HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2015 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
December 9, 2015 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of October 28, 2015. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $279 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
1. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road. PRE-1293-2015; Request to initiate preparation of a
Specific Plan and Environmental Review, including guidance regarding select City
Policies, for the Madonna-Froom Ranch (SP-3); John and Susan Madonna,
applicants. (Shawna Scott)
2. 2881 Broad Street. SBDV-1988-2015; A determination of whether the disposition of
a city-owned lot and the acquisition of the property bordering 2881 Broad Street is in
conformance to the City’s General Plan; R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant. (Walter
Oetzell)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of request to initiate preparation of Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan
PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 and 12393 BY: Shawna Scott, Consulting Planner
Los Osos Valley Road Phone: 543-7095
e-mail: sscott@swca.com
VIA: Steve Matarazzo, Senior Planner
Phone: 781-7522
FILE NUMBER: PRE 1293-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Consider key issues related to proposed land uses and proposed
modifications to hillside development limits and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the
request to initiate the Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Alternatives 5.1-5.5).
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting authorization from the City Council to pursue preparation of the Madonna
on LOVR Specific Plan (identified as Specific Plan Area SP-3 in General Plan Land Use Element).
The applicant has requested clarification and direction on a number of policies and regulations, which
staff discusses further in this report. The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend to the City
Council whether to initiate the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment.
SITE DATA
Applicant John Madonna, John Madonna
Construction Company
Bob Richmond, Villagio Senior
Living
Representative Victor Montgomery, RRM Design
Group
Zoning County of San Luis Obispo –
Commercial Retail, Agriculture,
Rural Lands
General Plan SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific
Plan Area
Site Area 111 acres
Environmental
Status
A Program-Level Final EIR was
adopted for the LUCE in 2014.
Meeting Date: December 9, 2015
Item Number: 1
PC 1-1
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 2
2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATION
The applicant’s proposal includes several components that require additional review and direction from
the City Council, due to inconsistencies with the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. The
purpose of the Commission’s review is to evaluate the request and provide a recommendation to
Council on the requested Specific Plan initiation. In addition to the initiation request, the applicant has
requested clarification on how a number of development standards and policies would apply to the
proposed development (Attachment 3). The initiation review is not an exhaustive analysis of the
applicant’s conceptual project plans and does not identify all potential conflicts with City regulations
or policies that may require amendment or which could require revisions. If the initiation request is
authorized by the City Council, a subsequent formal application would be submitted and evaluated
based on Council direction. The proposed project would then be evaluated comprehensively as a
formal application including complete environmental review in an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
The purpose of the initiation review is to receive direction on whether a formal submittal is warranted
given the fact that the proposal would require amendments to General Plan Policy. Two key issues
include: 1) alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation and 2) the conceptual mix
of uses appropriate for the SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area. Staff has included a brief
discussion of the policies and standards which will be reviewed in the formal application.
The initiation review does not include definitive direction on many of the questions posed by the
applicant, since most of the items will require a complete submittal, environmental review, and
advisory body input. These issues include: realigning Froom Creek to reflect its historic flow pattern;
management and access to the historic Froom Ranch Complex; and how the Specific Plan should
comply with the 50% Open Space requirement for annexed areas. Other items included in the
applicant’s initiation narrative will require further analysis, such as required setbacks from Froom
Creek, avoidance of Chorro Creek bog thistle, on and off-site mitigation for impacts to native bunch
grass, and determination of appropriate building heights. These issues would be addressed as part of
the overall evaluation of a complete project submittal, which would occur following review of this
initiation request.
3.0 SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The Madonna-Froom Ranch project site consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 111 acres,
currently located within County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction, and adjacent to the City limits. The
current land use and natural setting includes livestock grazing, unpaved agricultural roads, the Irish
Hills and Home Depot stormwater basins, the historic Froom Ranch Complex, the John Madonna
Construction office (within the historic complex), staging and materials storage, quarry area, and
PC 1-2
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 3
vacant land. The project site is identified in the LUE as the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR) Specific Plan Area (SP-3) (Attachment 5, LUE Chapter 8 Special Focus Areas).
The applicant intends to submit a Specific Plan, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the LUE. The
project would require pre-zoning by the City, and annexation into the City limits. The applicant’s
conceptual exhibit shows a mix of land uses within the Specific Plan area, including Senior Housing
(Continuing Care Retirement Community), multi-family housing, single-family housing, retail sales
uses, open space, and parks (Attachment 4, Exhibit B.1 Conceptual Land Uses). The preliminary
proposal includes the realignment and restoration of Froom Creek within the property boundaries, and
construction of parks and pathways. The applicant’s submitted narrative (Attachment 3) seeks to
receive initial feedback on several issues. As noted above, this initiation request focuses on two key
issues, which will ultimately drive the components of the Specific Plan application submittal, if
authorized by the City Council.
4.0 EVALUATION
4.1 Initiation Request
a. Alteration of 150-foot maximum site development elevation
The most significant issue raised by the applicant is the request to allow development above the 150-
foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use exhibit shows senior housing extending to the 250-
foot elevation and residential uses extending to the 180-foot elevation. The project site is located
within Hillside Planning Area H Irish Hills1 (refer to Attachment 5, Figure 1). The topography of the
project site ranges from approximately 110-120 feet near Los Osos Valley Road to 450 feet in the
upper elevations. Approximately 44.3 percent (48.61 acres) of the project site is located above the 150-
foot elevation. The applicant’s conceptual land use plan shows 19.12 acres of development (39.3
percent of the project site) above the 150-foot elevation line (refer to Attachment 4).
Modification of the existing development limit line would allow development in the upper elevations
of the Irish Hills above the 150-foot elevation. This area is identified as having high scenic value and is
located within a scenic vista as seen from U.S. Highway 101.2 The site is also visible from Los Osos
Valley Road and other areas within the City (i.e. public streets, parks, open space). Should the Council
approve the proposed Specific Plan initiation, full environmental analysis would be required, including
an assessment of the project’s impacts on aesthetic resources and consistency with adopted plans and
policies.
1 LUE Policy 6.4.7.H.: “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150 -foot
elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8, Special Focus
Areas.)”
2 COSE Figure 11 (Scenic Roadways and Vistas) and Circulation Element Figure 3 (Scenic Roadways)
PC 1-3
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 4
The language specifying the 150-foot elevation development limit was carried forward into the LUE
from the City’s previously adopted Land Use Element (adopted August 23, 1994 and revised June 15,
2010). The 1994 Land Use Element included a Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section; the
purpose of this section was to “protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features, set
boundaries for commercial and residential development in sensitive hillside areas by creating a
permanent open space greenbelt at the edge of the community, and to protect the health, safety and
welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards”.3 The
Hillside Policies identified in the 2014 LUE focus on “where and how some hillsides may be
developed” (refer to Attachment 5, LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection).
The Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) EIR provides an analysis of each proposed
Specific Plan area, including the project site. Potential visual impacts identified in the LUCE EIR,
specific to SP-3, include the following:
Development of the site, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, could result in increased
urbanization of the existing viewshed along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially
block or obstruct existing public views. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE
Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
Development of the area, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, has the potential to result
in increased urbanization of an undeveloped area which could degrade the existing visual
character and its surroundings. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update
policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Development of the area could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting through the
addition of residential and commercial uses and associated structural development in a
primarily undeveloped area. However, implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies,
and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than significant
levels.4
Therefore, the less than significant impact determinations specific to visual impacts were based on
compliance with policies included in the LUE, such as the 150-foot development limit. Further
environmental analysis, including a viewshed study and photo-simulations, would be required to
determine if development above the 150-foot elevation would result in any significant, unavoidable,
adverse impacts, and to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
The applicant points to existing development in the area, including Mountainbrook Church and the
KSBY Station building, which are located above the 150-foot elevation line and contribute to the
3 Final Environmental Impact Report Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, August 1994
4 Land Use and Circulation Element Update Final EIR, September 2014
PC 1-4
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 5
existing visual setting. However, it should be noted that the Mountainbrook Church development was
approved by the County of San Luis Obispo, pursuant to the County’s General Plan and Land Use
Ordinance, and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The City did not
have discretionary review authority for the project. These developments are also located outside of the
Irish Hills Hillside Area, although Mountainbrook Church is located at elevation 203, right at the line
between the Irish Hills and Calle Joaquin Hillside areas (refer to Attachment 4 Exhibit A.4). The
applicant notes that the specific numerical elevation appears arbitrary, and does not reflect the land
form conditions (topography) and visual considerations of the project site. The applicant requests that
development performance standards (for view protection) be addressed through the Specific Plan,
including identification of site-specific maximum roof elevations.
Staff Discussion – Alteration or deletion of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation policy
to allow development standards to be established in the Specific Plan: As noted above, the 150-foot
development limitation line was carried forward into the recently adopted LUE, and was contributing
evidence supporting the City Council’s finding that implementation of the LUE would result in less
than significant aesthetic impacts. The LUE and associated Final EIR also anticipated that further
discretionary review would be required during analysis of the anticipated Specific Plan, although there
is no policy or indication that the development line could or should be adjusted during discretionary
review of the Specific Plan.
Development limits and special design standards for hillside areas are intended to “cause development
to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and
Open Space Element (COSE), and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access,
wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards” and help protect the
city’s scenic setting.5 Development is required to be located within the development limit line unless a
location outside the line “is necessary to protect public health and safety”.6 Land outside of the
development limit line is required to be protected as permanent open space.7 The upper elevations of
the project site support sensitive resources, including Chorro Creek bog thistle, native bunchgrass, and
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) listed plant species. The applicant’s conceptual exhibits show
avoidance of Chorro Creek bog thistle, and note that mitigation will be required for the loss of native
bunchgrass and CNPS listed vegetation.
Approximately 37 percent of the project site (28 acres) is located within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone. These lower elevations proximate to Los Osos
Valley Road are subject to flooding, and this area includes floodway management features and two
stormwater management basins, creating a significant constraint regarding development in the flat
lands.
5 LUE Section 6.4.2 Development Limits
6 LUE Section 6.4.3 Development Standards
7 LUE Section 6.4.4 Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines
PC 1-5
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 6
As identified in the County’s General Plan, the upper elevations of the subject parcels are within the
County Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) designation. The intent of the SRA is to call attention to the
importance of highly scenic and important backdrops and natural landmarks visible from scenic
highways and urban areas and the locations of rare or endangered plants and animals. The SRA
extends down to the 200-foot elevation line.8 The project site is also located at the urban/wildland
interface, and the upper elevations are located within the County of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Geologic Study Area (GSA) overlay for geologic hazards. This overlay does not present a restriction;
however, further study would be warranted to address potentially significant geologic hazards such as
slope stability and landslide hazards. Steeper slopes also have a greater potential for rockfall and
erosion.
The applicant’s Conceptual Land Use exhibit (Attachment 4, Exhibit B.1) shows Senior Housing,
Single Family, Park, and Open Space land uses above the 150-foot elevation line (refer to Attachment
5, Figure 2). The topography above the 150-foot elevation within the project site shows a natural
plateau (0-15 percent slopes) and intervening topography, which may provide natural screening of
future development; however, construction of access roads and utilities would require grading along
moderately to steeply sloping topography. Additional information including photo-simulations and
environmental analysis is required to fully evaluate the potential effects of raising or eliminating the
development limit line and identifying specific building height elevations within the project site.
Key public health and safety issues associated with the project site that may limit development in the
lower elevations include flooding hazards and the need for floodway management along Los Osos
Valley Road and Calle Joaquin Road. This area is identified as Open Space on the applicant’s
conceptual exhibit, and is intended to support a realigned section of Froom Creek and existing and
future stormwater basins.
The certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update states that the Specific Plan will be required to address
several issues (as listed in the LUE), including environmental constraints, resource protection, hillside
8: “Scenic and visual qualities of distant ridges, peaks and hillsides, as well as the closer or "foreground" elements such as
rock outcrops, oak woodlands, creeks and other visually appealing natural formations and vegetation contribute to the
widespread perception by local residents and visitors alike that the San Luis Obispo area is a desirable place to live or visit.
This perception, in turn, has a beneficial effect on the economic stability of the recreation and tourist industries. Other
economic sectors also benefit from local employees and employers alike who place a high value on living in San Luis
Obispo. Therefore, identification and protection of the scenic resources in the San Luis Obispo planning area is an
important aspect of planning. Ridges, peaks and hillsides comprise scenic backdrops and natural landmarks. They rise
above urban areas and highways, terminating vistas with a largely undeveloped appearance” (County of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo Planning Area, San Luis Obispo Sub-Area North Area Plan).
PC 1-6
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 7
and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations.9 The applicant’s project
narrative states the project can be designed to minimize impacts to scenic resources by using the
existing topography, which may provide a natural visual barrier between the development and public
viewing areas. Variations in topography may provide opportunities to screen future development from
view; however, certain components including lighting and grading cut slopes may be difficult to fully
“hide”, and overall the project is anticipated to create some change in the visual environment, and may
increase cumulative views of the existing structures and the proposed development in the upper
elevations of the Irish Hills. It is difficult to evaluate the full extent of the potential changes prior to
full environmental analysis and review of a specific project. This analysis would need to be undertaken
as part of the recommended EIR analysis in the event Council approves the applicant proposed
initiation.
If the City Council authorizes initiation of the Specific Plan, including preliminary authorization to
proceed with a Specific Plan that includes development above the 150-foot elevation, the application
package would include a General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE
Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for hillside development above the 150-foot elevation. The planning and
environmental review process would include preparation of an EIR that would evaluate the potential
impacts to visual, biological, and hydrological resources, potential geologic and soils hazards, and
consistency with plans and policies specifically identified to protect these sensitive resources. The
review process would include review and direction from the City’s Architectural Review Commission.
As proposed, the conceptual layout does not meet the intent of the LUE and COSE, which calls for a
compact mixed-use project and includes numerous policies calling for the protection of hillsides in and
proximate to the City. Additional information, including photo simulations of the proposed
development within the hillside context would be necessary to determine if the project could be
designed to protect hillside views, consistent with LUE hillside development policies and LUE
resource protection policies10, Open Space Policies protecting scenic vistas, and Circulation Element
policies which call for the protection of views from roadways designated as having scenic value.
b. Receive confirmation that the development of more housing (CCRC, SFR, and MF Rental
Housing) and less commercial space on this Specific Plan site is an acceptable refinement
of the LUCE planning vision for this site.
Staff Discussion – Mix of Uses: The LUCE identified a vision for this Specific Plan area, which
includes a compact mixed use development including the following land uses (refer to Table 1 on the
following page). A private care facility is not specifically envisioned for the project site, and this type
9 “Future development to consider viewsheds, hillside and open space protection, height limits, wetland protection, access
to other connections, historic farm buildings, mixed use to accommodate workforce housing, and neighborhood commercial
type uses” (LUCE Final EIR 2014).
10 LUE Chapter 6 Resource Protection
PC 1-7
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 8
of facility is generally not of the low to moderate housing type. The LUE identifies the following
Special Focus Areas as suitable for residential care and assisted and/or senior living facilities:
General Hospital Site (Special Focus Area 5, located on Johnson Avenue)
Madonna Inn Area (Special Focus Area 7, located on Madonna Road)
Table 1. Comparison of Land Use Standards (LUE identified and Applicant Proposed)
LUE Type/Designation Min-Max1 Applicant Proposed Land Uses
Residential (Mixed Use) /
MDR, MHDR, HDR
200 to 350
units
200-250 apartment units
60-80 single-family units
CCRC including:
- 276 independent living apartments
- 66 independent living villas and assisted living units
- 122-bed skilled nursing and memory care facility
Commercial / NC, CR 50,000 to
350,000 sf
25,000 to 45,000 sf
Parks / PARK Small neighborhood park including historic structures
(education, community use)
Open Space, Agriculture /
OS, AG
50% 50% open space to be provided throughout the project site
Public To be determined
Infrastructure Integrated circulation, drainage/floodway management,
utilities, parking, etc. to be provided
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints
Additional information is necessary to determine if the Specific Plan would provide the appropriate
range of housing envisioned for this area of the City, in addition to meeting inclusionary and
affordable housing regulations.11 Additional market analysis would be necessary to determine the
economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in
commercial uses compared to that identified in the LUE.
11 New development is required to provide affordable housing by: 1) constructing affordable housing, or 2) paying an in-
lieu fee, or 3) contributing real property to be used as affordable housing, or 4) a combination of these methods.
PC 1-8
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 9
CONCLUSION
The scope of the initiation review only provides authorization for the applicant to proceed with the
application process for the Specific Plan. Conceptual land use plans submitted for the initiation include
two key issues which are not consistent with existing General Plan Policy: 1) the proposed mix of land
uses, which differ substantially from the General Plan performance standards for SP-3, and 2)
comments on whether development over the 150-foot contour should be included for further evaluation
in the formal submittal.
Staff recommends that other issues raised by the applicant (i.e., appropriate designation of Open Space,
treatment of the Froom Ranch historic complex, realignment and restoration of Froom Creek, building
heights, and resource mitigation) are more appropriately addressed through further evaluation in a
formal Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment application based on Council direction. The
proposed project would then be evaluated comprehensively by Staff, including complete
environmental review in an EIR.
If the Commission recommends inclusion of the applicant’s request to propose alteration of the 150
foot maximum site development alteration and/or modification to the mix of land uses envisioned in
the Land Use Element for the Specific Plan area, Staff recommends the recommendation include the
following conditions:
1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential
effects of development on the hillsides above the 150-foot contour line including but not
limited to: photo-simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details),
circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details. The formal
application shall assess potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not
limited to roads, highways, and open space areas.
2. Evaluation of the formal application shall include market analysis to determine the economic
impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in
commercial uses compared to what was identified in the LUE.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan
amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the
formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) alteration of
the 150 foot elevation maximum site development; and, (2) modification of the Land
Use Element specified land use mix.
PC 1-9
PRE-1293-2015
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Initiation Request
Page 10
5.2 Recommend the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendments, but provide a land use mix that more closely correlates with LUE policies
for Specific Plan Area 3
5.3 Recommend the City Council approve the initiation but the formal submittal should not
include a General Plan Amendment to develop above the 150-foot contour line.
5.4 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of
additional information or analysis required.
5.5 Determine that no major amendments should be made to the General Plan and
recommend the City Council deny the request for Specific Plan Amendment Initiation.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Applicant’s Project Description Statement and Applicant’s Review and Discussion of Issues
(dated April 30, 2015)
4. Applicant’s Exhibit Plan Set (8.5 x 11 in color)
5. General Plan Policies Pertinent to the Initiation Request
PC 1-10
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE INITIATION OF THE
MADONNA-FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PRE 1293-2015)
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
December 9, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application PRE 1293-2015, John
Madonna (John Madonna Construction Company) and Bob Richmond (Villagio Senior Living),
applicant; 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.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1. Planning Commission review and City Council action to consider authorization of the
initiation of the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road Specific Plan and amendments to the
General Plan are consistent with City procedures and regulations.
2. Action to authorize initiation of the Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments
Planning Commission review and recommendations to the City Council on authorization to
initiate the specific plan and associated General Plan amendments is among the Planning
Commission’s duties and functions which include the recommendation of actions on
Specific Plans and General Plan Amendments.
3. The requested initiation provides authorization to proceed with a formal application for the
Specific Plan and does not grant land use entitlements.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The proposed request for initiation involves initial
feedback and direction on the proposed Specific Plan components and General Plan Amendment
and does not include any final action. Council action on the proposed initiation is exempt from
environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)). If
initiation of the Specific Plan is authorized by the City Council, a formal project submittal for
consideration of the proposed Specific Plan including associated discretionary entitlements will
be subject to environmental review.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby recommends Council approval of
the initiation of the specific plan and general plan amendments allowing formal submittal of
requested entitlements for evaluation and further consideration by the Planning Commission and
PC 1-11
Attachment 1
Resolution No.XXXX-15
Page 2
Council including adjustment of the 150 development limit line and the land use mix included in
Performance Standards for area SP-3 of the Land Use Element with the following conditions:
1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the
potential effects of development on the hillsides above the 150-foot contour line
including but not limited to: photo-simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut
and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing
details. The formal application shall assess potential visual effects as seen from public
areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas.
2. Evaluation of the formal application shall include market analysis to determine the
economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant
reduction in commercial uses compared to what was identified in the LUE.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9th day of December, 2015.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC 1-12
Attachment 1
Attachment 2: Vicinity Map
Project Site
PC 1-13
Attachment 2
PC
1
-
1
4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
1
5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
1
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
1
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
1
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
1
9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
2
0
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
2
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
2
2
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
2
3
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
PC
1
-
2
4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
PC
1
-
2
5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
AUT
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
CA
L
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
100
Basis for Design Studies
2000
Retain "Natural"
Slopes over 21%
(Where feasible)
Park/ Historic
Buildings (3)
(Approximate
Relocated Location)
Froom Creek with
25' to 35' setback
(Realigned Creek)
*
*
*
April 2015 Pre-Application
*
*
*
*
*
Slopes over 21%
Drainages and
Wetlands
Native Vegetation
Rock Outcrops
Archeological Sites
Southern Wetland
Adjusted boundary
(2015 mapping)
*
*Calle Joaquin
(Existing)
Modify Existing
Basin (Remove
Fore Bay)
*
LOVR Road Take,
Road Entries &
Roundabout
*
Future Proposed
Buildings (Approx.
Floor Elevation 210)
*
Future Proposed
Buildings (Approx.
Floor Elevation 206)
*
Existing Church
(Approx. Floor
Elevation 203)
*
LOVR Road
Drainage with 20'
Setback
*
Drainages and
Wetlands with 20'
Setback
*
Bog Thistle
Plants with
50' setback
*
Approximate Road
Crossing over 21%
Slopes and/ or
Drainages &
Wetlands
*
A.3
Notes:
1. Future proposed building
floor elevations are estimated
based upon topographic site
survey data.
2. Bunch grass mitigation to
occur on and off site.
(Mitigation areas are not
yet identified)
PC 1-26
Attachment 4
Area J
Prefumo
Area I
Billy Goat
Acres
Area H
Irish Hills
MADO
N
N
A
R
O
A
D
HIG
H
W
A
Y
1
0
1
L
U
C
E
S
O
I
A
R
E
A
PROJECT
SITE
Area G
Calle
Joaquin
KSBY
(Approx.
Elev. 200)
Mountainbrook
Community Church
(Approx. Elev. 203)
Existing Residence
(Approx. Elev. 250)
Existing Residence
(Approx. Elev. 480)
PROJECT
SITE
LAGUNA LAKE
Existing Residences
and Middle School
(Approx. Elev.
150 to 200)
Existing Residences
(Approx. Elev.
200 to 250)
Existing Residences
(Approx. Elev.
300 to 350)
Existing Residences
(Approx. Elev.
250 to 300)
Area J
Prefumo
Area I
Billy Goat
Acres
Area H
Irish Hills
Area G
Calle
Joaquin
CITY
L
I
M
I
T
S
CIT
Y
L
I
M
I
T
S
500 10000
Special Design Area 10
Existing Development Exceeding 150' Elevation A.4
PC 1-27
Attachment 4
SINGLE FAMILY
RETAIL
PARK
SENIOR
HOUSING
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
MULTI-
FAMILY
PARK
Residential Single Family
Residential Multi-Family
Residential Senior Housing
Retail
Park
Open Space
LEGEND
1000 200100
Conceptual Land Uses
April 2015 Pre-Application B.1
0 200
PC 1-28
Attachment 4
100 2000
Open Space Areas
Option 6 B.2
PC 1-29
Attachment 4
D
B
C
E
A
AREA A
Maximum Roof Height: 210
AREA B
Maximum Roof Height: 230
AREA C
Maximum Roof Height: 238
AREA D
Maximum Roof Height: 225
AREA E
Maximum Roof Height: 238
150' Elevation from Site Survey
LEGEND
1000 200100
Conceptual Building Heights
April 2015 Pre-Application C.1
0 200
PC 1-30
Attachment 4
Existing Drainages & Portion of
Froom Creek to Remain
Existing Portion of Froom Creek &
LOVR Drainage to be Realigned
Conceptual Realignment of
Froom Creek & LOVR Drainage
Creek Setbacks (25' to 35'
Froom Creek & 20' Drainages)
Chorro Creek Bog Thistle Plants
with 50' setback
LEGEND
0 160
Plan and Section
Conceptual Creek Corridor D.1
0 320
Conceptual Section
Froom Creek Corridor
PC 1-31
Attachment 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 26, 2015
To: Victor Montgomery Organization: RRM Design Group
From: William Strand Title: Manager of Engineering
Project Name:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio)
Project Number: 1014012
Topic: Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio) Stormwater
Location and Existing Conditions
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan (Il Villaggio) project is located in the city of San Luis Obispo,
California on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road and approximately 600 feet northwest of
Highway 101. The project boundary is approximately 111 acres with approximately 76 acres
proposed to be developed. The site is underlain by soils with high clay content which are poorly
suited for infiltration (5.). The site is mainly undeveloped and used as range land with
approximately 4 existing buildings and dirt roads at the northern end of the site. An existing
drainage channel (Q100 = 102 cfs) runs south along Los Osos Valley Road conveying runoff from
upstream development through the property (1.). Froom Creek also flows through the site along
the northwestern and southeastern boundaries and has a 100-year flow rate of 1,066 cfs (2.).
Approximately 28 acres (37%) of the project area lies within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Zone
A). The site has two existing stormwater basins that receive runoff from the adjacent Home
Depot and Irish Hills commercial sites. The basin serving the Home Depot development was sized
to retain a water quality volume equal to the 95th percentile capture volume of 1.27 ac-ft. The
detention basin serving the Irish Hills shopping center has a capacity of 2.03 ac-ft. (sized per
County of San Luis Obispo Standards to detain the 50-year storm while discharging at the 2-year
storm flow rate).
Proposed Development
Proposed improvements include the construction of approximately 55 acres of single family,
multi-family, and assisted living and 21 acres of commercial developments. Existing drainage
patterns along Los Osos Valley Road, and Froom Creek will be maintained. Froom Creek will be
slightly re-aligned and modified to contain the 100-year storm event; however, the channel will
still release at the historical point of discharge. A channel with a capacity of 102 cfs will be
constructed to convey flows parallel to Los Osos Valley Road. Above and below ground
stormwater basins will be constructed to provide storage for the existing 1.27 ac-ft. Home Depot
basin and 2.03 ac-ft. Irish Hills basin. Culverts and channels will be designed to provide capacity
for flows from the 100-year storm event. No upgrades to culverts at Highway 101 are proposed.
Stormwater Requirements
Stormwater requirements are listed in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management
Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. The proposed
improvements to the Froom Ranch property will require compliance with Runoff Retention and
Peak Management. The design of this project will be driven by the Runoff Retention requirement
since this volume is greater than the Peak Management Volume.
PC 1-32
Attachment 4
Runoff Retention
Most of the proposed project area lies within Watershed Management Zone 1—requiring
capture of the 95th percentile storm event without runoff for water quality (3.). The 95th percentile
storm depth is 2.0 inches. Since harvesting/reuse and infiltration are infeasible, retention volumes
shall be multiplied by 1.2. The total required runoff retention volume is 10.91 acre-ft.
Sub-Basin
#
Depth
(inches)
Landuse Post-Dev.
Runoff
Coeff.
Dev. Area
(acres)
Capture
Vol. (ac-
ft.)
1 2.0 Commercial 0.75 20.95 3.14
2 2.0 CCRC 0.75 11.16 1.67
3 2.0 Residential 0.70 27.04 3.79
4 2.0 Residential 0.70 16.51 2.31
75.66 10.91 Total
Peak Management
Post-development peak flows discharged from the site shall not exceed pre-project peak flows
for the 2- through 10-year storm events (respective depths of 2.00” and 4.51”) (4.). The required
Peak Management volume is 7.71 acre-ft.
Existing On-site Retention Ponds
Sub-
Basin
Pre-
dev.
Runoff
Coeff.
Landuse Post-
Dev.
Runoff
Coeff.
Dev.
Area
(acres)
95th
Percentil
e Depth
(inches)
Detention
Basin
(Q-50 – Q-
2) ac-ft.
95th
Percentile
Capture
Vol. (ac-ft)
Home
Depot
0.45 Commerci
al
0.75 10.14 2.0 -- 1.27
Irish Hills 0.45 Commerci
al
0.75 18.62 2.0 2.03 2.33
Notes:
1. Per pg. V-6, Eagle Hardware EIR 10-1-2014
Sub-
Basin
#
Pre-
Dev.
Runof
f
Coeff
.
Proposed
Landuse
Post-
Dev.
Runoff
Coeff.
Dev.
Area
(acre
s)
2-Year,
24 Hr
Depth
(in.)
10-
Year,
24 Hr
Depth
(in.)
2-Year Peak
Manageme
nt Volume
(ac-ft)
10-Year
Peak
Manageme
nt Volume
(ac-ft)
1 0.45 Commerci
al
0.75 20.95 2.00 4.51 1.05 2.36
2 0.45 CCRC 0.75 11.16 2.00 4.51 0.56 1.26
3 0.45 Residential 0.70 27.04 2.00 4.51 1.13 2.54
4 0.45 Residential 0.70 16.51 2.00 4.51 0.69 1.55
75.66 7.71 Total
PC 1-33
Attachment 4
2. Per pg. 22, Revised Hydraulic Study Report Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange
Improvement Project. November 2010. San Luis Obispo County
3. Per Section B.4 Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for
Development Projects in the Central Coast Region
4. Per Section B.5 Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for
Development Projects in the Central Coast Region
5. Per USGS Web Soil Survey
PC 1-34
Attachment 4
1
8
'
x
1
8
'
R
C
B
ST
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
0
1
CA
L
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
AUT
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
EX. ARTESIAN WELL
EX. IRISH
HILLS BASIN
2.03 AC-FT
4
C=
0.70
A=
16.5
ac.
B
A
C
C
B
A
FR
O
O
M
C
R
E
E
K
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
(ZONE A)
EXISTING CREEK
PROPOSED CREEK
PROPOSED CULVERT
SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
(ZONE AE)
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
(ZONE X)
EXISTING STORMWATER
BASIN
SECTION A-A
N.T.S.
SECTION B-B
N.T.S.
EXISTING SUBGRADE
4:1 4:1
80'±
4'
±
FROOM CREEK
SECTION C-C
N.T.S.
4:14:1
BIORETENTION
SOIL MEDIA
OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
PERFORATED PIPE UNDERDRAIN
OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE
BIORETENTION AREA
(WATER QUALITY MITIGATION)
EXISTING SUBGRADE
4:1 4:1
35'±
STREET
DRIVEWAYBIO-RETENTION BIO-RETENTION
RAIN BARRELS
TYPICAL BUNGALOW
ON-SITE LID MEASURES
N.T.S.
DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
200 4000
February 2015
EXISTING ON-SITE RETENTION BASINS
PC 1-35
Attachment 4
B
A
C
C
1
8
'
x
1
8
'
R
C
B
ST
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
0
1
CA
L
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
AUT
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
B
A
2
C=
0.75
A=
7.4
ac.
FR
O
O
M
C
R
E
E
K
EX. ARTESIAN WELL
EX. IRISH
HILLS BASIN
2.03 AC-FT
Q-100 = 102 cfs
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
(ZONE A)
EXISTING CREEK
PROPOSED CREEK
PROPOSED CULVERT
SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
(ZONE AE)
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
(ZONE X)
EXISTING STORMWATER
BASIN
SECTION B-B
N.T.S.
EXISTING SUBGRADE
4:1 4:1
80'±
4'
±
FROOM CREEK
SECTION C-C
N.T.S.
4:14:1
BIORETENTION
SOIL MEDIA
OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
PERFORATED PIPE UNDERDRAIN
OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE
BIORETENTION AREA
(WATER QUALITY MITIGATION)
EXISTING SUBGRADE
SECTION A-A
N.T.S.
4:1 4:1
35'±CALLE JOAQUIN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
STREET
DRIVEWAYBIO-RETENTION BIO-RETENTION
RAIN BARRELS
TYPICAL BUNGALOW
ON-SITE LID MEASURES
N.T.S.
DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
200 4000
February 2015
EXISTING ON-SITE RETENTION BASINS
PC 1-36
Attachment 4
Figure 1. Hillside Planning Areas
Project Site
PC 1-37
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page 1-68
6. RESOURCE PROTECTION
6.1. Overall Resource Protection Policies
6.1.1. Resource Planning
The City shall protect its unique natural resources and systems by including their considerations and needs
within its planning program, and giving those considerations and needs a planning priority co-equal with that
accorded other community needs. Under this policy, the City will make provisions for the continued existence
of its natural resources within the community. The term “community” thus includes not only the urbanized
human community, dominated by urban land development and technological systems, but also a natural
community rich in biological and geological diversity, as well as a pre-urban human community with a strong
agricultural base.
6.2. Overall Resource Protection Programs
6.2.1. Resource Mapping
The City shall prepare and maintain geographic information systems-based maps of the city, the urban
reserve, and the planning area to guide in land use designations and decision-making. Maps for the city and
urban reserve shall be in sufficient detail to highlight all significant natural resources and systems. Maps for
the planning area may be at a lesser degree of detail.
The maps shall show at least the following resources: native plant communities, wildlife habitats and
corridors, aquatic ecosystems, productive or potentially productive soils (prime or other unique agricultural
soil types), viewsheds, terrain, hillsides, greenbelt areas. The overlay maps shall also show development
constraints such as flood hazard areas, geological hazard areas, soil hazard areas (subsidence, liquefaction),
noise impact areas, airport hazard and noise areas, radiation hazard areas.
The maps shall provide the basis of determining where urban development is most appropriate, and where
other needs of the community outweigh the desire or need for urban development. As a result of the findings
of these maps, the City shall re-evaluate its land use designations and future plans for undeveloped areas,
and revise the LUE land use map accordingly.
6.2.2. Resource Protection
The City shall seek to protect resource areas deemed worthy of permanent protection by fee acquisition,
easement, or other means.
6.3. Open Space Policies
(See also the Growth Management section)
6.3.1. Open Space and Greenbelt Designations
The City shall designate the following types of land as open space:
A. Upland and valley sensitive habitats or unique resources, as defined in the Conservation and Open Space
Element, including corridors which connect habitats.
B. Undeveloped prime agricultural soils which are to remain in agricultural use as provided in Policy 1.9.2.
PC 1-39
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page 1-69
C. Those areas which are best suited to non-urban uses due to: infeasibility of providing proper access or
utilities; excessive slope or slope instability; wildland fire hazard; noise exposure; flood hazard; scenic
value; wildlife habitat value, including sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the
Conservation and Open Space Element; agricultural value; and value for passive recreation.
D. A greenbelt, outside the urban reserve, that surrounds the ultimate boundaries of the urban area, and
which should connect with wildlife corridors that cross the urbanized area.
E. Sufficient area of each habitat type to ensure the ecological integrity of that habitat type within the
urban reserve and the greenbelt, including connections between habitats for wildlife movement and
dispersal; these habitat types will be as identified in the natural resource inventory, as discussed in the
"Background to this Land Use Element Update" and in Community Goal #8.
Public lands suited for active recreation will be designated Park on the General Plan Land Use Element Map.
The City may establish an agricultural designation. (See the Conservation and Open Space Element for
refinements of these policies.)
6.3.2. Open Space Uses
Lands designated Open Space should be used for purposes which do not need urban services, major
structures, or extensive landform changes. Such uses include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant
habitat; grazing; cultivated crops; and passive recreation. The City shall require that buildings, lighting,
paving, use of vehicles, and alterations to the landforms and native or cultural landscapes on open space
lands are minimized, so rural character and resources are maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces, such as
parking or roads, shall not exceed the following: where a parcel smaller than ten acres already exists, five
percent of the site area; on a parcel of ten acres or more, three percent. (As explained in the Conservation
and Open Space Element, the characteristics of an open space area may result in it being suitable for some
open space uses, but not the full range.) Parcels within Open Space areas should not be further subdivided.
6.4. Hillside Policies
As noted in the open space section of this element and in the Conservation and Open Space Element, San
Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less
steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is
coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas. This section focuses on where
and how some hillsides may be developed.
6.4.1. The City shall maintain comprehensive standards and policies for hillside development for the
following reasons:
A. To protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge
lines, plant communities, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops
for the community.
B. To set the limits of commercial and residential development in hillside areas by establishing a permanent
open space green belt at the edge of the community.
C. To protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from
areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, flooding and erosion.
PC 1-40
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page 1-70
6.4.2. Development Limits
The City shall establish and maintain clear development limit lines for hillside planning areas, and special
design standards for the hillside areas. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause
development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the
Conservation and Open Space Element, and public health and safety problems related to utility service,
access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the
development limit line and the standards should help protect the city’s scenic setting. (Locations of hillside
planning areas are shown in Figure 7.
6.4.3. Development Standards
The City shall require development – including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas – on
hillside parcels to:
A. Be entirely within the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever is more restrictive (though
parcel boundaries may extend beyond these lines when necessary to meet minimum parcel-size
standards), unless one of the following three exceptions applies:
(a) A location outside the urban reserve line or development limit line is necessary to protect public
health and safety.
(b) New wireless telecommunication facilities may be appropriate on South Street Hills inside the three-
acre leasehold already developed with commercial and municipal radio facilities, subject to use
permit approval and architectural review and approval. Applicants shall comply with all other
provisions of this section, and demonstrate that (a) new facilities will not individually or additively
interfere with City radio equipment necessary for emergency response coordination, and (b) will not
cause on-site radio frequency radiation levels to exceed exposure standards established for the
general public by the American National Standards Institute.
(c) Where a legally built dwelling exists on a parcel which is entirely outside the urban reserve line or
development limit line, a replacement dwelling may be constructed subject to standards B through
H below.
B. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes;
C. Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns;
D. Minimize grading of roads;
E. Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, locate houses close to the street; minimize the grading of
visible driveways;
F. Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a visual transition
from developed to open areas;
G. Use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts;
H. Minimize exterior lighting.
6.4.4. Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines
The City shall require that before development occurs on any parcel that crosses the urban reserve or
development limit lines, the part outside the lines be protected as permanent open space.
PC 1-41
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page1-71
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
o
£¤101
B
R
O
A
D
O
R
C
U
T
T
BUCKLEY
TANK FARM
M I L L
H I G U E R A
C
H
O
R
R
O
P I S M O
L
O
S
O
S
O
S V
A
L
L
E
Y
MA D ON N A
FOOTHILL
HIGH
M A RS H L E F F
F O O T H I L L W
JOHNS
O
N
T
O
R
O
PRADO
O
S
O
S
SOUTH
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
NIA
B U C H O N
HIGUERAS
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
ELKS
S A N L UIS
EL L A
H I G H L A N D
B IS H O P
LAUREL
SLACK
EVANS
P
O
IN
S
ETTIA
H
I
L
L
HOOVER
SOUTHWOOD
B
U
L
L
O
C
K
L U N ET A
D
E
L
R
I
O
M
O
U
NT BIS
H
O
P
P A L M
V A L L E VI S T A
V I L L AGE
G
R
A
N
D
LAWR E N C E
POL Y C A NYON
S Y D N E Y
L I Z Z I E
MEISSNER
SUBURBAN
M I OSSI
G A T H E
WOOD B R I D G E
R
O
C
K
VIE
W
LONG
BEEBEE
D A N A
HOPE
DA
LIDIO
SANTAFE
ELM
MARGARITA
BOND
ISABEL L A
BROAD
FLO
R
A
D
Orcutt
L
Luneta
Stoneridge
C
Goldtree
J
Prefumo
H
Irish Hills
K
Madonna
B
Woodland Drive
A
Cal Poly -
Cuesta Park
I
Billygoat
Acres
G
Calle
Joaquin
F
EMargarita
Figure 7
Legend
Hillside Planning Area Boundaries
LUCE SOI Area
!
!!
!
City Limits
Highway
Roads
Railroad
o Airport
Water Body
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012
010.5
Mile
Hillside Planning Areas
PC 1-42
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page1-72
6.4.5. Development Credit Transfer
Any residential development credit obtained from Open Space designations outside the urban reserve line or
development limit line should be transferred to land in the Downtown Core or Specific Plan area.
6.4.6. Homesites Outside the Limit Lines
Where homesites are to be developed outside the urban reserve or development limit lines, and beyond the
City’s jurisdiction within the City’s greenbelt, the City shall encourage the County to promote the transfer of
development credits into the Downtown Core or Specific Plan area. If development is to proceed in these
areas, the City shall encourage the County to only allow creation of home sites consistent with the following
guidelines:
A. Be on land sloping less than 15 percent;
B. Have effective emergency-vehicle access from a City street or County road;
C. Be on a geologically stable site;
D. Have adequate water supply for domestic service and fire suppression;
E. Avoid areas with high wildland fire hazard;
F. Be next to existing development;
G. Avoid significant visual impacts; and
H. Be clustered to minimize impacts and retain open space.
6.4.7. Hillside Planning Areas
The City shall urge the County to implement the following hillside policies. Specific policies to address
particular concerns for the areas as shown on Figure 7 are listed below. For each of these areas, land above
the development limit line should be secured as permanent open space.
A. The Cal Poly – Cuesta Park area includes the hill east of Cal Poly and north of Highway 101 near Cuesta
Park. Development should be separated or protected from highway traffic noise and should have
adequate fire protection. The City shall urge the County to conduct architectural review of development
on lots fronting Loomis Street to address visual impacts of development.
B. The Woodland Drive area Development of vacant land near Woodland Drive (Figure 7) shall address the
following:
(a) The location and design of new public streets and private drives serving several owners, and any
necessary changes to existing streets in the area;
(b) Water and sewer systems, including new storage tanks, pumps, main pipes, and access roads, and
changes to existing facilities necessary for adequate service to the area;
(c) New parcels and existing parcels to be changed or combined;
(d) Location of building sites on parcels next to or crossing the urban reserve line;
(e) Areas to be kept open through easements or dedication of fee ownership;
(f) A program for transferring development potential, consistent with these hillside planning policies;
(g) Location of creek easements to provide flood protection and to protect existing creekside
vegetation;
(h) Phasing of development and public improvements.
PC 1-43
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page 1-73
C. The Goldtree area extends up the hill from the Alrita Street neighborhood. This is a minor expansion
area which can accommodate single-family houses. In addition to meeting the usual criteria for
approving minor annexations, this area should:
(a) Provide a gravity-flow water system giving standard levels of service to all developed parts of the
expansion area and correcting water-service deficiencies in the Alrita Street neighborhood;
(b) Correct downslope drainage problems to which development within the expansion area would
contribute.
(c) A development plan or specific plan for the whole expansion area should be adopted before any
part of it is annexed, subdivided, or developed. (Existing houses inside the urban reserve line need
not be annexed along with any new subdivision)
(d) All new houses and major additions to houses should be subject to architectural review.
D. The Orcutt area includes land on the western flanks of the Santa Lucia foothills east of the Southwood
Drive neighborhood and Orcutt Road. No building sites should be located above the development limit
line.
E. The Margarita area includes the southern slopes of the South Street Hills. No building sites should be
located above the development limit line.
F. The Stoneridge area includes land on the northern slopes of South Street Hills. Development west of the
end of Lawrence Drive should be subject to architectural review and to measures assuring that building
sites will be stable.
G. The Calle Joaquin area should allow the continuation of a commercial use for the existing building on the
hill, but no further development.
H. The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot
elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8,
Special Focus Areas.)
I. The Billygoat acres area extends into the Irish Hills above Prefumo Creek. No further development
should occur beyond the urban reserve line.
J. The Prefumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills west of Prefumo Canyon Road. Development should
be limited to areas within the urban reserve line with permanent protection of the creeks and upper
hillsides.
K. The Madonna Inn area includes land west of Highway 101 on the lower slopes of San Luis Mountain and
the northeast slopes of the foothill bordering Laguna Lake Park.
(a) A development plan for the whole area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed,
subdivided, or further developed. (See also Section 8, Special Focus Areas.)
(b) The City shall require that development locations and building forms respect the area's
extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and maintain views of the mountain from the
highway and nearby neighborhoods.
(c) The area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained as an open space buffer.
L. The Luneta Drive area includes parcels which may be used for housing, so long as new construction and
major additions are approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
PC 1-44
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page 1-74
6.5. Hillside Programs
(See also Section 12, Implementation)
6.5.1. Designating Sensitive Sites
Subdivision approval in hillside planning areas shall include designation of "sensitive sites," which shall be
subject to architectural review.
6.5.2. Delineation of Development Limit Lines
The City shall create and maintain a GIS layer to accurately document development limit lines as they are
applied in the General Plan.
6.5.3. Community Design Guidelines
Consistent with the Community Design guidelines, all hillside areas are considered sensitive sites, and
architectural review is required for new development. The Community Development Director will screen all
proposals to identify any which do not need architectural review. The City will mitigate the visual impacts of
hillside structures, including revising the way maximum building height is determined.
6.6. Creeks Wetlands, and Flooding Policies
San Luis Obispo's aquatic ecosystems consist of creeks, Laguna Lake, floodplains, marshes, wetlands,
serpentine seeps, and springs. These aquatic ecosystems provide habitat, recreation, water purification,
groundwater recharge, and soil production as well as natural flood protection by reducing the force of
floodwaters as they spread and decelerate over floodplains. Creeks, which are the most obvious of these
systems because they flow under and through the City, provide wildlife habitat, backyard retreats, and
viewing and hiking pleasures, in addition to carrying storm water runoff. When some creeks overflow during
major storms, they flood wide areas beyond their channels (Figure 8). San Luis Obispo wants to avoid injury
or substantial property losses from flooding, while keeping or improving the creeks' natural character, scenic
appearance, recreational value, and fish and wildlife habitat.
6.6.1. Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives
The City shall manage its lake, creeks, wetlands, floodplains, and associated wetlands to achieve the multiple
objectives of:
A. Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat;
B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding;
C. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection,
and use of adjacent private properties.
D. Recognizing and distinguishing between those sections of creeks and Laguna Lake which are in urbanized
areas, such as the Downtown core, and sections which are in largely natural areas. Those sections
already heavily impacted by urban development and activity may be appropriate for multiple use
whereas creeks and lakeshore in a more natural state shall be managed for maximized ecological value.
6.6.2. Citywide Network
The City shall include the lake, creeks, and wetlands as part of a citywide and regional network of open space,
parks, and – where appropriate – trails, all fostering understanding, enjoyment, and protection of the natural
landscape and wildlife.
PC 1-45
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page1-75
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
o
£¤101
B
R
O
A
D
O
R
C
U
T
T
BUCKLEY
TANK FARM
M I L L
H I G U E R A
C
H
O
R
R
O
P I S M O
L
O
S
O
S
O
S V
A
L
L
E
Y
MA D ON N A
FOOTHILL
HIGH
M A RS H L E F F
F O O T H I L L W
JOHNS
O
N
T
O
R
O
PRADO
O
S
O
S
SOUTH
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
NIA
B U C H O N
HIGUERAS
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
ELKS
S A N L UIS
EL L A
H I G H L A N D
B IS H O P
LAUREL
SLACK
EVANS
P
O
IN
S
ETTIA
H
I
L
L
HOOVER
SOUTHWOOD
B
U
L
L
O
C
K
L U N ET A
D
E
L
R
I
O
M
O
U
NT BIS
H
O
P
P A L M
V A L L E VI S T A
V I L L AGE
G
R
A
N
D
LAWR E N C E
POL Y C A NYON
S Y D N E Y
L I Z Z I E
MEISSNER
SUBURBAN
M I OSSI
G A T H E
WOOD B R I D G E
R
O
C
K
VIE
W
LONG
BEEBEE
D A N A
HOPE
DA
LIDIO
SANTAFE
ELM
MARGARITA
BOND
ISABEL L A
BROAD
FLO
R
A
£¤101
£¤1
Figure 8
Legend
100-Year Floodplain
Creeks
LUCE SOI Area
!
!!
!
City Limits
Highway
Roads
Railroad
o Airport
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012
010.5
Mile
Creeks and Floodplains
PC 1-46
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page1-76
6.6.3. Amenities and Access
The City shall require new public or private developments adjacent to the lake, creeks, and wetlands to
respect the natural environment and incorporate the natural features as project amenities, provided doing so
does not diminish natural values. Developments along creeks should include public access across the
development site to the creek and along the creek, provided that wildlife habitat, public safety, and
reasonable privacy and security of the development can be maintained, consistent with the Conservation and
Open Space Element.
6.6.4. Open Channels
The City shall require all open channels be kept open and clear of structures in or over their banks. When
necessary, the City may approve structures within creek channels under the limited situations described in
the Conservation and Open Space Element.
6.6.5. Runoff Reduction and Groundwater Recharge
The City shall require the use of methods to facilitate rainwater percolation for roof areas and outdoor
hardscaped areas where practical to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge.
6.6.6. Development Requirements
The City shall require project designs that minimize drainage concentrations and impervious coverage.
Floodplain areas should be avoided and, where feasible, any channelization shall be designed to provide the
appearance of a natural water course.
6.6.7. Discharge of Urban Pollutants
The City shall require appropriate runoff control measures as part of future development proposals to
minimize discharge of urban pollutants (such as oil and grease) into area drainages.
6.6.8. Erosion Control Measures
The City shall require adequate provision of erosion control measures as part of new development to
minimize sedimentation of streams and drainage channels.
6.7. Creeks and Flooding Programs
6.7.1. Previously Developed Areas
To limit the potential for increased flood damage in urbanized areas, the City shall ensure new development
complies with the City’s flood plain ordinance, setbacks, specific plans, and design standards to minimize
flood damage and flood plain encroachment.
6.7.2. National Flood Program
The City shall administer the National Flood Insurance Program standards.
6.7.3. Creekside Care and Notification
In maintaining creek channels to accommodate flood waters, the City shall notify owners of creeks and
adjacent properties in advance of work, and use care in any needed removal of vegetation.
6.7.4. Evaluate Use of Financing Districts
The City shall evaluate the feasibility of establishing a financing district or districts to address flood concerns
in affected areas. Cost and benefits will be weighed in relation to the cost of flood insurance for affected
property owners.
PC 1-47
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page 1-82
8. SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS
Introduction
Within the Planning Area are several areas where it is appropriate to consider a range or mix of uses which do not
correspond with any one open-space, residential, commercial, or public designation used by this element. However, a
particular use or mix of uses may not be desirable unless it is chosen in combination with a specific physical design which
solves problems of relationships between activities within the site, and between the site and its neighbors. In addition,
there are areas where special design concepts can help revitalization efforts. In Special Focus Areas, the City intends to do
one or more of the following:
A. Require a specific plan for areas with complex development parameters (e.g. land use mix, significant
infrastructure needs environmental site constraints), prior to development.
B. Make a choice about appropriate land uses based on information which will become available. In some
cases, the choice will be connected with approval of a development plan, possibly with customized limits
on specific activities and requirements for improvements or dedications.
C. Work with properties in areas where an innovative design approach is needed to help revitalize and
beautify the area.
Special Focus Areas are designated by number on Figure 10. These areas and the guidelines for their development are
listed below. (The number following the decimal point corresponds to the map number.). The following areas require a
specific plan prior to development: SP-1 (Margarita), SP-2 (San Luis Ranch/Dalidio), SP-3 (Madonna), and SP-4 (Avila
Ranch).
The Special Focus Areas are those that present opportunities to develop customized land use approaches or special design
implementation to enhance their appearance and achieve their respective development potential: Foothill Blvd/Santa
Rosa, Bishop Knoll, Alrita area, Upper Monterey, Mid-Higuera, Caltrans site, General Hospital site, Broad Street Area,
Madonna Inn area, Sunset Drive-in/ Prado, Pacific Beach, Calle Joaquin auto sales area, LOVR Creek area, CalFire / Cal Poly
property, and Broad Street at Tank Farm area.
POLICIES
Introduction
To help guide the development of large land areas (previously referred to as “expansion areas”) and to
provide guidance on the redevelopment of sites identified, the City shall use the following policy statements
to guide their review and actions relative to these properties.
8.1. Specific Plan Areas
8.1.1. Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment
The City shall require the completion and approval of a specific plan and associated General Plan Amendment
prior to annexation (if applicable) and development of land within an area designated as a Specific Plan Area
on Figure 10. The required General Plan Amendment will modify the General Plan Land Use Diagram to
reflect the land use diagram from the approved specific plan, based on the land uses listed under
“Performance Standards” for each site.
PC 1-48
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Pa
g
e
1
-
8
3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
£¤10
1
UV22
7
La
g
u
n
a
La
k
e
£¤10
1
£¤1
!(7
!(6
!(3
!(5
!(8
!(15
!(13
!(2
!(10
!(11
!(12
!(1
!(9
!(4
!(14
Or
c
u
t
t
A
r
e
a
SP
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
A
r
e
a
S
P
SP
-
4
Av
i
l
a
R
a
n
c
h
SP
-
1
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Ar
e
a
SP
-
2
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
Ra
n
c
h
SP
-
3
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
on
L
O
V
R
B R O A D
O R C U T T
BUCKLEY
TANK FARM
J O H N S O N
M
I
L
L
C H O R R O
P
I
S
M
O
L O S O S O S V A L L E Y
FOO
THILL
HIGUERA S
HIGH
M
A
R
S
H
L
E
F
F
I
S
L
A
Y
HIGHLAND
H
I
G
U
E
R
A
F LO R A
FOOTHILL W
T O R O
O S O S
SOUTH
GRAND
C AL I F O R N I A
SA N T A R O S A N
S A NT A R O S A
P
E
A
C
H
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
M
A
D
O
N
N
A
SAN LUIS
E
L
L
A
BIS
H
O
P
A U G U S T A
EVANS
PRADO
P O IN S E T T I A
LA
UREL
H I L L
HOOVER
DIA
B
L
O
LUNETA
CALLE JOAQUIN
VI A CA R T A
D E L R I O
P
A
L
M
VACHELL
M O U N T B I S H O P
F
U
L
L
E
R
O C E A N A I R E
V
A
L
L
E VIS
T
A
R
O
Y
A
L
P
O
LY C
A
N
Y
O
N
C A S A
L
I
Z
Z
I
E
LINCOLN
S A C R A M E N T O
ELKS LN
SUBURBAN
LI M A
G
AT
H
E
S H I G U E R A S T
WOODBRIDGE
SLACK
R OC K VI EW
AIR
P
ORT
LONG
HAYS
TI
B
U
R
O
N
BEEBEE
LOOMIS ST
SANTA FE
LAWRENCE
MEISSNER ST
NAS
E
LLA
PRADO RD
SPANISH OAKS
ELM
VIA LA G U N A VISTA
K E N TU CK Y
F E R R I N I
SOU
THWOOD
K
E
N
D
A
L
L
HANSEN
IRONB
ARK
MURRAY
M I S S I ON
KLAM A T H
HE L E NA
DALY
ISABELLA
D E E R
E
T
O
SANTA BARBARA
T ON I N I
C
A
U
D
I
L
L
CLARION
LA ENTRADA
McMILLAN
C
L
O
V
E
R
B U L L O CK
ALDER
C U ES T A
ALRITA
JESPERSON
S
O
U
T
H
P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
ESPERANZA
TWIN RIDGE LOS PALOS
DAVENPORT CREEK
PINE
D A LIDIO D R
HORIZON
H O L L Y H O C K
RACHEL
STENNER CREEK
C
O
NEJO
VISTA LA G O
HIDDEN SPRINGS
T
U
LI
P
MELLO
THREAD
CRAIG WAY
OA
KRIDGE
SISQUOC ST
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
P
H
I
L
L
I
P
S
KENTWOOD
SAN SIME
ON
L
A L
O
M
A
F
R
O
O
M
R
A
N
C
H
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
Figure 10LegendSpecific Plans Existing Specific Plans New Specific Plans 010.5 Mile Special Focus AreasWater Body !!!!City Limits Freeway Highway/ Regional Route Arterial Local Railroad Other LUCE SOI Planning Subarea Urban Reserve Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012Special Focus Area !(1 Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Area !(2 Upper Monterey !(3 Mid-Higuera Area !(4 Caltrans Site !(5 General Hospital Site !(6 Broad Street Area !(7 Madonna Inn Area !(8 Sunset Drive-In Theatre/Prado Road Area !(9 Pacific Beach Site !(10 Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Site Area !(11 LOVR Creekside Area !(12 Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site !(13 CalFire/Cal Poly !(14 North Side of Foothill (Bishops Knoll)!(15 Alrita Properties PC 1-49Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page 1-85
For each specific plan site identified in this section, the location, purpose and performance standards for that
site are defined. The performance standards section defines the following standards that must be met as
part of the specific plan submitted for each site.
A. Type. This defines the basic type of use being described.
B. Designations Allowed: This defines the standard General Plan designations that can be used to describe
the development proposed. See Table 1 for ranges allowed.
C. % of Site: This defines the percent of each site dedicated to open space (using the gross project site).
D. Minimum: This provides a minimum development assumed for each site. For residential and
commercial types, these are not considered requirements, and a number lower than that shown can be
proposed.
E. Maximum: In order to exceed the minimum development for a given site, transfer of development
credits or other permanent protection of open space would be provided. Development credits would be
transferred from areas in the city, the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less
appropriate, generally those designated conservation/open space or, on the County's map, agriculture or
rural lands.
The performance standards listed are to supplement other City requirements, standards, and Zoning Code
requirements. If a conflict occurs, the most stringent standard shall apply.
8.1.2. Specific Plan Content
All specific plans prepared for a Specific Plan Area must meet the requirements of State law and be
comprised of four planning frameworks. Within each framework, the specific plan will provide the goals and
policies that will guide future decisions on projects within the specific plan area. The plan will also include a
detailed implementation plan that will identify responsibilities, financing requirements, and phasing / timing.
The Land Use Framework will include the proposed land use pattern, actual development densities in each
subarea on the project site, and development phasing. The framework will also include specifics on
development standards.
The Specific Plan prepared will provide complete guidance on the land use provisions that will guide future
development within the Planning Area. At a minimum, these provisions will address the following topics. In
consultation with City staff, other topics may be required depending on site specific needs.
A. Land Use Classification. A land use classification system that clearly identifies the uses that may be
allowed in each subarea. Based on the land use designations listed under “Performance Standards”
section for each site, the specific plan will provide further details on development standards for each
subarea. This classification system would use clear terminology to define and further describe allowable
uses. Both the land use classification system and the uses allowed within the various subareas will
provide for an overall mix of uses.
B. General Site Planning and Development Standards. These standards will specify the requirements that
would be applied to all development and land uses regardless of the applicable land use designation.
These would address, as appropriate, sensitive resources; site access requirements; energy efficiency;
fences, walls, hedges, buffers, and other screening; noise regulations; outdoor lighting standards;
performance standards (e.g., air quality, glare, vibration, etc.), undergrounding of utilities; and other
similar topics. Planning should also address how the development will be designed to enhance
compatibility with adjacent properties.
PC 1-51
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page1-86
C. Development Standards. Development standards for each land use designation (e.g., building forms,
design objectives, land use objectives, height limitations, setback requirements, site coverage
requirements, etc.) will be organized in tables and graphically illustrated wherever possible.
D. Housing Mix. The specific plan will discuss the proposed mix of housing types within the area. In keeping
with the City’s Housing Element, affordable housing requirements and density bonus provisions and
related incentives will be incorporated as appropriate. A key to the housing component will be to
incorporate a mix of housing types, and to provide phasing mechanisms that ensure to the City the
development of this housing mix as a part of each phase of the project.
The Design Framework will provide detailed design guidelines that will be used as the specific plan is
implemented / developed. The purpose of these guidelines will be to establish the expected level of design
within the area while still maintaining project flexibility and innovation. The objective of this framework is not
to dictate a specific design, but to establish design expectations.
The design guidelines will be illustrated to help explain the intent and expectations. This part of the Specific
Plan will also incorporate detailed landscaping standards.
The Design Framework will also provide guidance on the integration of the streetscape into the overall
project design. The framework will define public improvements and the public rights-of-way to define the
overall character of the streetscape.
The Circulation Framework will include the proposed circulation network system elements, design standards,
and system phasing. This framework will address all modes of circulation as well as parking and loading
standards if different from the standard City requirements.
The Infrastructure / Public Facilities Framework will cover infrastructure requirements (water, sewer, storm
drainage, electricity, natural gas, and communications) as well as parkland, schools, and other public
facilities. For infrastructure, the framework will address the proposed trunk infrastructure system
improvements and system phasing necessary to support implementation of the land use plan and financing
mechanisms to implement planned facilities.
8.1.3. SP-1, Margarita Area Specific Plan Update
Location: The Margarita Area covers about 420 acres bounded by South Higuera Street, Broad Street, Tank
Farm Road, and the ridge of the South Street Hills in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo.
Purpose: Adopted in October 2004, the Margarita Area Specific Plan contains five key principles: open
space and sensitive resource production, cohesive neighborhood creation, transit supporting
land uses and densities, pedestrian environment, and minimizing infrastructure costs.
The approved specific plan includes 868 residential dwelling units, as well as a business park, a
neighborhood park, sports fields, and open space areas. Over 40 percent of the land area is
designated as open space and 56 acres are designated as parks.
The City shall consider this area as potentially appropriate to accommodate additional housing.
Revisions to the Margarita Area Specific Plan will be required if residential development in
excess of that accommodated in the plan is proposed.
PC 1-52
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page 1-87
8.1.4. SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area
Location: This specific plan area is located in the southwest quarter of the city at the corner of Madonna
Road and Dalidio Drive. The site is approximately 132 acres and is currently used for agricultural
purposes. The site is primarily flat topographically. The entire site is within the City’s Planning
Area, but is outside the current city limits.
Purpose: This project site should be developed as a mixed use project that maintains the agricultural
heritage of the site, provides a commercial / office transition to the existing commercial center
to the north, and provides a diverse housing experience. Protection of the adjacent creek and a
well-planned integration into the existing circulation system will be required.
The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design
issues.
a. Provide land and appropriate financial support for development of a Prado Road connection.
Appropriate land to support road infrastructure identified in the Final Project EIR (overpass
or interchange) at this location shall be dedicated as part of any proposal and any area in
excess of the project’s fair share of this facility shall not be included as part of the project
site area used to calculate the required 50% open space.
b. Circulation connections to integrate property with surrounding circulation network for all
modes of travel.
c. Connection to Froom Ranch and Calle Joaquin, if proposed, shall not bifurcate on- site or
neighboring agricultural lands. Any connection to Calle Joaquin shall be principally a
secondary / emergency access by design.
d. Development shall include a transit hub. Developer shall work with transit officials to
provide express connections to Downtown area.
e. Maintain agricultural views along Highway 101 by maintaining active agricultural uses on the
site, and maintain viewshed of Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis.
f. Maintain significant agricultural and open space resources on site (see Policy 1.13.8.B). Land
dedicated to Agriculture shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to maintain
a viable, working agricultural operation.
g. Where buffering or transitions to agricultural uses are needed to support viability of the
agricultural use, these shall be provided on lands not counted towards the minimum size for
the agriculture / open space component. Provide appropriate transition to agricultural uses
on-site.
h. Integrate agricultural open space with adjacent SLO City Farm and development on
property.
i. Site should include walkable retail and pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding
commercial and residential areas.
j. Commercial and office uses shall have parking placed behind and to side of buildings so as to
not be a prominent feature.
k. Neighborhood Commercial uses for proposed residential development shall be provided.
PC 1-53
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page 1-88
l. Potential flooding issues along Prefumo Creek need to be studied and addressed without
impacting off-site uses.
m. All land uses proposed shall be in keeping with safety parameters described in this General
Plan or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport.
n. Historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures shall be included.
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
350 units 500 units
Commercial NC
CC
50,000 SF 200,000 SF
Office/High tech) O 50,000 SF 150,000 SF
Hotel/Visitor-serving 200rooms
Parks PARK 5.8 ac
Open Space / Agriculture OS
AG
Minimum 50%2 No maximum
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints.
2 The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off-site dedication provided:
a. A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off-site property exchanged to meet the on-site
requirement; and
b. Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and
c. Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for agriculture/open space.
PC 1-54
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page 1-89
8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
Location: This site includes just over 111 acres and is located directly west of the intersection of Los Osos
Valley Road and Calle Joaquin.
Purpose: The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that will secure the appropriate
development of the site while protecting sensitive environmental resources on the site.
Development on the site should be a compact, mixed use project that provides workforce
housing options and neighborhood commercial uses that support pedestrian and bicycle access.
The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design
issues.
a. Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts accordingly
through design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope protection, historic
structures, and open space protection.
b. Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as protected open
space areas.
c. Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills.
d. Provide access to trails.
e. Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points of access
to Los Osos Valley Road.
f. Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood.
g. Provide connectivity to adjacent development.
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential (Mixed Use) MDR
MHDR
HDR
200 units 350 units
Commercial NC
CR
50,000 SF 350,000 SF
Parks PARK
Open Space / Agriculture OS
AG
Minimum 50%
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints.
PC 1-55
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page1-90
8.1.6. SP-4, Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area
Location: Avila Ranch is located on the north side of Buckley Road at the far southern edge of the City of
San Luis Obispo. The three parcels that make up the Avila Ranch area comprise approximately
150 acres. The entire site is located within the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Purpose: This area will be developed as primarily a residential neighborhood development with
supporting neighborhood commercial, park, recreation facilities, and open space/resource
protection. Within the project, emphasis should be on providing a complete range of housing
types and afford abilities. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the
following land use and design issues:
a.Provision of a variety of housing types and affordability levels.
b.Modification of the Airport Area Specific Plan to either exclude this area or designate it as a
special planning area within the Airport Area Specific Plan.
c.Provision of buffers along Buckley Road and along eastern edge of property from adjacent
agricultural uses.
d.Provision of open space buffers along northern and western boundaries to separate this
development from adjacent service and manufacturing uses.
e.Provision of open space buffers and protections for creek and wildlife corridor that runs
through property.
f.Safety and noise parameters described in this General Plan and the purposes of the State
Aeronautics Act; or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional
Airport.
g.Participation in enhancement to Buckley Road and enhancement of connection of Buckley
Road to South Higuera Street.
h.Appropriate internal and external pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to the City’s
circulation network.
i.Implementation of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan including connections to the Bob
Jones Trail.
j.Water and wastewater infrastructure needs as detailed in the City’s Water and Wastewater
Master Plans. This may include funding and/or construction of a wastewater lift station.
k.Fire protection and impacts to emergency response times.
l.Architectural design that relates to the pastoral character of the area and preserves view of
agrarian landscapes.
m.Provision of a neighborhood park.
PC 1-56
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page1-91
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
500 700
Commercial NC 15,000 SF 25,000 SF
Open Space / Agriculture OS
AG
50%2
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints.
2 Up to 1/3 of the open space may be provided off-site or through in-lieu fees consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan.
8.2. Special Planning Areas
The policies under Section 8.2 provide site specific guidance on the development / redevelopment of sites in
the city. For sites that have existing development, renovation of streetscapes, landscaping, and building
facades is encouraged. The City shall require property owners to prepare area plans with land uses consistent
with this section, as well as multi-modal circulation and infrastructure facilities as appropriate, design
guidelines and implementation programs. The City may consider implementation incentives for
redevelopment areas, such as variations from development standards and/or participation in the installation
or financing of infrastructure.
8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area
This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa, is
currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses.
At the affected property owners’ request, the boundary of this area on the north side of Foothill may be
extended to include one or more of the existing commercial properties west of Chorro Street. The City shall
work with property owners / developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical
mixed use) to include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community
Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations.
The non-residential component of the project should include elements that serve the nearby neighborhoods.
Examples include:
specialty stores and services
food service
entertainment, and
recreational facilities (except that movie theaters, nightclubs, bars/taverns and restaurants serving
alcohol after 11 pm shall be prohibited)
PC 1-57
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page 1-92
As part of this project, the City will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements to account for
predominant pedestrian and bike access. Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered
with mixed use development. Redevelopment plans shall include consideration of improving the existing
complex intersections of Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability of modifying Boysen at and through the
property on the northeast corner of the area, and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connections across Foothill and Santa Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus. Among other possible incentives,
building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development.
The Fire Station will be maintained or relocated within the area.
8.2.2. Upper Monterey
In the Upper Monterey area, the emphasis will be on revitalization and enhancement. The area above
Johnson shall have an emphasis on land use compatibility and neighborhood preservation. The following
actions will be pursued in this area.
A. The City shall investigate adding the Upper Monterey area to the Downtown Parking District, thereby
allowing in-lieu payment towards common parking facilities.
B. The City shall integrate a new Downtown Transit Center in the Upper Monterey area and provide
enhanced connectivity to the center from the Upper Monterey area.
C. The City will work with hotels in the Upper Monterey area to provide shuttle service to the Downtown
and Downtown Transit Center.
D. The City will promote restaurant development in the Upper Monterey area, and include outdoor dining
opportunities and other public activities oriented toward Monterey Street. North of California, these
types of activities shall be prohibited on the creek side of buildings.
E. The City will evaluate reconfiguring Monterey Street in this area to enhance bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity to Downtown and to Cal Poly.
F. The City will work with local hotels and Cal Poly to develop enhanced meeting rooms and conference
facilities. These types of facilities would not be located on the east side of Monterey north of California
Street, nor is a stand-alone conference center appropriate for this area.
G. The City will work with developers to assemble adjacent properties into lots of suitable size for
redevelopment limited to areas southwest of California Street.
H. The City will develop an Upper Monterey area master plan and design guide that will provide guidance
on street enhancements, façade improvement programs, and pedestrian enhancement along Monterey
Street. As part of this effort, the City will investigate the ability to apply form-based codes to guide
future development and will involve residents in adjoining areas as well as business and property owners
along Monterey Street as part of the public review process in development of the master plan/design
guide. Particular attention will be given to creek protection, noise, safety, light and glare, and privacy
impacts to adjoining neighborhoods
PC 1-58
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page 1-93
PROGRAMS
(See also Section 12, Implementation)
8.3. Ordinance 1130
The City will review and update Ordinance 1130 and involve residents to ensure that neighborhood concerns
are addressed.
8.4. Mid-Higuera Area
The City will update the plan for this multi-block commercial area to reflect current needs and changes that
have occurred since the 2001 plan was adopted.
8.5. Caltrans Site
While this area is within the Mid-Higuera Area, the unique qualities and opportunities provided by the site
warranted special consideration in the General Plan. This area is planned for redevelopment from a Caltrans
office and yard complex to a mixed use development. Commercial uses will be as described under the
Tourist Commercial designation with some residential incorporated using a Medium High to High Density
Residential component. Redevelopment plans shall consider the suitability of realignment of the
Madonna/South Higuera intersection. The site should be developed to serve as a gateway into the
community, with consideration of additional open space uses, retention and rehabilitation of the Master List
historic structure, and retention of Heritage Trees on the site. Conference center-type uses are encouraged
along with other appropriate tourist-serving uses as appropriate for the site. Building height adjustments in
this area can also be considered with mixed use development.
The site shall also include a park site north of Madonna Road.
8.6. General Hospital Site
The General Hospital site includes County-owned property including the old hospital building (which is
planned to remain as an office / treatment facility) and lands behind the facility. Lands behind the hospital
building that are inside the City’s Urban Reserve line will be designated as Public (for existing public facility)
and a range of residential uses (Low Density and Medium Density Residential) and will include the ability to
support residential care, transitional care use, and other residential uses consistent with the adjacent areas.
The remaining site outside the City’s Urban Reserve line will remain as Open Space. The City shall seek to
secure permanent protection of the open space outside of the urban reserve line as part of any development
proposal.
The undeveloped portion of this site on the southwest side of Johnson Avenue will remain designated for
Public uses.
8.7. Broad Street Area
The City shall implement the South Broad Street Area Plan to create a safe, attractive and economically vital
neighborhood with a mix of complementary land uses. The Area Plan shall:
A. Encourage innovative design concepts that help revitalize and beautify the area.
B. Facilitate housing development to meet the full range of community housing needs.
C. Improve circulation safety and connectivity within the area and across Broad Street.
PC 1-59
Attachment 5
Chapter 1
Page 1-94
8.8. Madonna Inn Area
The Madonna Inn Area includes land west of Highway 101 on the lower slopes of San Luis Mountain and the
northeast slopes of the foothill bordering Laguna Lake Park.
This area may be developed further only if surrounding hillsides including area outside the Urban Reserve
Line are permanently protected as open space. (See also hillside policies under 6.4 and programs under 6.5.)
A. A development plan for the whole area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided,
or further developed.
B. Upon amendment to an urban designation, the area may accommodate a generously landscaped, low
intensity extension of the existing tourist facilities. This area may also be suitable for assisted and/or
senior living facilities. Development locations should be clustered and building forms should respect the
area's extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and should maintain views of the mountain from
the highway and nearby neighborhoods.
C. The area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained as an open space buffer.
D. Any plan for further development in this area must address reconfiguration of the Marsh Street
interchange and larger circulation issues throughout the area.
E. Walking and biking paths shall be provided as appropriate to connect to the City’s network and to the
Downtown, amenities along Madonna Road, and open space areas.
8.9. Sunset Drive-in Theater / Prado Road Area
This 38-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without significant harm to
San Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated, continued agricultural use and low-intensity
recreational use are appropriate. Any use drawing substantial regional traffic also depends on providing
needed infrastructure at Prado Road, extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road, and realignment
of Elks Lane.
Once flooding, access, and agricultural preservation issues are resolved, the area would be suitable for
development as a mixed use (horizontal or vertical) development with a mix of Commercial uses. Permanent
open space shall be required in order to protect the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek. As part of future
development, a full assessment of the Drive-in Theater site’s potential as a historic resource will need to be
evaluated and addressed. Bicycle connectivity as referenced in the Bicycle Transportation Plan is an
important component of future development of the area.
Property within the area may need to be designed to accommodate the Homeless Services center and/or
transportation agency use.
8.10. Pacific Beach Site
This area is planned for redevelopment from current use as a continuation school, school office and park uses
to commercial retail uses along Los Osos Valley Road and Froom Ranch Road and the remaining site
maintained under a Park designation.
8.11. Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area
These four vacant lots are suitable for commercial mixed use and other uses described under the Tourist
Commercial designations. Portions of the site may be appropriate for use as auto sales, depending on market
demand. Development of this area must address preservation of and transition to the agricultural
parcels/uses to the northwest; connectivity to the Dalidio Ranch area; viewshed preservation; and treatment
as a gateway to the City visible from Highway 101.
PC 1-60
Attachment 5
Land Use Element
Page 1-95
8.12. LOVR Creekside Area
This area is heavily constrained by flood potential along the western boundary as well as limited circulation
access to the site given its proximity to the proposed LOVR / Highway 101 interchange and its limited
frontage on LOVR. Flooding and access issues must be resolved prior to developing Medium High Density
Residential (in areas adjacent to existing residential uses). Agricultural Designations must be maintained
along the west side of site. As part of future development, compatibility with adjacent residential areas to
the east will be required.
Permanent protection of the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek will need to be addressed as part of proposed
development. The south side of the site will also need to accommodate relocation of LOVR right-of-way and
changes related to the planned Highway 101 interchange.
8.13. Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site
Located at the northwest corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, this approximate 10 acre site will be
used as a mixed use site, providing for a mix of uses as described under the Community Commercial and
Office designations. The site will provide a strong commercial presence at the intersection. Areas along the
creek on the western edge of the site will be appropriately buffered to provide creek protections. Attention
to connectivity, safety and comfort of bicycle and pedestrian circulation will be especially important in the
development of this corner.
8.14. CalFire /Cal Poly-owned property on Highway 1
The Cal Poly Master Plan currently designates this area for Faculty and Staff housing. The City shall
collaborate with Cal Poly in updating the Master Plan for development of campus property. Master Plan
direction for this property shall address sensitive visual and habitat resources, circulation issues, impacts to
City services, transition and potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
8.15. North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll)
Future development of this area shall address open space requirements under Policy 1.13.8 and open space
buffers in accordance with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.3.2. This area shall be subject to
Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access, and
transition to existing neighborhoods. The steep hillside should be dedicated as Open Space and residential
lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to Foothill. Development shall provide a parking lot and trail
access to Bishops Peak. Circulation connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive as feasible. Density
shall be limited to 7 units / acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance.
8.16. Alrita Properties
Future development of this area shall address hillside planning requirements under Policy 6.4.7C. This area
shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection;
circulation and access; visual impacts, and transition to existing neighborhoods. Additional analysis will need
to occur in the LUCE EIR to evaluate potential water service issues. While there is a pump station nearby,
more analysis is needed to determine if the City’s water distribution system can adequately serve
development in this area. Density shall be limited to 7 units/acre as modified for slope under the Zoning
Ordinance.
PC 1-61
Attachment 5
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Meeting Date: December 9, 2015
Item Number: 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: A determination of whether the disposition and acquisition of property bordering a
parcel at 2881 Broad Street Drive is in conformance with the City's General Plan
ADDRESS: 2881 Broad Street BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE: SUBDV-1988-2015 Phone: 781-7593
e-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Tyler Corey,Interim Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1), finding that the proposed property
exchange is consistent with General Plan goals and policies.
SUMMARY
Applicant California Coastal Investments,
LLC
Representative Dustin Piers
Application Filed October 29, 2015
Deemed Complete (pending)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Zoning Medium-Density Residential,
Special Considerations (R-2-S)
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
CEQA Review (§ 15312-Surplus
Property Sales)
An application has been filed for the subdivision of one parcel, located between Stoneridge
Drive and Perkins Lane, west of Broad Street, into four lots for single-family residential
development. The parcel is somewhat irregular in shape, and is adjacent to a City-owned lot that
runs along the southerly side of Stoneridge Drive (“Lot A”, as shown in Attachment 4). The
boundary between the subject parcel and City lot travels diagonally at an angle to Stoneridge.
The applicant wishes to obtain the property from the City in order to align the property boundary
with Stoneridge Drive and to make the subject parcel more regular in shape. In exchange, the
applicant would offer a portion of the subject parcel, along with certain public improvements, to
the City to be incorporated into the public right-of-way along Perkins Lane.
PC2 - 1
SUBDV-1988-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 2
COMMISSION PURVIEW
Pursuant to Government Code § 65402, the Planning Commission will consider the disposition
and acquisition of property as to conformity with the City’s General Plan. The determination of
the Commission will be forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation on the exchange of
a portion the City-owned lot along Stoneridge Drive for property and improvements along
Perkins Lane.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information and Setting
The project site is a gently sloping parcel west of Broad Street and south of Stoneridge Drive. It
is located in a Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Zone. The immediate area is characterized by
commercial and residential development along Broad Street to the north, south, and east, and by
lower-density residential development to the west, along Stoneridge Drive. It was previously
developed with a single-family house that was recently demolished.
Natural features are limited to several trees on the site. The north side of the site includes
extensive shrub growth behind a retaining wall, with several tall palm trees in front of the wall,
framing the entry to the Stoneridge development. A residential development sign advertising the
Stoneridge development is installed at the corner of Broad and Stoneridge. The landscaping,
trees, and sign for the entry to the Stoneridge subdivision are all contained on City-owned
“Lot A” with the Stoneridge Homeowner Association responsible for maintenance of the
landscaping and the sign.
Minor Subdivision
The subject parcel is proposed to be subdivided with a parcel map into four smaller parcels, as a
minor subdivision (Subdivision Regulations § 16.08.010). It has been proposed as a Common
Interest Subdivision (Sub. Regs. Ch. 16.17) wherein three of the four resulting parcels share a
common driveway within an easement area. An application for architectural review of four
single-family residences has also been submitted in conjunction with this application. The
subdivision application will be decided by the Subdivision Hearing Officer, as provided in
Subdivision Regulations § 16.04.030(A.1).
Figure 1: South side of Stoneridge at Broad, including sign and wall
PC2 - 2
SUBDV-1988-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 3
Property Exchange
“Lot A” measures 3,956 square feet in area and is situated between the subject parcel (to be
subdivided) and Stoneridge Drive. It was created by Tract 1150 (Stoneridge I), approved in
1986. It is a remnant non-buildable parcel that resulted from the need to align Stoneridge Drive
perpendicular to Broad Street where they intersect. As the remnant was well outside the area
needed for additional right-of-way, the developer of Stoneridge agreed to dedicate this extra land
in fee to the City, with the intent that it be included with future development south of Stoneridge.
The proposed exchange would transfer ownership
of a portion of Lot A to the owner of the parcel at
2881 Broad Street, with a strip of land retained by
the City for future widening of Stoneridge Drive.
In return, the property owner would dedicate a
portion of the parcel at 2881 Broad running along
Perkins Lane, with improvements, to the City for
use as public right-of-way.
EVALUATION
In considering conformity to the General Plan, evaluation is focused on the policies of the Land
Use Element and the goals and policies of the Circulation Element as they apply to any need the
City may have for Lot A in providing adequate vehicle and pedestrian circulation.
Land Use Element (LUE)
Neighborhood Connections: There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of
adequate width [...] to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City
(§ 2.2.4).
Compatible Development: New development shall match the typical range of
setbacks used in areas adjacent to the project (§ 2.3.9(A))
Table 1: Property Exchange
Lot A (Stoneridge)
Original Size 3,956 sq. ft.
Portion to owner 2,213 sq. ft.
Portion retained 1,743 sq. ft.
Offer to City (Perkins) 3,633 sq. ft.
Figure 2: Configuration before (left) and after (right) proposed exchange
PC2 - 3
SUBDV-1988-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 4
The proposed property exchange results in a parcel with a more regular and rectilinear shape,
whose boundary more closely conforms to the neighborhood pattern. This allows for setbacks
that more closely match those provided on the adjacent property. The property offered to the City
along Perkins will be improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, enhancing the street and
extending pedestrian network along the property frontage.
The subject site will be developed for medium-density residential use in conformance to the use
and density limitations associated with its designation in the General Plan for Medium Density
Land Use. The layout and configuration of lots and the location and arrangement of structures on
the property will be evaluated through the City’s subdivision and architectural review process for
consistency with applicable regulations, policies, and guidelines set forth in the City’s General
Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines.
Circulation Element
Stoneridge Drive and Perkins Lane are classified as Local Streets in Figure 1 (Streets Classification
Diagram) of the Circulation Element. The site will be developed for medium-density residential use,
and the adequacy of the circulation network in providing safe and efficient circulation for this type
of development has been evaluated in the General Plan.
Sidewalks and Paths: The City should complete a continuous pedestrian network
connecting residential areas with major activity centers… (§ 5.1.2)
Complete Streets: The City shall design and operate City streets to enable safe,
comfortable, and convenient access and travel for users of all abilities including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists.
The proposed property exchange would enhance the City’s goals for safe and efficient circulation in
that it includes improvement of Perkins Lane with sidewalk, curbs, and gutters. Disposition of
Lot A would not conflict with circulation goals because most of it is not needed for street purposes.
A portion of the lot will, however, be retained by the City to allow for the future development of a
“right-turn pocket” leading to Broad Street, should the need arise.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The proposed property exchange has been reviewed by several City departments (Fire, Public
Works, and Utilities). Review of the subdivision and architectural review applications by these
departments is ongoing; however, they have identified no inconsistency between the proposed
property exchange and relevant General Plan goals and policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) because it involves the disposition of surplus property, as described in § 15312 of
the CEQA Guidelines.
PC2 - 4
SUBDV-1988-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
1. Find that the disposition of Lot A or acquisition of property offered by the owner of 2881
Broad conflicts with General Plan goals or policies, and recommend to the City Council
that they do not approve the proposed property exchange.
2. Continue consideration of a determination of General Plan consistency to a future date,
with specific direction to staff and the project applicant on pertinent issues or necessary
information.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Assessor Parcel Map depicting “Lot A”
4. Map of Tract 1150
5. Exhibit - Property disposition and acquisition
6. Aerial photograph
PC2 - 5
RESOLUTION NO. PC-####-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DETERMINING THAT DISPOSITION OF A PORTION OF A CITY-OWNED LOT
AT THE SOUTHERLY EDGE OF STONERIDGE DRIVE AND ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY ALONG THE NORTHERLY EDGE OF PERKINS LANE, ADJACENT TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2881 BROAD STREET IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN (SUBDV-1988-2015)
WHEREAS, California law requires a local planning agency to report on the location,
purpose, and extent of an acquisition or disposition of real property as to conformity with an
adopted General Plan; and
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 December 9, 2015, to consider the disposition and acquisition of property as part
of a proposed minor subdivision, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application SUBDV-
1988-2015, California Coastal Investments, LLC, applicant; 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. Acquisition of property adjacent to Perkins Lane will enhance the pedestrian
network by extending new sidewalk facilities of an appropriate width, which will
provide a better connection between residential neighborhoods to activity centers
along Broad Street.
2. Acquisition of property adjacent to Perkins Lane will facilitate development that
matches the setbacks used along Perkins Lane by aligning the right-of-way and
associated public improvements along the subject property with that of the
adjacent property.
3. The proposed disposition and acquisition of property enhances the safety,
comfort, and convenience of access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
users, and motorists by enabling the construction of improved street and sidewalk
ATTACHMENT 1
PC2 - 6
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 2
SUBDV-1998-2015 (2881 Broad)
facilities along Perkins Lane and by retaining sufficient property along Stoneridge
Drive to accommodate a future “right-turn pocket” leading to Broad Street.
4. The property proposed to be disposed of is not required for streets or other public
right-of-way, and sufficient property is retained by the City adjacent to Stoneridge
Drive to provide for street widening that may be needed in the future to meet
circulation goals set forth in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is a Minor Land Division,
as described in §15315 of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Action. The Commission hereby determines that the disposition of
property along the southerly edge of Stoneridge Drive, west of Broad Street and the acquisition
of property along the northerly edge of Perkins Lane, west of Broad Street, conforms to
applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9th day of December, 2015.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
PC2 - 7
R-2-S
R-2-S
R-1
C-R-SF
R-2
R-1
R-1-PD
R-2 R-3-PD
C-S-SF
C-R-SF
C-S-S
C-R-SF
R-2-S
C-S-SF
R-1-PD
C-R-SF
C-S-PD
C-R-SF
B
R
O
A
D
PERKIN
S
STONE
R
I
D
G
E
VICINITY MAP SBDV-1988-20152881 Broad Street ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
PC2 - 8
ATTACHMENT 3
PC2 - 9
ATTACHMENT 4
PC2 - 10
ATTACHMENT 5
PC2 - 11
med dens res
genl retaillow dens res
serv man
serv man
serv man
B
R
O
A
D
PERK
I
N
S
STON
E
R
I
D
G
E
MUTS
U
H
I
T
O
R-2-S
R-2-S
R-1 R-2
C-R-SF
R-1-PD
C-R-SF
C-R-SF
C-S-SF
R-1-PD
C-S-SF
C-S-PD
635
639
643
670
631
630
630
647
698
636
646
651
683
630
630
646
646
667
679
675
671
663
659
655
660
638
2845
2871
29592959
2916
2800
2959
2881
2903
2900
2900
2959
2907
2911
2912
2916
2875
2845 1/2
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
6
PC
2
-
12
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 28, 2015
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze (arrived at 7:45),
John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Vice -Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
Absent: William Riggs
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Interim Deputy
Director Tyler Corey, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning
Xzandrea Fowler, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell , Senior Planner Brian
Leveille, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Traffic Operation Manager Jake
Hudson, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording
Secretary Sarah Reinhart
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted.
MINUTES:
Minutes of September 23, 2015 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 2390 Loomis Street and 48 Buena Vista Avenue. USE-1520-2015; Review of a
new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S overlay
zone that includes a height exception and a setback exception, with a
categorical exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction); R-1-S
zone; Lee J. Kraft, ETUX, applicant.
Chair Larson noted public correspondence received regarding this project.
Commissioner. Dandekar stated she visited the site prior to the hearing.
Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the
project to develop a single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in
the S-overlay zone that includes height and setback exceptions with a categorical
exemption from environmental review, based on findings and subject to conditions
which he outlined.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Applicant Jeff Kraft, San Luis Obispo, provided an overview of the changes made to the
plans based on the input received at the prior hearing, including the elimination of the
lower level, and a reduction to the upper deck; stated this home is a lifelong dream and
he intends on residing at the property; clarified that in the short-term, the SDU will serve
as an extra room for family and guests and eventually for live-in care; noted the home is
simple, not too big and not out of scale, and will not be used as a student rental;
proposed adding sidewalks with a rolled curb to help increase pedestrian and animal
safety. The applicant also proposed adding speed bumps to help calm traffic, noted that
the Fire Department would possibly allow on street parking if they remove the 12-inch
curb; pointed out that the property will be screened with landscape including oak trees
and it will blend in with the open space.
Mr. Kraft compared “Dead Man’s Curve”, which serves 5 homes with a similar curve in
the area, which connects to over 40 properties, citing that police records don’t indicate
traffic accidents on “Dead Man’s Curve” and does not believe the curve will be an issue.
Robin Rumus, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project, noted being
disappointed that no action had been taken at the previous hearing; shared concerns
over the impact this project would have on the animals, cyclists, hikers and residents in
the area surrounding “Dead Man’s Curve”; stated that her neighbors all share her
sentiments and do not want this project to move forward.
Shirley Ready, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project; stated that although
some of her concerns had been addressed she opposed granting exceptions; voiced
concerns over the secondary dwelling potentially being used as a rental; noted
disapproval over disrupting the scenic views of the hillside; suggested the home be built
on Loomis without special exceptions.
Naomi Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, neighbor to the property, voiced concerns with the
double functions within the property, the size being too large and out of scale, design
being too modern, and potential parking issues; stated that planting oak trees was not
going to help mitigate the visibility of the property because it takes years for them to
grow. She asked questions regarding building materials, site constraints and noise
mitigation measures.
Mark Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, stated not having a
valid explanation as to why an owner occupied single family home needs two kitchens
and multiple laundry areas; voiced concerns regarding lack of parking; pointed out that
he has been driving on that road 20 plus years and believes street parking would not be
feasible given the narrowness of the street and the location of the curve; voiced
opposition to adding speed bumps and sees those as an inconvenience to the current
residents and another exemption for the applicant.
Robert Karger, San Luis Obispo, neighbor to the property, voiced concerns over two
dangerous blind curves near the project site; stated having been in a collision with a
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 3
bicyclist on one of the other curves; noted that many people, including Cal Poly students
use the nearby streets to hike, bike and skateboard; expressed opposition to adding
speed bumps; urged the Commission to not grant approval for this property.
Pam Orth, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project; asked why six parking
spaces would be needed; opined that a sidewalk or a rolled curb would not be feasible
given the narrowness of the street.
Bill Carlkin, San Luis Obispo, neighbor to the property; spoke in opposition to the
project; noted sending a memo to the Commission; stressed the importance of
protecting views from Highway 101; stated that according to the general plan the cost to
the developer should not be considered in making decision s; advised against any
construction that would ruin views of a potential scenic highway.
Linda White, San Luis Obispo, commended City staff for sending out hearing notices
sooner and for implementing the new communication feature on the website. Spoke in
opposition to the project; noted that allowing street parking would limit emergency
vehicle access to the area. Stated that pedestrians, skateboarders and people who go
up to watch the view could be negatively impacted; noted that cost to the developer
should not be considered in reaching a decision; opined that the home should be built
without exceptions and recommended the home to be built with access from Loomis.
Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over the community being in peril;
stated feeling apprehensive about the project because there is too much planned for
one lot; shared concerns over the location and dangerous road conditions; urged the
Commission to carefully consider these factors in making a decision.
Elizabeth Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over the proposed residence
obstructing the views and the secondary dwelling potentially becoming student housing;
urged the Commission to not grant any exemptions.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, member of “Protect Scenic 101” noted that the
government is considering labeling the 101 freeway from Atascadero to Pismo Beach a
“scenic road”; stated the importance of protecting scenic views; urged the Commission
to require an independent study of potential impacts to the view shed; advised against
granting height exceptions; suggested adding a hipped roof to help mimic the curvature
of the hill; asked the Commission to determine how much grading is allowed for this
site.
Pat Dellario, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, voiced objection to the
roof top deck, and stated the project is inconsistent with the community.
Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, stated that based on current zoning regulations the
property must be owner occupied; suggested adding a covenant agreement that would
authorize yearly inspections in order to help ease the idea that this property will become
a student rental; voiced opposition to the roof deck and stated that the roof deck should
not be used as livable space.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 4
Suki Mason, San Luis Obispo, neighbor to the property, spoke in opposition of the
project; stated almost been run over near “Dead-Man’s Curve” twice; indicated the
curve is very dangerous; recommended the applicant access his driveway from Loomis
in order to avoid accidents.
Camil le Sorrant, San Luis Obispo, City Planning Student, stated that most students are
good and respectful people; noted that most likely students would not be able to afford
to live in the proposed property.
Applicant Jeff Kraft, offered closing comments; stated he could not build on Loomis
because his property does not abut Loomis; doubted that a grading permit would ever
be granted for Loomis due to the steepness of the lot; indicated changes to the plans,
stressing the fact that his home would be small a nd not used as student housing; stated
he followed guidelines as if the 101 freeway were a scenic corridor; noted being in favor
of establishing a covenant agreement on the SDU.
Mr. Kraft explained that there would be sufficient parking spots, four in the driveway and
two in the garage; noted that additional street parking and sidewalk could take away the
danger to pedestrians; clarified that the home has two stories, with two kitchens, two
laundry areas and a space for an elevator to help with the transition to old age.
City Civil Engineer Hal Hannula answered Commissioner inquiries regarding future
sidewalks in the subdivision, noting that the sidewalk is not a condition of approval;
spoke on the viability of on-street parking, and speed bumps, noting that the Fire
Department has only committed to on-street parking during construction; stated the idea
of speed bumps had not been fully vetted.
In response to Chair Larson, Mr. Kraft pointed out that aside from a small 4 foot egress,
all of the grading is within the building footprint.
Chair Larson clarified that the Applicant’s proposals for adding a sidewalk, speed
bumps and rolled curb are not components of this project but serve as an indication that
the Applicant is willing to add them, if the City decides they are appropriate.
In response to Commissioner. Malak, Mr. Kraft stated that even if his property did in fact
reach Loomis he would not attempt to build there due to steep grading, lack of sewer
system, and stated that Hillside Guidelines would likely not allow for a home to be built
on Loomis.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to Vice-Chair Multari, Assistant Planner Bell stated the project requires
architectural review.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 5
Traffic Operation Manager, Jake Hudson reviewed the methods used to evaluate traffic
safety, citing conditions 12 and 16. He pointed out that requests for on-street parking
had not been fully vetted.
In response to inquiries from the Commission, Traffic Operation Manager Hudson
stated the driveway would require unobstructed site lines to oncoming traffic and it
would have to comply with design standards; clarified that the rolled curb sidewalk was
a suggestion from the Applicant and not a condition for approval.
Vice-Chair Multari recommended denying the project, stated being unable to make the
finding that this would not be detrimental to the safety and welfare of the people living in
the residence; cited issues with the number of people likely to live in the home, the
steep dead-end road, lack of on-street parking, narrowness of the road, and lack of
pedestrian sidewalks with connectivity as reasons for not being able to make the
finding. Also, voiced concerns with the use of the rooftop deck space.
Commissioner Malak, stated that the five homes existing in the area do not create
substantial traffic, shared concerns over the roof deck; stated Loomis is not a good
access point; opined the size of the home is small and the views from the 101 freeway
do not seem offensive; does not believe this property would be used as a student rental;
stated being unable to find a legal reason within City ordinances to deny this project.
City Attorney Ansolabehere clarified that the way regulations are implemented the
project cannot be denied because of having a Secondary Dwelling Unit but rather
because it does not conform as a whole within the R-1-S zone considerations. Stating
the “S” overlay looks at the project as a whole.
In response to inquiry from Commissioner Dandekar, Interim Deputy Director Tyler
Corey, clarified that given the interest and nature of this project the Architectural
Review would likely be elevated to the full Architectural Review Commission pending
the approval of the project.
Commissioner Dandekar shared concerns over the City forgoing the right to add a
sidewalk at this time; commented the house is heading in the right direction and
appreciated the fact that the lower floor had been removed.
Chair Larson, thanked staff, Mr. Kraft and members of the public; stated the exceptions
to property development standards are minor and found them appropriate given the
steepness of the topography, noted not seeing a sensible way to get access from
Loomis; voiced concerns over the rooftop deck; noted the need for making the
necessary findings to approve the Special Consideration Overlay Zone; indicated the
first finding would be to ensure the project would not be detrimental to the health, safety
and welfare of the persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. Commented that
the geometry of the street, and the intensity of the proposed house would be important
factors to consider; stated the visual impact of the house did not rise to a significant
level to grant a denial of the project.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 6
Commissioner Fowler, stated not being concerned with height and set back exceptions,
suggested the project could not be denied based on disliking the architectural design;
cited concurring with Chair Larson regarding the “S” overlay; noted the importance of
considering the scenic view; stated the home is too large given the amount of potential
cars and additional problems that it could create; noted he would not support Staff’s
recommendations to uphold this project based on the “S” overlay and the health, safety
and welfare of the persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.
Commissioner Draze, noted not having an issue with the height exception because it
would not impact neighbors; opined the lot should had never been created because the
location is too steep and problematic; voiced concerns with the lack of on street parking
and the potential noise from the roof deck; suggested that if this project were to get
approved he would favor adding strong language to address concerns regarding the
roof deck; stated the main safety issue is the street; indicated not finding a good reason
to deny the project.
Commissioner Malak, stated that Mr. Kraft modified his plans and had gone above and
beyond to satisfy the safety requirement of the “S” overlay; stated being in favor of
supporting the project with added language to address concerns regarding the rooftop
deck.
Commissioner Dandekar, concurred with Commissioner Draze in thinking the lot should
have never been created; opined the house is very visible because it is not built into the
hillside; voiced concerns over the roof deck; expressed a desire for the roof deck and
stairway to be removed all together and suggested the Architectural Review
Commission should look into how to make the home recess into the hillside; noted
concerns over the home resting on tall stilts without foliage around it; indicated it would
be difficult to find a reason to deny the project because it meets the requirements.
Commissioner Draze, concurred that the density is more than it should be on this kind
of lot.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Fowler. to deny Staff’s
recommendation, based on a finding that the project will be detrimental to the health,
safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.
AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Vice-Chair Multari, Chair
Larson
NOES: Commissioner Malak
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Riggs
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
2. 850 Fiero Lane. (Item Removed from Agenda) ANNX-1166-2015: Initiation of a
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 7
proposed annexation of approximately 40 acres of property along Fiero Lane and
Clarion Court. Project includes review of a Memorandum of Agreement for interim
water and sewer service, an Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 for
service to outside users, and authorization of an outside user agreement
application submittal to the Local Agency Formation Commission. Project includes
an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plans; Airport zone; Fiero Lane Water Co., applicant.
3. 1035 Madonna Road. ANNX-1502-2015; Public scoping meeting to discuss the
workscope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the San
Luis Ranch Project located at the intersection of Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive;
Dalidio & Laguna zones; San Luis Ranch, LLC, applicant.
Chair Larson, recused himself from this item due to a business conflict and left the
Council Chamber at 8:41p.m.
Contract Planner, John Rickenbach, provided an overview of the project and presented
the workscope of the Environmental Impact Report currently being prepared.
Richard Daulton, from Rincon Consultants provided an overview of the California
Environmental Quality Act in relation to this project.
In response to inquiries from Commissioner Fowler, Contract Planner Rickenbach and
Consultant Daulton clarified that a previous programmatic EIR was conducted, noting
the new EIR will look at the current environmental impacts; stated the EIR will build from
the LUCE EIR. They indicated that the EIR would take into consideration traffic, airport
overlay, safety and noise.
In response to inquiry from Commissioner Dandekar, Contract Planner Rickenbach
stated the purpose of the EIR is to provide information, to examine alternatives, and to
provide a body of information that will allow the decision makers to make
recommendations.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Rachel Kovesdi, Applicant Representative, noted a desire for a transparent process with
community, city and stakeholder involvement. Clarified that the incorrect performance
table was included within the initial study and asked for the table to be replaced; pointed
out that while the LUCE identified some class 1 significant impacts city wide, and
preliminary project specific traffic analyses have been done, that do not show a decline
in levels of service. Stated that it is critical for the EIR to identify and analyze the level of
service impact and vehicles miles traveled methodologies; noted that City water supply
availability study was conducted less than a year prior to the LUCE EIR.
Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, stated being passionate about smart growth;
voiced concerns regarding lack of water for this project, the amount of construction, and
lack of affordable housing. Asked for the amount of homes planned to be revisited;
requested for a transportation analysis to be done and to look into Prado Road. Shared
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 8
concerns regarding transportation impacts for Laguna Lake residents, and for
emergency services; noted the noise and fume emissions should be a part of this study;
suggested that the road infrastructure should be paid by the developer; asked for a
class one bike path to connect to Laguna Lake Park. Stated writing a letter to President
Armstrong and Gary Grossman about a plan to switch land in order to keep this land for
agricultural uses and to develop in the Cal Poly land, stating this would be a win-win
scenario for both.
William Vega, San Luis Obispo, owner of a tourism start-up, spoke in support of the
project; suggested covering up the industrial area with a nice façade that would protect
the small town feel when they are coming into the city.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of new construction; stating new
homes are built with environmentally friendly features that save water and electricity,
noting lawns could also be restricted to include draught resistant landscaping.
Maysun Wells, resident of the Laguna Lake neighborhood, voiced concerns over traffic;
asked question regarding how traffic would be analyzed; suggested potential flooding
should be evaluated as part of the EIR; expressed a desire for the eucalyptus trees in
the area to remain untouched.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Malak, requested for staff to pay special consideration to billboard
removal, and solar power; advised to include water retention measures.
In response to inquiry from Commissioner Dandekar, Community Development Director
Codron, clarified the planning schedule for the project and noted that it will come to the
Planning Commission for a conceptual review in early 2016. Stated that at this point
there is not a lot of information on the types of housing that will be provided, noting that
the proposal is generated by the property owner and will be reviewed to reflect the type
of housing and the scale indicated in the general plan.
Commissioner Dandekar, noted concerns with mix and configuration of the residential
homes in the plans, and asked if alternative configurations would be considered.
Contract Planner, Rickenbach clarified the EIR is not a design document but a guidance
document.
Vice-Chair Multari, recommended special attention should be given to housing element
policies.
Commissioner Draze, noted that alternative proposals in the EIR guide the decisions;
suggested that at least one of the alternative proposals needs to address housing
issues. Stated this is a fresh project, and looks forward to seeing what comes out of the
environmental document.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 9
In response to inquiry from Commissioner Fowler, Contract Planner Rickenbach stated
the purpose of an EIR is to provide information, and noted the importance of framing
alternatives so there is flexibility in the ultimate design.
Community Development Codron, noted that the consultants working on this project
have an understanding of the City’s standards and goals in regards to policy and
housing objectives, stating that the single family homes are going to be on small lots,
and there will be several transportation and affordable housing options. Reiterated that
there will be an opportunity for the Commission to review the plan in the future.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
Chair Larson returned to the council chambers and rejoined the Commission at 9:46
p.m.
4. Cal Poly State University (1 Grand Avenue). GENP-2088-2015: Review of draft
Land use concepts for the Cal Poly Master Plan Update; Cal Poly State University,
Linda Dalton, representative.
Vice-Chair Multari, and Commissioner Dandekar recused from this item due to conflict
of interests and left the council chambers at 9:47 p.m.
Senior Planner Brian Leveille, presented the staff report, recommending City Council
input to Cal Poly for consideration in their Master Plan Update Process, based on
findings and subject to conditions, which he outlined.
Commissioner Malak, indicated a letter was received from Mr. Smythe stating that
faculty housing near Highland Avenue is now being sold to the general Public, and is
being used for student rentals.
Linda Dalton, University Planning Officer at Cal Poly State University, clarified the
homes mentioned by Commissioner Malak, were in fact meant to provide affordable
housing to faculty and staff, and priority is given to them on a hierarchical level with
members of the Public being at the very bottom of the list; specified that the land
remains “state land”, and the units must be owner occupied. Stressed the fact that the
current proposal is a land use plan, not a development proposal; anticipates market
studies and more analysis will be done to determine how new faculty housing will be
sold.
Commissioner Malak requested consideration to ensure that only staff and faculty are
able to buy these homes.
In response to Commissioner Fowler’s inquiry regarding collaboration between Cal Poly
and the City of San Luis Obispo, Senior Planner Leveille, noted that more collaboration
has been recommended to council.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 10
Commissioner Fowler suggested more opportunities for the Community to experience
Cal Poly.
Commissioner Draze suggested more on-campus activities, eating establishments and
services should be provided to students.
In response to Commissioner Draze, Ms. Dalton clarified that Greek and other specialty
housing is being proposed on campus.
Commissioner Draze, recommended taking a look at the top priority being “sufficient
land”, opined it would make more sense to change the priority to “appropriate location of
uses” given that Cal Poly has the biggest university campus.
Julie Moloney, Campus Planner at California Polytechnic State University spoke
regarding the water reclamation plant; stating this would be a small scale treatment
facility and it would be used as a learning opportunity for science students and another
way to re-use campus water.
Chair Larson, suggested changing the phrasing of recommendation #6; indicated it is
difficult to identify and mitigate impacts related to traffic in isolated special events as it
relates to CEQA; clarified his comment is not an instruction to drop reference of
mitigation but rather suggested there might be a more articulate way to present this.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to adopt
recommendation as noted in the attached resolution with the inclusion of the comments
made by the Commission.
AYES: Commissioners Draze, Fowler, Malak, and Chair Larson
NOES: None
RECUSED: Vice-Chair Multari, and Commissioner Dandekar
ABSENT: Commissioner Riggs
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
1. Staff
Community Development Director Codron introduced and welcomed Xzandrea
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2015
Page 11
Fowler, as the new Deputy Director of Long Range Planning.
a. Agenda Forecast
Chair Larson noted the agenda forecast would be sent via email.
2. Commission
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:35.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sarah Reinhart
Recording Secretary