety and qualityof the
downtown area.
Stan Carpenter, SLO, spoke in support of the project and its suitability for the downtown
area.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Drazespoke in support of the project overall; noted concern about the addition
of another bar in the downtown area; spoke in opposition to extending the hours of bar
operation until 2:00 a.m.; recommendedthat project condition 3. be clarified to say “from
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight).”
Commr. Riggsspoke in support of the hours of bar operation being extended until 2:00
a.m.; commented that demographics other than students would benefit; noted concern
about the impacts of pedestrian crowding on sidewalks during peak use events such as
concerts.
Vice-Chair Multarispoke in support of the project as infill for a key location;noted
concern regardingproblems created bylate night alcohol service, sidewalk queuing,
and the inequity resulting from limiting operating hours of newer projects moreso than
those of existing uses. Multari recommended that project condition 1. be revised to
include the security plan as part of the project plans, that conditions 16 and 27 be
revised to identify specific staff members rather than “to the satisfaction of the City,” that
redundant condition 28 be stricken, that condition 44. relating to egress be reworded by
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2015
Page 3
City legal counsel, and that condition 45.be revised to allow approval of the traffic study
by the Public Works Director or City Engineer.
Commr. Dandekarspoke in support of the project in concept; noted concern about late-
night alcohol service and pedestrian crowding at the corner of Chorro and Marsh
Streets during peak use periods.
Chair Larson noted public correspondence received both in support of and opposition to
the project. Larson spoke in support of the project overall as a valuable infill
development; noted ambivalenceregarding closure at midnight versus 2:00 a.m.;
recommended that staff revise conditions to achieveconsistency among those referring
to required sidewalk clearance.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Dandekar, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari, to support staff’s
recommendation that hours of operation end at midnight, with a revision to Condition 3.
clarifying that hours of use shall not be outside 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight).
AYES:Commrs.Dandekar, Draze, andMultari
NOES:Commrs. Larson andRiggs
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commrs. FowlerandMalak
The motion passed on a 3:2 vote.
Onmotion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Dandekar,to adoptaresolution
allowing a new bowling alley, nightclub use and restaurant with late hour alcohol
services in the Historic Downtown Commercial (CD-H) zone, subject to findings and
conditionscontained in staff’s report, with the following revisions:
A.Condition1. shall be revised to include the security plan as part of the project
plans;
B.Condition 3. shall be clarified to indicate that hours of use shall not be outside
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight);
C.Conditions 16 and 27, relating to crowd control and queuing, shall be revised to
indicate which specific staff member is responsible for approving methodsof
compliance;
D.Condition 28.,containing redundant queuing conditions, shall be stricken;
E.Project shall be treated as a substantial remodel; Conditions 34. and 35. shall
be revised to indicate that the building must be floodproofed accordingly;
F.Condition 44. shall be revised to read “The applicant shall, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director and City Attorney, provide legally
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2015
Page 4
recorded documentation that the applicant has the right to use the property
outlined in the proposed egress system serving the Event Space and Basement
Assembly. ”
G.Condition 45. shall be revised to assign responsibility for approval of the traffic
study tothe Public Works Director or City Engineer.
AYES:Commrs.Dandekar, Larson, Multari, and Riggs(abstaining)
NOES:Commr. Draze
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commrs. FowlerandMalak
The motion passed on a 4:1vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2.Staff
a.Agenda Forecast
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson gave a forecast of
upcoming agenda items.
3.Commission
Chair Larson commented on the July 7, 2015 City Council approval of an industrial
subdivision project on Tank Farm Road.
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary