HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-16 ARC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Architectural Review Commission
Monday, December 5, 2016
5:00 pm
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Wynn
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Brian Rolph, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll,
Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: At this time, the general public is invited to speak before the
Commission on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission that
does not appear on this agenda. Although the Commission will not take action on any item
presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a
future agenda for formal discussion.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: Any court challenge to the actions 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. If you wish to speak,
please give your name and address for the record.
1. 22 Chorro Street. ARCH-2794-2016; Architectural review of a new four-story mixed-use
project that includes ground floor commercial/retail space, 27 residential units and mechanical
parking lifts, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-C-SF zone; San
Luis Obispo Development Group, LLC, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Agenda Forecast
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of December 5, 2016 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Architectural Review Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday,
December 19, 2016 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
APPEALS
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the 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 $281
and must accompany the appeal documentation.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s
Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications
Device for the Deaf (805)781-7107.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2016
Item Number: 1
2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Design review of a new four-story mixed-use project that includes ground floor
commercial/retail space, 27 residential units and mechanical parking lifts.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 22 Chorro Street BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2794-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant San Luis Development Group, LLC
Representative Thom Jess, Architect
Submittal Date March 10, 2016
Complete Date June 20, 2016
Zoning C-C-SF, Community Commercial
with a Special Focus Overlay
General Plan Commercial
Site Area .55 acres (24,033 s.f.) (3 parcels)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under
Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a new four-story mixed-use project with 1,600 square feet of
ground floor commercial/retail space and 27 residential units, 118 bicycle parking spaces and 33 vehicle
parking spaces that utilize mechanical parking lifts. The project is zoned Community Commercial (C-
C) and located within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area. A Use Permit (USE-
2882-2016) was approved by the City Council on October 18, 2016 that allows a maximum height of
43-feet (where normally 35 feet is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of mechanical parking
lifts.
ARC1 - 1
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant initially submitted their project on March 10, 2016. During the course of review, staff
provided feedback to the applicant regarding their proposal. The original proposal included a structure
with a height of 50 feet, a parking layout that did not comply with City standards, and the project design
was inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines. The applicant responded by reducing the
height 7 feet to a maximum height of 43 feet, redesigning the parking to meet City standards and
redesigned the project with new colors, materials and articulation.
On August 24, 2016 the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed project and voted to deny
the project based on various findings relating to impacts to the health, safety and welfare due to the
height of the development and lack of on-site parking.
On August 31, 2016, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the project. The City Council
reviewed the appeal on October 18, 2016 and voted 4:1 to uphold the appeal and approve the project
(Attachment 5, City Council Final Resolution). The Use Permit (USE-2882-2016) allows a maximum
height of 43-feet (where normally 35 feet is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of mechanical
parking lifts. After the vote, the City Council briefly discussed the architecture and design of the project.
Comments were focused on the roof top deck and concerns of overlook/privacy and noise and the
outdoor patio at the corner of Chorro and Foothill and its nearness to the intersection. The applicant
made minor changes in response to the Council’s comments and these are provided with additional
information in Section 4.7 below for ARC discussion.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
Zoning C-C-SF (Community Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay)
Site Size 0.55 acres (24,033 s.f.)
Present Use & Development Vacant
Topography Flat
Access Chorro Street and Foothill Blvd
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-R-SF (University Square Shopping Center)
South: R-1 (Single family residences)
East: C-C-SF (G. Brothers Restaurant)
West: C-C-SF & R-1 (Jamba Juice, Starbucks, Single family residences)
3.2 Project Description
The project proposes to construct a new four-story mixed-use project with:
1,600 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space;
27 residential units (23 two-bedrooms and 4 studios restricted for very-low income households);
A 40% shared/mixed-use/bicycle parking reduction to reduce the required parking from 55
parking spaces to 33 parking spaces;
ARC1 - 2
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 3
113 bicycle parking spaces (80 long-term and 33 short-term); and
A landscape plan that includes 10 new street trees and new trees and shrubs along the south
border of the parcel (Attachment 3, Project Plans).
The project includes various materials including wood grain Italian walnut finished Trespa (high-
pressure laminate) panels, vertical metal siding (corrugated metal), ceramic tiles, smooth stucco, metal
trellises, canopies and awnings, and aluminum clad windows. Colors include blue, gray, and white (see
Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A6.0).
3.3 Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setback
Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet
Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 10 feet 5 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 43 feet 35 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 72% 75%
Density Units (DU) 25 DU 18 DU
Parking Spaces
Vehicle 33 55
Bicycle (long-term) 80 58
Bicycle (short-term) 33 5
Notes:
1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 5/20/2016
2. Zoning Regulations
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project is a mixed-use project that includes both commercial and residential spaces within the
Community Commercial (C-C) zone. The Community Design Guidelines (CDG) do not specifically
Figure 1: Perspective view of the project looking southeast from Foothill Blvd.
ARC1 - 3
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 4
discuss design objectives for mixed-use projects. As such, staff reviewed the project using design
guidelines for commercial projects since the project is located within a commercial zone, but also looked
to multi-family project design for residential building characteristics.
4.1 Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed architecture of the project is unique and not a “canned” or “trademark” building design.1
The CDG discuss that new designs should incorporate elements of the surrounding neighborhood
character without duplicating it, stating that it is important for each site to both maintain its own identity
and be complementary to its surroundings. Thus, a new building can be unique and interesting and still
show respect for and compatibility with the architectural styles and scale of other buildings in its
vicinity.2 The project includes four-sided architecture that uses a mix of traditional exterior materials
such as smooth finished stucco and tile and contemporary materials such as corrugated/vertical metal
siding and Italian walnut finished Trespa siding. The surrounding structures in the neighborhood include
the use of stucco, CMU blocks, cement, composite siding, and glass. The proposed project contains
similar materials and architectural features that have been included in the renovation of University
Square and Foothill Plaza including the use of metal awnings and canopies and composite siding. The
proposed colors also complement the surrounding colors of the neighborhood.
4.2 Design Consistency
The CDG Chapter 3, section B(3) states designs should demonstrate a consistent use of colors, materials,
and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. Elevations which do not directly face a street
should not be ignored or receive only minimal architectural treatment. Each building should look like
the same building from all sides. The project provides four-sided architectural and maintains consistent
use of materials and colors (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A3.0-A3.3).
4.3 Form and Mass
The CDG state that a building’s design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion.
Horizontal and vertical wall articulation should be expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed
windows and entries, awnings, full roofs with overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered arcades.3
The proposed mixed-use project has a maximum height of 43 feet and is taller than the surrounding
structures in the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood contains a range of single and two-story
residential buildings and commercial structures. The project places the tallest portion of the structure
along Foothill Boulevard and a lower height of approximately 33 feet closest to the nearest single family
residence as shown in Figure 2 (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A4.0). The mass of the proposed
project is setback 15 feet from the adjacent residential project. Stairs that access the building are setback
10 feet. Figure 2 also illustrates that the front façade of the structure steps away from Foothill Boulevard
1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(1): Architectural style. No particular architectural style or design theme is
required in the City nor can San Luis Obispo be defined by any particular architectural style. A wide range of architectural
characteristics adds to the City’s overall image. While variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new
projects with the existing built environment should be a priority. The goal is to preserve not only the historic flavor of th e
community but, equally important, its scale and ambience. “Canned” or “trademark” building designs used by franchised
businesses in other cities may not be acceptable in San Luis Obispo, as they can collectively have the effect of making the
commercial areas of the City look like anywhere in California.
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(2). Neighborhood compatibility.
3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(4). Form and mass.
ARC1 - 4
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 5
as the building reaches its maximum height. This is consistent with the design standards for multi-family
structures which states structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor
level and/or upper levels (stepped-down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent
properties or visually dominate the neighborhood.4 The project incorporates vertical and horizontal wall
articulation through changes in wall off-sets and materials. The first floor entries are recessed and
highlighted as an important element of the structure by the use of metal awnings as well as column
features for the commercial portion of the building.5
4.4 Building Materials and Colors
The CDG state building materials shall be carefully chosen to enhance the consistency of the
architectural theme and design.6 As mentioned in Section 4.1 above, the project proposes to use a mix
of four materials: smooth stucco, vertical metal siding, Trespa panels with an Italian walnut finish, and
glazed tile. The materials do not have a “stuck on” or “thin” appearance and are integrated into the
architecture of the building and logically wrap with the building’s off-sets and setbacks.
ARC Discussion: The CDG do not specifically discuss a limit to the number of materials used on a
building façade. The ARC may want to discuss if the use of all the proposed exterior materials contribute
to an integrated design or if fewer types of exterior materials would be more successful.
Colors as well as materials play an important role in building design and the CDG state that colors should
be compatible with the existing colors of the surrounding area but need not duplicate existing colors.7
The proposed color scheme uses cool grays with accents of white and blue and wood grain Italian walnut
(Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A6.0 and A8.3 & A8.4). These colors coordinate well within the
4 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4: C(2). Scale.
5 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(8). Entries.
6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(10). Building materials.
7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: B(12). Colors.
Figure 2: Section view of the project as seen looking west towards the project site
ARC1 - 5
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 6
project as well as with the surrounding neighborhood, especially the recently remo deled University
Square Shopping Center.
4.5 Site Planning
The CDG give specific guidelines for project site planning for Commercial projects within Chapter 3,
Section C. The project, as discussed above, maintains the required setback from adjacent residential
structures, protects privacy of adjacent properties by placing all balconies and decks towards Foothill
Boulevard, and protects solar access due to the project siting and orientation (Attachment 3, Project
Plans, Sheet A5.0). The overall structure is oriented parallel to Foothill and is placed behind the sidewalk.
This is consistent with the CDG which state that buildings with high pedestrian use should face and be
directly accessible from the sidewalk.8 The site plan layout is also consistent with direction in the CDG
to provide parking interior to the lot. In this case, the project has enclosed all vehicle parking spaces
within a parking garage on the first floor of the project.
4.6 Mechanical Parking Lifts
The project requires 55 spaces (50 spaces for 27 residential units and 5 spaces for 1,600 square feet of
commercial space). The City Council as part of the use permit appeal granted a 40% parking reduction,
allowing a total of 33 required spaces. As part of the parking strategy, the applicant has included the use
of a Klaus TrendVario 4100 lift system which places vehicles subterranean with other vehicles parked
above, at grade (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet 5.1). As proposed, the system parks 27 vehicles. The
dimensions of the system allow for a large variety of car models as listed within the Project Plans, Sheet
5.1 (Attachment 3). Condition No. 4 of the use permit requires that the ARC review that the mechanical
parking lift is compatible with the building and site design (Attachment 5, City Council Final
Resolution). As described above, the mechanical parking lifts are fully enclosed and are consistent with
the CDG and do not detrimentally impact the design of the project.
4.7 Balconies, patios and rooftop decks
The CDG state that the use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi-family structures is
encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These elements should be used to break up large wall
masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures.9 The applicant has designed the project
to include several balconies, a roof deck and a patio area. The City Council provided feedback that the
ARC should review the rooftop deck and the patio located at the corner of Foothill and Chorro.
Comments were focused on overlook/privacy and the nearness of the patio to the intersection. The
balconies all face Foothill Boulevard with the exception of one small balcony off of a second floor studio
unit that faces Chorro Street in order to protect privacy of adjacent properties while being able to provide
outdoor space for many of the units. The rooftop deck has been modified in response to the City
Council’s comments. The applicant increased the planter that circles the deck to a width of 7 feet so that
persons utilizing the deck cannot hang over the edge (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A8.0).
Additionally, the additional landscaping will help buffer any potential noise from those using the deck.
The modified design also includes a gate that can be locked to prevent access to the deck. The corner
patio has been modified to include concrete planters in place of a solid concrete wall between the patio
and the public sidewalk. The landscaping is intended to soften the corner and provide a better transition
8 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: C(2.b). Building and parking location.
9 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3: C(3). Balconies, porches, and patios.
ARC1 - 6
ARCH-2794-2016
22 Chorro Street
Page 7
between the patio and the sidewalk.
ARC discussion: The ARC should discuss if the rooftop deck and corner patio are appropriate
amenities/elements for the project.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the
CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use
designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site
occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value
as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing infill property
and is served by required utilities and public services.
6.0 WATER AVAILABILITY
Since the adoption of the 2014 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), the City acquired an additional
annual allocation of 2,102 acre feet of water from Nacimiento Reservoir, bringing the total annual
available to 5,482 acre feet per year. This brings the City’s total annual availability to 12,109 acre feet,
previously 10,007. In addition to this, the City is currently expanding its groundwater program, while
concurrently designing the upgrade to the Water Resource Recovery Facility to allow highly treated
wastewater to become a potable water source.
The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan projected that the City’s total annual residential and non-
residential water demand will be 7,496 acre feet at buildout (year 2035 with a population of 57,200) as
evaluated under the 2014 LUE. This estimation uses 117 gallons per capita day consumption (gpcd),
though the current usage is only 90 gpcd. As a baseline comparison, the total Cit y annual water demand
in 2015 was approximately 4,772 acre feet; 40% of the available water supply.
The available annual water supply (12,109 acre feet) far exceeds the LUE projected annual buildout
demand (7,496 acre feet). Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, water use and
demand associated with the development is anticipated and included with LUE buildout projections.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines or
applicable City policies and standards.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Plans
4. City Council Agenda Report 10-18-2016
5. City Council Final Resolution 10-18-2016
ARC1 - 7
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT
INCLUDES GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 27 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 5, 2016
22 CHORRO (ARCH-2794-2016)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
August 24, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #USE-2882-2016, San
Luis Development Group, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in
the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October
18, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #USE-2882-2016, San Luis
Development Group, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on December 5, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
#ARCH-2794-2016, San Luis Development Group, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARCH-2794-2016), based on the following findings:
1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site
constraints and the scale and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 8.6 the Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area of the Land Use Element and Zoning
Regulations because the project provides a mixed use project that accounts for high
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 8
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-16
22 Chorro, ARCH-2794-2016
Page 2
pedestrian and bike access.
3. The mechanical lift parking is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because
the lifts are adequately screened and compatible with the building and site design of the
proposed project.
4. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the
proposed project incorporates similar materials and architectural features to the surrounding
neighborhood and provides a complementary color scheme.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class
32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is
consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the
applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing infill property and is
served by required utilities and public services.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning
1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate
in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
2. The Architectural Review Commission’s approval of this project will expire after three
years if construction has not started. On request, the Community Development Director may
grant a single, one-year extension.
3. The construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial
compliance with use permit #USE-2882-2016 (Resolution No. 10749).
4. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size
sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all
conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference
shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of
approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 9
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-16
22 Chorro, ARCH-2794-2016
Page 3
deemed appropriate.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application.
6. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style
landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All
wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as
part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building
architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of
the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected
fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the
requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of
the Zoning Regulations.
7. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment.
If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans
submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will
provide adequate screening. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that
proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project
construction and later building modifications and improvements.
8. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on
plans.
9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan.
Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where
possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the
building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined
by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be
located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and,
if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and
configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and
Community Development Directors.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 10
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-16
22 Chorro, ARCH-2794-2016
Page 4
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development
10. All underlying lots shall be merged or lot lines shall otherwise be adjusted prior to building
permit issuance unless otherwise approved for deferral by the Building Division. Contact
the Planning Division to initiate the Voluntary Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment, or
subdivision process.
11. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard.
MC 12.16.050
12. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed public and private
easements and dedications for reference, easements shall be recorded in a format approved
by the City of San Luis Obispo prior to building permit issuance.
13. The building plan submittal shall show any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter,
sidewalk, or driveway approach to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department.
14. Public improvement plans will be required for the work located within the public right-of-
way and/or areas with proposed Offer of Dedication. A separate plan review base fee per
the fee resolution in effect at the time of plan submittal will be required for review of
improvement plans by the Engineering Development Review Division. A separate
encroachment permit and inspection fees will be required based on the encroachment permit
fee schedule in effect at the time of construction. Separate review fees may be requ ired by
the Transportation/Traffic Division and Utilities Department. The on-site and off-site civil
plans may be included in the building plan for review consistency. Separate improvement
plan sets and record drawing submittal shall be provided in accordance with the City
Engineering Standards.
15. The building plan submittal shall show a new curb ramp at the corner of Chorro and Foothill
per ADA and City Engineering Standards.
16. The building plan submittal shall show the existing driveway approaches to be abandoned
and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per city engineering standards. The new
driveway approach shall comply with current City and ADA standards. The current
standards require a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp.
17. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and
Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials.
Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quality and/or quality control
purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking
area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving materials shall be approved
to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 11
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-16
22 Chorro, ARCH-2794-2016
Page 5
18. The building plan submittal shall show all parking spaces that are adjacent to a post,
column, or wall to be one additional foot in width for each obstruction per City Engineering
Standard 2220.
19. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle
parking per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in
the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010 Community Design Guidelines, and any project
specific conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include
details and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities and/or
racks. The building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all
dimensions and clearances to obstructions per city standard.
20. The final plan for short-term bike racks shall be approved by the City. The bike rack layout,
orientation, and locations shall honor any exit paths, minimum pedestrian circulation
requirements, and the limits of the public right-of-way. If allowed to encroach within the
public right-of-way and/or public pedestrian easements, the racks would need to be covered
under an encroachment agreement in a format approved by the City of San Luis Obispo.
21. The building plan submittal shall show the proposed bus stop and turnout to be in
compliance with ADA and City Engineering Standards.
22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All
wire services to the building shall be underground. Underground service requirements shall
be completed with no new utility poles unless otherwise specifically approved by the City.
All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted on the plans.
23. The utility plan shall include all required utility abandonments and/or relocations per City
Engineering Standards.
24. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The
respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics,
safety, and functionality.
25. The proposed solid waste management plan including containment, access, and pick-up
shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Planning Division,
and SLOGC. Internal access and pick-up within the on-site driveway may be required
rather than using a trash ramp and pick-up within a designated travel lane.
26. The building plan submittal shall show the location, extent and nature of all proposed site
retaining walls. Show the location of the property line on the wall detail for reference. Wall
footings shall not cross the property line unless otherwise approved by the City for
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 12
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-16
22 Chorro, ARCH-2794-2016
Page 6
encroachment into the public right-of-way.
27. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The
grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the
property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic
offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the
improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water
runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not
across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements
or existing waterways.
28. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The final
analysis and pre vs. post development plan shall clearly identify and account for the
previous planter/pervious areas. The final drainage report and Post Construction Stormwater
Regulations compliance summary shall clarify the developed site history and shall
substantiate that this is a re-development project. Include a complete Post Construction
Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website.
29. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction
stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit
application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private
stormwater conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final
inspection approvals.
30. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are
required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. Tree
species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards.
Transportation – Public Works Department
31. Architectural plans submitted for building permit shall clearly show layout and dimensions
of a bike box on Chorro Street and shall be consistent with use permit #USE-2882-2016
(Resolution No. 10749). This will require modifications to the existing pedestrian refuge
island. Design shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Utilities Department
32. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors
and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided
with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats,
equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer.
33. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 13
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-16
22 Chorro, ARCH-2794-2016
Page 7
drought emergency (estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of
maximum applied water allowance or (MAWA)).
34. All proposed residential units are to be individually metered. Privately owned sub-meters
may be provided upon approval of the Utilities Director or her/his designee. The CCR’s for
the property association shall require that the sub-meters be read by the association (or
contracted service) and each unit billed according to water use.
35. The project (residential units and retail uses) is required to implement off-site sewer
rehabilitation (private lateral repair/ replacement) that results in quantifiable inflow and
infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system to offset the project’s base
wastewater flow increase. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project
will be approved by the Utilities Director.
36. The project’s road improvements along Chorro Street and Foothill Boulevard will need to
include provisions, including but not limited, to adjust existing water valves, water mains,
fiber cables, service laterals, and pressure reducing station with traffic rated covers.
37. Sufficient clearance will need to be provided to meet the line-of-sight requirements for the
relocation of the pressure reducing station’s control panel located in the southeast corner of
the intersection. If the required clearance falls outside of the public right of way, an
easement dedication will be required for placement of the panel and related controls.
Code Requirements
Building Division – Community Development Department
38. Projects submitted for building permit application after January 1st, 2017 will be subject to
the requirements of the 2016 California Series of Codes.
Utilities Department
39. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and
dust control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s
Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit
program. Information on the program is available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5909
40. It is unclear if any existing sewer laterals are present the property. Any existing laterals
identified during project construction must be abandoned at the City main consistent with
City standards.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 14
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-16
22 Chorro, ARCH-2794-2016
Page 8
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 5th day of December, 2016.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 15
R-1
C-R-S
C-C-SF
R-1
C-C-SF
O-PD
PF
R-1
R-4
C-C-SF
FOOTHILLCH
O
R
R
O
ROUGEOT
VICINITY MAP ARCH-2794-201622 Chorro Street ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 17
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 18
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 19
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 20
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 21
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 22
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 23
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 24
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 25
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 26
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 27
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 28
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 29
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 30
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 31
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 32
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 33
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 34
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 35
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 36
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 37
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 38
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 39
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 40
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 41
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 42
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 43
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 44
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 45
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 46
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
W
W
W
W
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
SS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
S
D
25
2
.
6
FS
25
2
.
4
FS
25
1
.
9
FS
25
2
.
4
FS
25
2
.
6
FS
24
9
.
1
FS
24
7
.
9
FS
25
2
.
6
F
F
25
2
.
4
F
F
25
1
.
9
F
F
MAX
1.5%
25
0
.
6
FS
25
2
.
4
FS
3%
25
0
.
0
T
P
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
24
7
.
5
T
P
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
25
1
.
4
T
P
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
25
2
.
9
T
P
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
25
2
.
4
FS
25
2
.
4
FS
25
0
.
7
T
W
25
0
.
0
F
S
25
0
.
1
FS
8%
25
2
.
3
T
W
24
9
.
6
F
S
24
9
.
3
FS
24
9
.
3
FS
1
.
5
%
25
1
.
6
BS
W
/
F
L
24
8
.
0
FL
25
2
.
4
TC
/
F
L
25
2
.
9
FS
25
1
.
4
T
C
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
25
1
.
7
TC
25
2
.
2
TC
1.5%
25
2
.
4
TC
25
1
.
2
T
P
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
25
2
.
7
TC
25
2
.
8
T
P
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
25
1
.
0
TC
25
2
.
8
FS
25
2
.
1
FS
24
9
.
6
TC
25
0
.
4
TC
24
8
.
2
B
S
W
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
2%
2%
4.2%
4
.
2
%
5
%
2
%
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
C
C
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
1.5%
1.5%
25
2
.
6
FS
1.5%
A
s
h
l
e
y
&
V
a
n
c
e
G
,
C
1
4
1
3
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
(
8
0
5
)
5
4
5
-
0
0
1
0
(
3
2
3
)
7
4
4
-
0
0
1
0
w
w
w
.
a
s
h
l
e
y
v
a
n
c
e
.
c
o
m
C
I
V
I
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
SI
T
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
:
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
A
N
D
R
A
M
P
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
2
1
1
0
.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
TR
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
9
1
1
0
.
VE
G
E
T
A
T
E
D
S
W
A
L
E
F
L
O
W
L
I
N
E
.
R
O
O
F
D
R
A
I
N
S
A
N
D
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
T
O
B
E
D
I
R
E
C
T
E
D
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
W
A
L
E
.
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
P
E
R
D
E
T
A
I
L
4
1
1
0
,
4
1
2
0
A
N
D
4
9
1
0
.
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
L
U
M
N
S
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
SA
W
C
U
T
A
N
D
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
2
4
"
M
I
N
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
,
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
T
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
.
SE
E
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
7
1
1
0
F
O
R
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
.
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
U
N
D
E
R
D
R
A
I
N
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
3
4
1
5
.
CU
R
B
A
N
D
G
U
T
T
E
R
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
4
0
3
0
IN
S
T
A
L
L
1
2
"
C
A
T
C
H
B
A
S
I
N
W
I
T
H
A
T
R
I
U
M
G
R
A
T
E
.
6"
P
V
C
S
T
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
CU
R
B
R
A
M
P
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
4
4
4
0
A
N
D
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
A
.
BU
S
T
U
R
N
I
N
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
4
9
2
0
.
BU
S
S
T
O
P
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
4
9
3
0
.
RE
S
E
T
L
I
D
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
RE
L
O
C
A
T
E
V
A
U
L
T
A
N
D
R
E
S
E
T
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
RE
L
O
C
A
T
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
B
O
X
A
N
D
R
E
S
E
T
L
I
D
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
T
E
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
4'
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
B
I
K
E
L
I
N
E
RE
-
S
T
R
I
P
E
C
R
O
S
S
W
A
L
K
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
R
E
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
C
C
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
0
10
1
0
2
0
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
S
C
A
L
E
:
F
E
E
T
N
CHO
R
R
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
1
2
3
6
TY
P
2
2
DR
A
I
N
A
G
E
N
O
T
E
:
M
A
J
O
R
I
T
Y
O
F
H
A
R
D
S
C
A
P
E
I
S
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
B
Y
M
U
L
T
I
S
T
O
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
.
S
T
O
R
M
RU
N
O
F
F
W
I
L
L
B
E
R
O
U
T
E
D
T
O
T
H
E
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
R
E
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
A
SE
R
I
E
S
O
F
2
N
D
A
N
D
3
R
D
S
T
O
R
Y
R
O
O
F
D
R
A
I
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S
O
U
T
L
E
T
T
I
N
G
T
O
V
E
G
E
T
A
D
E
D
SW
A
L
E
S
A
N
D
S
T
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
S
.
S
E
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
2
N
D
A
N
D
3
R
D
S
T
O
R
Y
LA
Y
O
U
T
.
SI
T
E
S
T
A
T
I
S
T
I
C
S
:
21
,
8
7
4
S
F
A
R
E
A
EA
R
T
H
W
O
R
K
:
2,
0
0
0
C
Y
C
U
T
50
C
Y
F
I
L
L
11
'
M
A
X
C
U
T
2'
M
A
X
F
I
L
L
LI
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
,
T
I
E
R
2
PR
O
J
E
C
T
U
T
I
L
I
Z
E
S
:
x
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
R
E
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
x
DI
S
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
E
D
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
x
VE
G
E
T
A
T
E
D
S
W
A
L
E
S
4
5
5
5
5
7
TY
P
7
TY
P
4
11
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
14
14
15
13
13
16
16
16
16
16
17
16
1818
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
23
23
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
C
C
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
24
12
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
A
B
B
R
E
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
BS
W
B
A
C
K
O
F
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
FF
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
FG
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
G
R
A
D
E
FL
F
L
O
W
L
I
N
E
FS
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
TC
T
O
P
O
F
C
U
R
B
TG
T
O
P
O
F
G
R
A
T
E
TP
T
O
P
O
F
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
TW
T
O
P
O
F
W
A
L
L
TY
P
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
20
20
20
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
C
C
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
25
25
25
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
C
C
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
C
C
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 47
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
W
S
S
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
TE
L
W
W
W
W
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
SS
SS
SS
S
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
S
D
W
A
s
h
l
e
y
&
V
a
n
c
e
G
,
C
1
4
1
3
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
(
8
0
5
)
5
4
5
-
0
0
1
0
(
3
2
3
)
7
4
4
-
0
0
1
0
w
w
w
.
a
s
h
l
e
y
v
a
n
c
e
.
c
o
m
C
I
V
I
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
0
10
1
0
2
0
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
S
C
A
L
E
:
F
E
E
T
N
SI
T
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
N
O
T
E
S
:
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
R
O
O
M
4"
F
I
R
E
W
A
T
E
R
.
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
T
O
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
6
5
9
0
.
6"
S
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
S
E
W
E
R
L
A
T
E
R
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
6
8
1
0
.
SE
W
E
R
C
L
E
A
N
O
U
T
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
6
7
1
0
.
IN
S
T
A
L
L
N
E
W
1
.
5
"
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
I
N
P
R
E
V
I
O
U
S
L
Y
A
B
A
N
D
O
N
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
B
O
X
IN
S
T
A
L
L
N
E
W
2
"
D
O
M
E
S
T
I
C
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
A
N
D
3
/
4
"
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
OB
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
6
2
1
0
,
6
2
2
0
,
A
N
D
6
2
6
0
.
2"
D
O
M
E
S
T
I
C
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
I
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
6"
S
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
S
T
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
.
ST
O
R
M
T
E
C
H
S
C
-
7
4
0
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
,
C
L
E
A
N
O
U
T
A
N
D
S
E
W
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
I
N
T
H
I
S
A
R
E
A
N
O
T
S
H
O
W
N
I
N
T
O
P
O
.
SE
W
E
R
T
O
B
E
A
B
A
N
D
O
N
E
D
,
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
S
E
V
E
R
A
N
D
P
L
U
G
T
I
E
-
I
N
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
DO
W
N
S
T
R
E
A
M
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
.
1
2
2 3
4
6
5
8
8
24
7
.
6
T
G
24
4
.
6
I
N
V
9
4
7
10
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
A
B
B
R
E
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
IN
V
I
N
V
E
R
T
TG
T
O
P
O
F
G
R
A
T
E
GE
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
:
AL
L
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
S
H
O
W
N
A
R
E
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
T
H
E
B
E
S
T
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
.
A
N
Y
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
E
W
E
R
L
A
T
E
R
A
L
S
T
O
S
I
T
E
E
N
C
O
U
N
T
E
R
E
D
D
U
R
I
N
G
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
AB
A
N
D
O
N
E
D
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
T
O
P
O
T
H
O
L
E
A
L
L
P
O
I
N
T
S
O
F
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
V
E
R
I
F
Y
A
L
L
CL
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
S
.
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
E
P
T
H
A
N
D
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
D
B
Y
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
.
I
F
TH
E
R
E
A
R
E
A
N
Y
D
I
F
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
S
F
R
O
M
P
L
A
N
W
I
T
H
A
N
Y
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
I
T
E
M
S
,
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
O
F
W
O
R
K
SH
A
L
L
B
E
N
O
T
I
F
I
E
D
I
M
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
L
Y
.
11
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 48
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 49
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 50
Meeting Date: 10/18/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION
TO DENY A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH GROUND
FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE AND 27 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR A 40% PARKING REDUCTION WITH
MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS. 11% OF THE UNITS IN THE PROJECT
WILL BE AFFORDABLE FOR VERY-LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES ARE REQUESTED, INCLUDING A
35% DENSITY BONUS, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 43-FOOT TALL
STRUCTURE WHERE 35 FEET IS NORMALLY ALLOWED.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission denied approval of a use permit for a mixed-use project in the
Foothill Boulevard special planning area. Staff has included a resolution (Attachment A) denying
the appeal, which would affirm the Planning Commission action to deny the project, based on
required findings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of
a use permit for a mixed-use project at 22 Chorro Street, thereby approving the use permit for a
mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard special planning area, a 40% parking reduction and
the use of mechanical parking lifts, including approval of a height exception as an affordable
housing incentive.
SITE DATA
Applicant San Luis Development Group, LLC
Representative Thom Jess, Architect
Zoning C-C-SF (Community Commercial
with a Special Focus Overlay)
General Plan Commercial
Site Area 0.55 acres (24,033 s.f.) (3 parcels)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under Section
15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines.
20
Packet Pg. 243
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 51
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant submitted an application for approval of a project for a new four-story mixed-use
project with 1,600 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space and 27 residential units.
The project includes a 35% density bonus as mandated by State law, because 11% of the units
are designated for very-low income households. As one of its affordable housing incentives, the
applicant is requesting a 43-foot maximum height for the structure where 35 feet is allowed. The
project also includes a request for a combined 40% parking reduction and the use of mechanical
parking lifts, as allowed by the Zoning Regulations with the approval of a use permit.
The project is located within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area and,
therefore, required Planning Commission (PC) review and approval (Zoning Regulations,
Chapter 17.53: Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone). The project also requires architectural
review by the Architectural Review Commission.
On August 24, 2016, the PC reviewed the proposed project and voted to deny the project based
on various findings relating to impacts to the health, safety and welfare due to the height of the
development and lack of on-site parking (Attachment C, PC Resolution).
On August 31, 2016, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the project (Attachment F,
PC Appeal and Supplemental Letter).
While the staff recommendation is to uphold the appeal and approve the project (as more fully
explained below), the City Council may choose to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the
Planning Commission decision. If the City Council chooses to deny the appeal, special findings
are needed as required by State law to form an adequate basis for the denial. Staff has provided
findings for project denial for the Council’s consideration which are set forth in Attachment A.
The staff recommendation to uphold the appeal is reflected in Attachment B. The following
discussion provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project and the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The project site is an existing 24,033 square foot lot located at the corner of Chorro Street and
Foothill Boulevard ( Attachment D, Vicinity Map). The site is zoned Community Commercial
C-C) and has a 36 density units per acre, the highest density allowed in the City. The site i s
relatively flat, currently vacant, and was last utilized as a gas station. The site is surrounded by
the following uses and zoning:
North: C-R-SF (University Square Shopping Center)
South: R-1 (Single family residences)
East: C-C-SF (G. Brothers Restaurant)
West: C-C-SF & R-1 (Jamba Juice, Starbucks, Single family residences)
The project proposes to construct a new four-story mixed-use project as described below
Attachment E, Project Plans):
1,600 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space;
20
Packet Pg. 244
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 52
27 residential units (23 two-bedrooms and 4 studios restricted for very-low income
households);
A request for a 40% shared/mixed-use/bicycle parking reduction to reduce the required
parking from 55 parking spaces to 33 parking spaces; and
113 bicycle parking spaces (80 long-term and 33 short-term).
Background
The areas discussed below provide important background information on the policy and
regulatory environment that shape the review of the project. Although approval of this use permit
would result in a building that is taller than adjacent development, staff’s analysis of the project
shows that it can be found consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. In this case,
the policy and regulatory structure favor the production of housing by enabling concessions for
height and reductions in parking. Taken together with the project’s central location and the
incentives and strong protections afforded by State law for housing projects (especially
affordable housing), the proposed mixed use project that uses an affordable housing density
bonus and height exception to provide more housing than would otherwise be allowed, and
which is situated along a major transit, bike, and pedestrian corridor, is on balance consistent
with City policies and regulations. These issues are more fully discussed in the followed six
subsections.
1. Land Use Element, Chapter 8: Special Focus Area
On December 9, 2014, the City Council adopted the new Land Use and Circulation Elements
LUCE) of the General Plan. As a part of the update, a new section was added to the Land Use
Element (LUE) that identified Special Planning Areas. The proposed project is located in the
Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area,
1 which includes property on both sides of
Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa currently developed as commercial centers
that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses. The Foothill Boulevard/Santa
Rosa Special Planning Area encourages the development of mixed-use projects, adjustments in
parking and height requirements and improving intersections along Foothill Boulevard. Below is
a copy of Policy 8.2.1 from the LUE.
1 Land Use Element Section 8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area.
20
Packet Pg. 245
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 53
2. Housing Element
The Housing Element (HE) outlines a series of goals and policies to encourage the development
of housing production for all financial strata of the City's population. The City has outlined in
HE Goal 2 that housing should be in-line with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the
2014 - 2019 planning period (see Table 1). The project is proposing to construct four very-low
income units which are some of the more challenging units to be provided within a private
development. The HE further states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and not
segregated by economic status and encourages housing development that meets a variety of
special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students,
veterans, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy
or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design (HE Policy 8.1). The Housing
Element also states that preference for residential be given over commercial uses (Policy 11.1).
20
Packet Pg. 246
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 54
In addition, the Housing Element further states:
That the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state
density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and
extremely low income households (Policy 2.17); and
That the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density
bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial
assistance (Program 6.19).
Table 1: Housing Element Table 6: Remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units approved,
under construction or built (January 1, 2014 to October 11, 2016)
Income Category
A B A-B
New
Construction
Need
RHNA)
Dwelling Units
Approved, Under
Construction or Built
Remaining RHNA
Need, Dwelling
Units
Extremely-Low (< 31% of
AMI)
142 5 137
Very Low (31-50% of AMI) 143 53 90
Low (51-80% of AMI) 179 81 98
Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 202 95 107
Above Moderate (>120% of
AMI)
478 4781 0
TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144 7121 432
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 2016
1No credit allowed for the number of above moderate units built that exceed RHNA. Actual above moderate units =
1,350.
3. Circulation Element
The Circulation Element (CE) states the City’s goals and objectives to increase multi-modal
transportation within the City. The CE includes the following Transportation Goals (Section
1.6.1.):
Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while
reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of
achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality.
Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as
walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
One of the Transportation Objectives states, Encourage better transportation habits… Increase
the use of alternative forms of transportation and depend less on the single-occupant use of
vehicles (Section 1.7.1). The use of public transit, walking and biking are specifically supported
by numerous policies in Chapters 3 through 6 of the CE. Further details on the project’s
20
Packet Pg. 247
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 55
consistency with Transportation policies and the provision of multi-modal transportation is
discussed in the Parking section under Staff Recommendation below.
4. Major City Goal
Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over 2015-17 financial year. The goal states: Implement the Housing Element,
facilitating workforce, affordable, supportive and transitional housing options, including support
for needed infrastructure within the City’s fair share.
5. State Housing Density Bonus Law
California State law encourages the development of affordable housing and provides density
bonuses based on the inclusion of affordable units within a project. In addition to a density
bonus, by providing a certain percentage of affordable units within a project (as outlined in
Section 17.90.060 of the Zoning Regulations), a developer may receive alternative incentives or
concessions for the project. For this project, the developer is setting aside four units for very-low
income (11%) which equals a mandated 35% density bonus in accordance with State law and the
City’s Zoning Code.
Under the State Density Bonus law (Gov. Code section 65915), a public agency is required to
grant the incentive or concession unless it makes a written finding, based on substantial
evidence, that the concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public
health and safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable. “Specific adverse impact”
within this statute means a “significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they
existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”2 In addition, the State Density Bonus
law requires a City to waive or modify development and zoning standards that would physically
preclude the utilization of the density bonus, incentives, and concessions that the applicant is
entitled to on a particular site and may only be denied if the findings above are met (Gov Code
section 65915(e)).
In other words, State law requires a public agency to relax its development standards to allow for
the physical construction of the additional “density units” unless the relaxation of such standards
will result in specific adverse impacts within the meaning defined above.
6. Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act applies to “housing development projects” which includes
mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses in which non-
residential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of the
building. The project is a housing development project under the Act. Section 65589.5(d)(2) of
the Act states that:
2 Gov. Code section 65589.5(d)(2).
20
Packet Pg. 248
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 56
d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project…for very low, low-, or
moderate-income households…or condition approval in a manner that renders the project
infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income
households…including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written
findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
2) The development project…as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income household…a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable,
direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall
not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
Planning Commission Action
At the August 24, 2016 meeting, the PC evaluated the proposed mixed-use project and voted 4:1
Commr. Dandekar absent) to deny the use permit (Attachment C, PC Resolution; Attachment H,
PC Meeting Minutes).
Public Testimony
The public provided comments on the project during the PC hearing as well as through written
correspondence. A series of repeated themes/concerns were shared by several different
individuals. Concerns included: that the project, as proposed, was out of scale and character with
the neighborhood and overall too tall; the project interfered with the privacy of the next door
neighbors; the site had too many units; the project had too few parking spaces and that the
project should have 100 parking spaces to accommodate the “real” number of people living on
the site; residents of the project would park on the neighborhood streets that are already
impacted; that the project would drive down adjacent property values; and would increase the
traffic and congestion at the intersection of Chorro and Foothill. Others shared support for the
project stating that it provided much needed housing, made the best use of the corner lot,
provided a buffer between Foothill and the residential neighborhood and promoted multi -modal
transportation.
Planning Commission Findings
Following significant public testimony and deliberation, the PC denied the use permit based on
the following findings:
1. That the project will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or
residing in the vicinity because the proposed parking reduction is excessive and the
height is inconsistent with the General Plan.
2. That the request for reduced parking is inconsistent with San Luis Obispo Municipal
20
Packet Pg. 249
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 57
Code section 17.16.060 in that the requested parking reduction is excessive for the
proposed use and that the times of the proposed mixed-use parking demand from the
various uses will coincide in such a way that it will have detrimental impacts on the
surrounding area.
3. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with Conservation and Open Space
Element Policy 9.2.1 because the project will block views from Foothill Boulevard which
is designated as having moderate scenic value.
4. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policy
2.3.9.E Compatible Development: Architecture; the project’s height and scale does not
provide a smooth transition between the existing and proposed development.
5. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines
sections 5.3.A.1 and 5.3.C: the project’s height and scale does not provide a smooth
transition between the immediate neighborhood.
6. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policy 2.3.9.F
Compatible Development: Privacy and Solar Access; the project will overlook onto
adjacent properties and does not respect the privacy of neighboring building and outdoor
areas.
Applicant Appeal
On August 31, 2016, the applicant, San Luis Development Group, LLC, filed an appeal of the
PC’s decision to deny the project. The appeal form and supplemental letter express concerns that
the Planning Commission’s decision for denial was not justified because it is inconsistent with
and/or violates local, Federal and/or State laws and policies (Attachment F, PC Appeal and
Supplemental Letter). The letter from the applicant highlights that the proposed project is
consistent with the City’s General Plan, in particular LUE Section 8.2.1 which describes
development within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, the Major City
Goal regarding housing, Zoning Regulations regarding parking reductions (Section 17.16.060),
and the California Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff carefully evaluated the Planning Commission’s decision and the applicant’s appeal in the
context of City Council General Plan goals and policies, the City’s Zoning Code, the State
Density Bonus law and Housing Accountability Act. Based on these combination of factors, staff
is recommending the City Council uphold the appeal and approve the project. It should be noted
that the project will require architectural review and modifications to the project design may be
considered by the ARC to the extent that they do not reduce height/density to the point that
would render the project infeasible.
20
Packet Pg. 250
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 58
1. Height
The applicant is requesting a height exception as a Density Bonus incentive for including four
studios for very-low income households within the project (11% of the project is affordable).
According to Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.90: Affordable Housing Incentives, the developer
may request an incentive or concession, such as a height increase, when providing at least 10%
of the units for very-low income households.3
Staff’s rationale for recommending approval of the height exception is several fold:
1. State Density Bonus law allows a developer to request a concession such as a height
exception and a public agency must grant that exception unless it can make certain
findings.
2. State Density Bonus law further requires a public agency to relax development standards
to allow for the physical construction of the “density units.” In this case, the project
includes 7 density bonus units, 5 of which are on the top floor. Stated differently, the
additional maximum height allowance to accommodate the top floor is needed to build
the density units.
3. The request for additional height is consistent with the Land Use policy discussion on
building height adjustments for the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning
Area. In regards to staff’s analysis on this issue, it should first be noted that the 35-foot
height restriction is based on current zoning from the prior General Plan. The policy
language in the updated LUE suggests that higher height limits are desired for this area
when development is in conjunction with mixed use developments.4 This policy states
that building height adjustments are appropriate on both sides of Foothill, although the
language itself overlaps (“…in this area…” and “…on the North side of Foothill…”).5
Based on this combination of factors, staff is recommending the Council approve the height
exception.
3 Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.060.A(2): Alternative or additional incentives. When a developer agrees to
construct housing for households of very-low, lower or moderate income households… and desires an incentive
other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.040 of this chapter… the developer shall receive the
following number of incentives or concessions: (2) Two in centives or concessions for housing developments that
include at least twenty (20) percent of the total units for lower income households, at least ten (10) percent for very -
low income households, or at least twenty (20) percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common
interest development.
4 Once the zoning code update comes forward later on this year, the City Council will tackle the issue of
implementing this policy.
5 The Planning Commission had considerable debate on the applicability of this policy within the LUE, especially
with regard to building height incentives and whether such incentives were appropriate for the entirety of this
planning area or just the area on the north side of Foothill.
20
Packet Pg. 251
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 59
2. Neighborhood Compatibility
The project site is located in a neighborhood with an eclectic collection of architecture, building
heights and site design. The neighborhood includes two large shopping centers, commercial
structures separated from the street by parking, gas stations, single family residential units and
multi-family structures. The Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area describes
redevelopment should include mixed-use development and encourages pedestrian and bike
access. Set at the back of sidewalk, the proposed building fosters a pedestrian environment along
the project and Foothill. The project is designed to provide a transition between a commercial
area and the R-1 residential area by setting the tallest portion of the structure along Foothill
Boulevard and provides residential uses adjacent to existing residential uses.6. The proposed
project further supports the transition between the R-1 and C-C zone by incorporating various
design elements consistent with LUE 2.3.97 which requires compatible development for new
housing built within existing neighborhoods. The project provides: an inviting façade towards
the street; preserves privacy between the R-1 properties and the subject site by providing
landscaping (Attachment E, Project Plans, Sheet L-1) and excluding balconies along the south
and east elevations (Attachment E, Project Plans, Sheets A2.1-A2.3 and A3.2-A3.3); preserves
solar access for adjacent the R-1 properties (Attachment E, Project Plans, Sheet A5.0); provides
street trees and parking is designed to minimize its visual impact from the public street.
6 Land Use Policy 2.3.5. Neighborhood Pattern: The City shall require that all new residential development be
integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should
create new neighborhoods.
7 Land Use Policy 2.3.9. Compatible Development: The City shall require that new housing built within an existing
neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
Figure 1: Rendering of the project as viewed from the commercial property across Chorro Street looking towards
University Square shopping center.
20
Packet Pg. 252
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 60
3. Views
Concern was expressed that the
project would have an impact on
viewsheds, in particular the
views of Cerro San Luis.
Foothill Boulevard is identified
within the Conservation and
Open Space Element (COSE) as
a street with moderate scenic
value. Policy 9.2.1. states in part
that development projects shall
not wall off scenic roadways and
block views.8 Figure 2 is a
portion of the Scenic Roadways
and Vistas map of the COSE and
Cerro San Luis is not identified
with a “cone of view” from
Foothill Boulevard. It is
important to note that COSE provides policy for the protection of views from public areas such
as streets, parks, etc. The project will interrupt a small portion of the view of Cerro San Luis
from Foothill Boulevard going westbound. For clarification in response to public comment
regarding private views, the project would not impact the existing residential views toward Cerro
San Luis and views from the residential properties towards Foothill Boulevard would change
because the project site is currently vacant. However, to be clear the City’s policies address
views from public spaces and the City does not create or regulate any private viewshed rights.
Echoing staff’s reasoning in the height discussion above, various General Plan policies and State
law incentivize and otherwise encourage housing development projects to “go up.” Further, the
Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area emphasizes that, at least within this
particular segment of Foothill, that height adjustments on top of the 35-foot maximum height
already established for this zone should be considered. In addition, one significant concern is the
extent to which the City’s viewsheds policy identified above constitutes an “objective” standard
for purposes of the Density Bonus law and Housing Accountability Act. As a result of these
factors, staff recommends that the Council approve the height exception.
8 Conservation and Open Space Element 9.2.1: Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The
City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage other
agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and
roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 11 are designated as
scenic roadways. (A) Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
Figure 2: Excerpt of Figure 11 of the COSE. The star marks the
approximate location of the project site; v) represents "cone of view"
Cerro San
Luis
20
Packet Pg. 253
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 61
4. Parking
The project requires 55 spaces (50 spaces for 27 residential units and 5 spaces for 1,600 square
feet of commercial space). The residential parking calculation is based on Government Code
Section 65915(p)(B) which states that a city cannot require a vehicular parking ratio that exceeds
one on-site parking space for a studio or one bedroom and no more than two onsite parking
spaces for two to three bedroom units. The applicant is requesting a 40% parking reduction to
have a total of 33 required spaces. This request is based on a combination of two separate
provisions in the Zoning Code which allow for the reduction in the on-site parking requirements:
1) Mixed Use Parking Reductions; and (2) Bicycle Space Reduction.
Mixed Use Parking Reductions (Up to 30%)
SLOMC 17.16.060.C states that where two or more uses share common parking areas, the total
number of parking spaces required may be reduced by up to 10%, with approval of an
administrative use permit. Section 17.16.060.C further states that by approving an administrative
use permit, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects sharing parking by up
to 20%, in addition to the shared parking reduction, for a total maximum parking reduction of
30%, upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not
coincide.
Bicycle Space Parking Reductions (Up to 10%)
The project also includes 30 additional bicycle parking spaces to allow for an additional 10%
parking reduction. Section 17.16.060.G(2) states that projects which provide more bicycle and/or
motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space
for each five bicycle spaces, up to a 10% reduction, subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director. All bicycle parking that exceeds the required number of spaces shall be
apportioned between short-term and long-term bicycle spaces as stipulated by Table 6.5. The
project is required to provide 63 bicycle spaces (58 long term and 5 short term). The applicant is
providing 30 bicycle parking spaces for the 10% reduction plus an additional 20 more above and
beyond all the requirements for a grand total of 113 spaces (80 long term and 30 short term).
This is not an unreasonable inclusion of bicycle parking spaces as the project is anticipated to
have an expected occupancy of 100 residents. The design of the project includes a bike lounge, a
bike repair area (“bike shop”) and indoor bike storage to incentivize bicycle use by tenants
Attachment F, Project Plans, A2.0).
Table 2: Parking calculations proposed and required by code
Parking Spaces Proposed1 Standard2
Vehicle 33 55
Bicycle (long-term) 80 58
Bicycle (short-term) 33 5
Notes:
1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 5/20/2016
2. Zoning Regulations
Parking was a highly discussed component of the project during Planning Commission review.
Discussion included whether there was sufficient off-set between the shared parking for the
20
Packet Pg. 254
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 62
commercial space and the residential units to justify the 30% parking reduction. The City’s
parking requirements are conservatively based on nationwide parking studies (Institute of Traffic
Engineers parking generation manual) which reflects reductions for combinations of uses and
multi-modal access to those facilities such as those found in neighborhood commercial areas.
The commercial space is expected to have sufficient spaces as it is expected be used at alternate
hours during the day when residents are away at work and/or school. All together the project
provides 33 vehicle spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces, 33 short-term bicycle spaces and 80 long-term
bicycle spaces ( a total of 149 spaces). These spaces are available to residents, visitors and
customers of the site.
The reduction in parking spaces is consistent with the Transportation Goal discussed in the
Circulation Element to reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting
alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.9 Reductions in
parking and a heavy emphasis on bicycle mobility serve this goal and further the objectives of
this policy. In addition to putting an emphasis on bicycle mobility, the project is uniquely
situated and is located in proximity to grocery stores, restaurants, entertainment, schools,
employment and two bus stops, and is easily accessible by walking or public transportation. One
bus stop is located right in front of the project and another is directly across the street, allowing
service to and from the site. This arrangement encourages better transportation habits and
increases the use of alternative forms of transportation and less dependence on the single -
occupant use of vehicles (Section 1.7.1).10 The project includes improvements to the existing bus
stop with a bus turn out and the construction of a bus stop shelter as a part of the building design
Attachment F, Project Plans, Sheets A2.0 & A3.0). The project location provides residents as
well as customer’s various opportunities to access the site and nearby destinations without a
vehicle.
The applicant is also requesting to incorporate mechanical parking lifts as part of the project. The
project is proposing to use a Klaus TrendVario 4100 lift system which places vehicles
subterranean with other vehicles parked above, at grade (Attachment F, Project Plans, Sheet 5.1).
As proposed, the system parks 27 vehicles, one for each of the residential units. The dimensions
of the system allow for a large variety of car models as listed within the Project Plans, Sheet 5.1
Attachment F). Those vehicles that do not fit into the lift system, have the ability to park in the
regular parking stalls provided in the parking garage. The project complies with the findings of
approval with added Conditions of Approval No. 4 and 5; (4) The mechanical parking lift shall
be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with Community Design
Guidelines for compatibility with the building and site design and (5) Prior to building plan
approval, the applicant shall record an agreement that runs with the land that mechanical
parking systems will be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the exception
of limited periods of maintenance (Attachment A, Draft Resolution A).
CONCURRENCES
The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their
conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these departments support the project
9 Circulation Element Transportation Goals, Section 1.6.1.
10 Circulation Element Transportation Objectives, Section 1.7.1
20
Packet Pg. 255
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 63
if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is both statutorily exempt under Section 15195 and categorically exempt under Class
32, In-Fill Development Projects, Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is
consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation, within one-half a mile of a
transit stop and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. It should be
noted that modifications to zoning regulations as required by State Density Bonus law noted
above, do not disqualify a project from claiming this exemption. See Wollmer v. City of
Berkeley, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1338 (2011). The project site occurs on a property of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property
and is served by required utilities and public services.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal
impact associated with the approval of this project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project by upholding
the PC’s decision and denying the appeal, based on findings of inconsistency with the
General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations.
2. Uphold the Appeal and provide direction to the ARC. The Council may uphold the appeal
and approve the use permit, but provide additional direction to the ARC regarding issues it
should consider during its review of the project’ s design.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution A
b - Draft Resolution B
c - PC Resolution (denial) - August 24 2016
d - Vicinity Map
e - Project plans
f - Planning Commission Appeal and Supplemental Letter
g - PC Staff Report - August 24 2016
h - PC Meeting Minutes - August 24 2016
20
Packet Pg. 256
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 64
RESOLUTION NO. 10749 (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A MIXED-
USE PROJECT IN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIAL PLANNING
AREA, A 40 PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION AND THE USE OF
MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS INCLUDING A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION FROM CEQA AND A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL OF A HEIGHT EXCEPTION AS AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCENTIVE AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 18, 2016
22 CHORRO, USE -2882-2016)
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
August 24, 2016 for the purpose of considering a use permit application USE -2882-2016 for a
mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard special focus area, a 40 percent parking reduction and
the use of mechanical parking lifts, and a height exception as an affordable housing incentive to
accommodate the development of the proposed project at 22 Chorro Street; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo Development Group, LLC, the applicant, filed an appeal of
the Planning Commission's action on August 31, 2016; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings in support of the project approval that includes a use permit for a mixed-use project in the
Foothill Boulevard special focus area, a 40 percent parking reduction and the use of mechanical
parking lifts and recommends approval of a height exception as an affordable housing incentive of
the proposed project:
That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working
or residing in the vicinity because the proposed project is consistent with the Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area of the Land Use Element and Zoning
Regulations.
R 10749
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1 - 65
Resolution No. 10749 (2016)
Findinzs for Affordable Housing Incentives:
Page 2
1. That the project is consistent with Housing Element, Goal 2 because the project includes units
for very -low income households which helps meet the City's affordable housing objectives.
2. That with 11 percent of the units restricted for very -low income households, the applicant is
entitled up to a 35 percent maximum density bonus under State law and the City's Municipal
Code, Chapter 17.90. Therefore, the proposed density bonus for the project of 35 percent is
consistent with established criteria for density bonuses.
3. That the proposed height of 43 feet to accommodate the development of the proposed project
is appropriate as an incentive consistent with the Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.060.B(1)
that a reduction in site development standards or modification of zoning code requirements or
architectural design requirements that exceeds the minimum building standards approved by
the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with
Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code.
Findines for 40 Percent Parkine Reduction:
4. That the proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section
17. 16.060.A, Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which
is "... to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands
may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." Moreover, the project satisfies the
requirement for a shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 17.16.060.B because there are multiple uses that share common parking areas. In
addition, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.16.060.C, the times of maximum
parking demand from the proposed uses will not coincide.
5. That the proposed project is consistent with the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section
17.16.060.G and provides 30 additional bicycle parking spaces (above the bicycle parking
required for the project) for a 10 percent parking reduction at the rate of one car space for each
five bicycle spaces provided.
6. That the proposed parking reduction will safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding
area or cause a decline in quality of life because project is located close proximity to grocery
stores, restaurants, entertainment, schools, employment and two bus stops allowing for
alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking or taking public transportation.
Findin s for Mechanical Parki= Lifts:
7. That the use of mechanical lift parking results in superior design and implementation of City
goals and policies for infill development by placing parking within the structure and screening
it from public view.
R 10749
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1 - 66
Resolution No. 10749 (2016) Page 3
8. That the mechanical lift parking is adequately screened and, as conditioned, shall be reviewed
by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with Community Design Guidelines
for compatibility with the building and site design.
9. That the mechanical lift parking systems complies with all development standards including
but not limited to height and setback requirements, and Parking and Driveway Standards with
the exception of minimum parking stall sizes which are established by lift specifications.
10. That, as conditioned, the mechanical parking systems will be safely operated and maintained
in continual operation with the exception of limited periods of maintenance.
11. That there are no circumstances of the site or development, or particular model or type of
mechanical lift system which could result in significant impacts to those living or working on
the site or in the vicinity.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is both statutorily exempt under Section
15195 and categorically exempt under Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects, Section 15332 of
the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use
designation, within one-half a mile of a transit stop and is consistent with the applicable zoning
designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property and is served by required
utilities and public services.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Planning
Commission's action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final approval of the application
USE -2882-2016 for a mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard special focus area, a 40 percent
parking reduction and the use of mechanical parking lifts and recommends approval of a height
exception as an affordable housing incentive at 22 Chorro Street subject to the following
conditions:
Planning
1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or
its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the
City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to
environmental review ("Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the
applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim,
and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
2. The proposed use shall operate consistent with the project description, approved plans,
and other supporting documentation submitted with this application unless otherwise
conditioned herein.
3. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the
project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and the Mixed
R 10749
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1 - 67
Resolution No. 10749 (2016) Page 4
Use project design standards (Zoning Regulations section 17.08.072). Specific
attention shall be given to the compatibility between the adjacent commercial uses and
the residential uses. The Architectural Review Commission shall be responsible for
taking action on additional project conditions and code requirements as applicable.
4. The mechanical parking lift shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission
for compliance with Community Design Guidelines for compatibility with the building
and site design.
5. Prior to building plan approval, the applicant shall record an agreement in a form
subject to the approval of the City Attorney that runs with the land that mechanical
parking systems will be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the
exception of limited periods of maintenance.
6. All regular (non-mechanical lift) parking spaces shall be available for residential
tenants, employees and customers free from restrictions. No regular parking spaces
shall be individually labeled or allocated.
7. All mechanical lift parking spaces shall be available for all residential tenants.
8. The project shall include 33 parking spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces and 93 required
bicycle parking spaces (70 long-term and 23 short-term).
9. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current
parking calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal of
Planning and Building permits for tenant changes or improvements to ensure the site
does not become under -parked.
10. The project shall have a maximum height of 43 feet. The tallest part of the project shall
be located along Foothill Boulevard as shown on the submitted project plans. Any
alterations increasing the proposed height or the location of the height on the site will
require a modification to the use permit.
11. Plans submitted for building permit review shall show the location of all 93 required
bicycle parking spaces (70 long-term and 23 short-term) and include product sheets of
the proposed bike racks to be used. All bicycle parking spaces included as part of the
project shall comply with City's Municipal Code Section 17.16.060, Table 6.5 and the
Community Design Guidelines Section 6.3.F.
Transportation
12. Consistent with the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan, the project shall install a bike
box on Chorro Street, south of Foothill Boulevard. Building plans shall include the
layout and design of the bike box and right turn lane according to design guidance
within the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guidelines and design shall be reviewed
and approved by City Transportation & Engineering Division prior to installation. The
installation may require modifications to the existing pedestrian refuge island.
R 10749
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1 - 68
Resolution No. 10749 (2016) Page 5
13. In regards to the bus turnout and facilities, project plans submitted for the building
permit shall be consistent with the plans submitted for the use permit.
14. The applicant shall record a public access easement along the Foothill Boulevard
frontage of the project which also allows the City to place and maintain bus facilities
such as benches, signs, maps, etc.
On motion of Council Member Christianson, seconded by Council Member Rivoire and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Christianson and Rivoire,
Vice Mayor Carpenter and Mayor Marx
NOES: Ashbaugh
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 181h day of October 2016.
Mayor . 1l Marx
ATTEST:
1 -04J,
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
R 10749
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1 - 69
Resolution No. 10749 (2016) Page 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this (Qt' h day of ic, _ r , -am-1 [-f .
0 Lvvt"-&UA
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
R 10749
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1 - 70