HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 06 - Appeal by Mourenza and Racouillat of the ARC decision to approve a new 4 story mixed use project at 22 Chorro Meeting Date: 2/7/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY LYDIA MOURENZA & RICHARD
RACOUILLAT) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT
THAT INCLUDES GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 27
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS (22 CHORRO
STREET).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review
Commission’s approval of the new four-story mixed-use project that includes ground floor
commercial/retail space, 27 residential units, and mechanical parking lifts.
PROJECT INFORMATION
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
Use permit deemed exempt on October 18, 2016, Notice of Exemption filed on
December 12, 2016 as Document No 40-12122016-260
Design review is Categorically and Statutorily Exempt from environmental review
under Sections 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) and 15195 (Residential Infill
Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
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
Packet Pg. 59
6
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.
New commercial projects within the City require review by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) (Community Design Guidelines Section 1.2).
Procedural History Regarding the Use Permit:
On August 24, 2016, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed use permit for the
project and voted to deny the use permit 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 use permit. The City
Council reviewed the appeal on October 18, 2016 and voted 4:1 (Ashbaugh voting no) to uphold
the appeal and approve the use permit. 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 (Attachment G, City Council Resolution). After the vote, the City
Council briefly discussed the architecture and design of the project. Comments were focused on
the roof-top deck, concerns about overlook/privacy and noise, and the outdoor patio at the corner
of Chorro and Foothill due to its proximity to the intersection. The time to challenge the approval
of the use permit and underlying CEQA determination expired on January 16, 2017. To date, the
City has not received notice of any such challenge.
Procedural History Regarding the Design Review:
On December 5, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) held a public hearing to
review the proposed architecture of the project, which includes modifications in response to
Council’s comments when they approved the Use Permit. These changes included: widening the
planter that circles the roof deck so that persons utilizing the deck cannot hang over the edge and
to provide more significant landscaping to buffer noise and overlook, a gate that can be locked to
prevent access to the roof deck, and the corner, ground floor patio was modified to include
concrete planters in place of a solid concrete wall to create a better transition between the patio
and the public sidewalk. The ARC determined the project was consistent with the Community
Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. The ARC voted 4:1 (Sol voting
no) to approve the project (Attachment H, ARC Staff Report & Attachment I, ARC Draft
Meeting Minutes).
On December 14, 2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard Racouillat filed an appeal of th e ARC’s
decision to approve the project (Attachment C, ARC Appeal). The appeal states that the ARC
failed to consider and as directed by City Council, to take action on additional project conditions
code requirements including inconsistencies and/or violations of applicable laws submitted to
the ARC.
The scope of this review is to provide an evaluation of the project in terms of its consistency with
the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines and other applicable City policies and
standards. The Council is being asked to review the proposed project, the concerns of the appeal
and provide a final determination on the proposed project.
Packet Pg. 60
6
Staff is recommending the Council deny the appeal and uphold the ARC’s approval of the
project (Attachment A, Resolution A). If the Council approves the project, the project will have
all necessary entitlements needed to move forward for building permits. The following report
provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project and the appeal.
PROJECT INFORMATION
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)
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);
Affordable housing incentives including a 35% density bonus and increased building
height of 43 feet.
A 40% shared/mixed-use/bicycle parking reduction to reduce the required parking from
55 parking spaces to 33 parking spaces;
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 E, Project Plans).
Figure 1: Perspective view of the project looking southeast from Foothill Blvd.
Packet Pg. 61
6
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 E, Project Plans, Sheet A6.0).
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 11/11/2016
2. Zoning Regulations
DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant initially submitted the project for City review on March 10, 2016. During the
course of review, staff provided feedback to the applicant regarding the 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 seven 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. The entitlements for this project are twofold: (1) a Use Permit for the
proposed use and requested exceptions to certain development standards; and (2) design review.
On August 24, 2016, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the Use Permit for 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 Use Permit. The City
Council reviewed the appeal on October 18, 2016 and voted 4:1 to uphold the appeal and
approve the Use Permit (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, concerns about overlook/privacy and noise, and the outdoor patio at the corner of
Packet Pg. 62
6
Chorro and Foothill due to its proximity to the intersection. The applicant made changes in
response to the Council’s comments, including widening the planter that circles the roof deck so
that persons utilizing the deck cannot hang over the edge and will provide significant
landscaping to buffer noise and overlook, a gate that can be locked to prevent access to the roof
deck, and the corner ground floor patio was modified to include concrete planters in place of a
solid concrete wall to create a better transition between the patio and the public sidewalk.
On December 5, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) held a public hearing to
review the proposed architecture of the project at 22 Chorro Street. The ARC determined the
project was consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and
standards and voted 4:1 to approve the project.
Appeal
On December 14, 2016, Lydia Mourenza & Richard Racouillat filed an appeal of the ARC’s
decision to approve the project (Attachment C, Appeal Letter). The appeal expresses concern
that the project:
Failed to meet the Categorical Exemption for CEQA for Infill
Did not include a traffic study
Miscalculated the parking space reduction
Failed to receive approval for a zero setback along Chorro Street
Blocks viewsheds along Foothill Boulevard – a scenic route
Staff Analysis
Staff has provided an analysis below of the points outlined in the Appeal Letter. Most of the
concerns noted are associated with the Council approval for the Use Permit for 22 Chorro Street,
that approved 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. After the use permit was approved, the project was reviewed by the
ARC.
The Role of the ARC
The ARC has a specific role within the development review process. The Community Design
Guidelines (CDG) state that the ARC has four responsibilities:
1. Review proposed development for compliance with CDG, applicable City regulations,
the General Plan and, where appropriate, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA);
2. Update the design guidelines, when necessary;
3. During regular meetings, advise developers, designers and the City on how to apply the
guidelines; and
4. Develop design guidelines for specific areas within the city, and specific design issues.
The ARC is responsible for reviewing project architecture and often reviews requests for
modifications to development standards (height, setback, etc.), including parking design and
Packet Pg. 63
6
reductions. In this particular case, the exceptions to the development standards (i.e. height
exception, parking reduction, etc.) were approved by the City Council as part of the approved
Use Permit and were not part of the ARC review. Other issues raised in the appeal are also
related to the use of the project, which was reviewed by the City Council as part of the Use
Permit process and approved. The ARC determined that the project was consistent with the
City’s Community Design Guidelines as described in the attached ARC staff report (Attachment
H) and approved the project.
Many of the points made in the appeal are not within the ARC’s purview, as described above,
but rather seek to revisit components of the Use Permit already approved by the City Council.
The approved Use Permit is an entitlement held by the property owner, and as a result the scope
of its review relative to the appeal is limited to the Architectural Review Commissions approval
of the building design. Furthermore, as an affordable housing project with a qualifying density
bonus, the project is protected by State law from changes through the City’s review process that
would result in lower density or other impacts to the project’s financial feasibility.1
Categorical Exemption for CEQA for Infill
The appeal letter states that the project failed to meet the Categorical Exemption for CEQA for
Infill because the project does not follow two of the conditions set forth in Government Code
§15332: 1) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designations and all
applicable general plan policies as well as applicable zoning designation and regulations and 2)
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
Staff determined that the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. This Section states that a
project is considered infill if:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plans designation and all
applicable general policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and
regulations; (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project
site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) The
project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d)
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; (e) The site can be adequately served
by all required utilities and public services.
As proposed, the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations and
will not result in a significant impact on traffic as asserted by the appellant (see the discussion is
the next section); thus the project complies with the criteria of an infill project and for a
categorical exemption as defined by CEQA Section 15332.
1 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.
Packet Pg. 64
6
The argument that the height exception that was approved as part of the Use Permit renders the
project inconsistent with Zoning Regulations was specifically addressed in the case of Wollmer
v. the City of Berkeley, 193 Cal.App.4th 1329 (2011). In that case, the City of Berkeley approved
a project that included a height, floor area ratio and setback standard. The City applied the same
CEQA infill exemption as this project. Project opponents argued that the City could not apply
this CEQA exemption because the requested exemptions made the project inconsistent with the
City’s applicable zoning standards. The Court determined that the concessions to the
development standards were not “applicable” within the meaning of CEQA. Specifically, the
court stated:
Wollmer asserts that by applying the exemption in a way that harmonizes with
relevant law, the City in effect amended the exemption, improperly expanded its
definition, and exceeded its jurisdiction. There is no support for this misguided
assertion. The City properly applied the plain meaning of Guidelines section
15332, subdivision (a) to its own codes in a manner that was in harmony with the
state's density bonus law, and so applied, properly found that the project was
exempt from CEQA. On its face the exemption only requires consistency with
applicable general plan designations and policies and applicable zoning
designations and regulations. (Guidelines, § 15332, subd. (a).) The density bonus
statute in turn requires a waiver of development standards that physically
preclude construction of a density-bonus qualifying project. (§ 65915, subd.
(e)(1).) And the City's own zoning ordinance generally requires the grant of a
density bonus upon a complete application. (Berkeley Mun.Code, §
23C.12.050.A.) Taking these laws together as they operate in the context of a
density bonus project, it is clear that the waived zoning standards are not
“applicable” and that the requirements of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision
(a) were met.
As this case clearly illustrates, the appellants’ argument is inconsistent with the manner in which
concessions or waivers under the Density Bonus Law are to be applied to CEQA review.
Moreover, these arguments relate to a CEQA determination for the underlying Use Permit,
which is not within the purview of the ARC and therefore not part of this appeal.
Traffic Study
The appeal letter states that: 1) the project will be adversely impacted by surrounding
transportation patterns, 2) the City’s Circulation Element specifically requires a circulation
analysis for the Chorro & Foothill intersection and the redevelopment of University Square, and
3) Chorro/Foothill is a high crash location and is already operating below established Multi-
Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) standards.
Discussion regarding traffic study requirements came up during the Use Permit review process.
City Staff reviewed the project and determined that the proposed mix of residential and
commercial of the project did not require a traffic impact study. The project, as proposed, will
have 23 peak hour trips. This is well under the requirement that triggers a traffic study per the
Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines when a project is anticipated to have 100 or
Packet Pg. 65
6
more peak hour trips. Additionally, the project was found to be consistent with the 2014
Circulation Element (CE).
The appellant’s letter discusses that per the CE that the redevelopment of University Square will
require additional circulation, safety & access management analysis.2 The proposed project is not
part of the redevelopment of University Square.
The intersection of Chorro and Foothill will be modified with the construction of the project. A
condition of the Use Permit requires that the project shall redesign the intersection on Chorro
Street to include a bike box and expand the current right turn lane consistent with the Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The Plan states that this modification is to reduce conflict possibility
between left (west) turning bike traffic, and straight through motor vehicle traffic. Additionally,
the addition of the project is anticipated to maintain the current Level of Service (LOS) of
Foothill Boulevard (LOS D) which is consistent with the Circulation Element3.
Again, these issues all relate to the underlying Use Permit which has already been approved by
the City Council. The only issues that legally are subject to this appeal is the design of the
project.
Parking Space Miscalculation
Parking space calculations is another concern raised in the appeal. The letter states:
“In calculating the shared parking and mixed-use parking reductions, two critical
facts were ignored: the 27 spaces included in the mechanical parking lift cannot
be shared and cannot be used by anyone other than residents in violation of
SLOMC 17.16.060.B & C; and the Applicant was granted an exemption from the
common use requirement for the mechanical parking lift in violation of SLOMC
17 .16.060.K.3. As a result, when corrected, the Applicant is entitled to a parking
reduction of not more than 12 spaces rather than the 22 spaces granted.”
The applicant requested and the Council approved a 40% parking reduction for a total of 33
required spaces. This request was based on a combination of two separate provisions in the
Zoning Code which allow for the reduction of on-site parking requirements: (1) Mixed Use
Parking Reductions; and (2) Bicycle Space Reduction. Per the SLOMC 17.16.060.C , a project
that has a mix of uses may request up to a 30% parking reduction. Additionally, a project may
also ask for up to a 10% parking reduction by providing additional bicycle parking. These
reductions were requested and approved by the City Council as part of the Use Permit and are
not within the purview of the ARC. As a result, this issue is not justly before the City Council.
See the attached City Council Staff report for a thorough discussion on the parking reduction
analysis (Attachment F).
Zero setback along Chorro Street
The appeal letter states that “The City Council's approval of the Project set forth in Resolution
No. 10749 (2016 Series) failed to grant [the] Applicant any setback along Chorro Street as [the]
2 Circulation Element. Table 5, Project #24: Reconfigurations: Chorro, Broad, & Boysen Realignments .
3 Circulation Element. Table 4. Arterial Streets.
Packet Pg. 66
6
Applicant requested. The ARC also failed to grant [the] Applicant's zero setback request.”
The City Council and the ARC discussed the setback along Chorro Street. At both meetings,
staff explained its interpretation of the zoning regulations that require setbacks within the
Community Commercial (C-C) zone to follow the setback established for adjacent property, if
any. In this case the site is adjacent to a R-1 property that requires a 20-foot setback and property
zoned C-C that has setback requirements provided by the adjacent zoning. Because of the
triangular nature of the site and the adjacent zoning, the property requir ed an interpretation of
how the setbacks should apply. The City Council made this interpretation in the approval of the
Use Permit. To the extent that that setbacks are still considered as part of the design review
process, providing a 20-foot setback along Chorro Street would otherwise be inconsistent with
the Community Design Guidelines that state that “…buildings should generally be oriented
parallel to streets and should be placed as close to the street as required setbacks and consistent
building placement permit”.4 The Design Guidelines also further state that “The visual impact of
parking lots should be minimized by locating these facilities to a portion of the site least visible
from the street and by providing adequate screening and parking lot landscaping.”5 With a 20-
foot setback, the project would be required to place parking within the setback, resulting in a less
desirable site design. By approving the project, the ARC concurred with this interpretation.
Blocks viewsheds along Foothill Boulevard
Views from Foothill Boulevard was noted as a concern in the appeal letter. The letter states that
“The project is in the viewshed of the Foothill Boulevard scenic highway and is designated a
sensitive" site that requires architectural review.”
This issue was addressed by the City Council in regards to the requested height exception, which
was approved via the Use Permit and as a result is not consistent with the purview of the ARC
and not appropriately subject to this appeal. By way of background regarding that decision,
Foothill Boulevard is considered a scenic roadway in the Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE). The COSE also identifies various “cones of view” that are to be protected. As discussed
in the Council Report for the Use Permit (Attachment F), Cerro San Luis is not identified with a
“cone of view” from Foothill Boulevard. The COSE provides policy for the protection of views
from public areas such as streets, parks, etc., but the City does not regulate private viewshed
rights.
The CDG has limited standards regarding the protection of views. More specifically, the
Community Design Guidelines indirectly discusses views by providing standards on how a
structure’s height, scale and massing should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
In this particular instance, the Use Permit approved the height exception and the Design
Guidelines are used to evaluate the proposed project’s exterior design so that it is compatible
with the neighborhood.
Other considerations
The proposed project is a “housing development project” as defined under the State’s Housing
Accountability Act, Gov. Code § 65589.5. Subsection (d)(1) prohibits a local agency from
4 Community Design Guidelines. Chapter 3 – Commercial and Industrial Project Design: Section 3.1.C(2).
5 Community Design Guidelines. Chapter 3 – Commercial and Industrial Project Design: Section 3.1.C(2i).
Packet Pg. 67
6
disapproving such a 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, that the project would have a
“specific adverse impact.” For purposes of this State law, “specific, adverse impact” is defined as
“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.”
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
if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted.
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.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied b y 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.
Packet Pg. 68
6
ALTERNATIVE
Uphold the appeal and return the project to the ARC with specific direction. The Council finds
that the architectural design of the project is not consistent with the City’s the General Plan,
Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines and applicable City regulations and requires
a redesign with direction provided by Council and review by the ARC. An alternative resolution
has been provided in case the City Council wishes to take this action.
Attachments:
a - Resolution A (deny the appeal)
b - Resolution B (uphold appeal)
c - Appeal Letter
d - Vicinity Map
e - Project Plans
f - Council Agenda Report 10-18-2016
g - Council Resolution (R-10749) 10-18-2016
h - ARC Staff Report (ARCH-2794-2016) 12-5-2016
i - ARC Resolution (ARC-1027-16) 12-5-2016
Packet Pg. 69
6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY LYDIA
MOURENZA & RICHARD RACOUILLAT) THEREBY APPROVING THE
DESIGN 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, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2017 (22 CHORRO STREET,
APPL-4278-2016)
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2016, the City Council approved a Use Permit (USE-2882-2016)
for a new mixed use project with 27 units a maximum height of 43-feet (where normally 35 feet
is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of mechanical parking lifts; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on December 5, 2016, with a four-one vote approving the design of the project, subject
to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1027-16 pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-2794-2016, San Luis Development Group, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard Racouillat, the
appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on December 5, 2016;
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 February
7, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4278-2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard
Racouillat, the appellants; 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, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City 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 to deny the appeal (APPL-4278-2016) of the Architectural Review Commission
decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-2794-2016):
Packet Pg. 70
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
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 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 design approval of 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 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 City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural
Review Commission’s action to approve the design of the proposed project, thereby granting final
approval of the application APPL-4063-2016 for new four-story mixed-use project with ground
floor commercial/retail space, 27 residential units, and mechanical parking lifts, subject to the
following conditions:
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.
Packet Pg. 71
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
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 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
Packet Pg. 72
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 4
R ______
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.
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 required 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
Packet Pg. 73
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 5
R ______
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.
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.
Packet Pg. 74
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 6
R ______
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
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.
Packet Pg. 75
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 7
R ______
33. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared
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.
Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote:
Packet Pg. 76
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 8
R ______
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
________________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 77
6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND REQUIRING
THE PROJECT BE REDESIGNED PER DIRECTION AND REVIEWED
BY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION, AS REPRESENTED IN
THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
FEBRUARY 7, 2017 (22 CHORRO STREET, APPL-4278-2016)
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2016, the City Council approved a Use Permit (USE-2882-
2016) for a new mixed use project with 27 units a maximum height of 43-feet (where normally 35
feet is allowed), a 40% parking reduction, and the use of mechanical parking lifts; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on December 5, 2016, with a four-one vote approving the design of the project,
subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1027-16 pursuant to a
proceeding instituted under ARCH-2794-2016, San Luis Development Group, LLC, applicant;
and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard Racouillat, the
appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on December 5, 2016;
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 February
7, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4278-2016, Lydia Mourenza and Richard
Racouillat, the appellants; 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, and
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 to uphold the appeal (APPL-4278-2016) of the Architectural Review
Commission decision, thereby requiring the project be redesigned per direction and reviewed by
Architectural Review Commission (ARCH-2794-2016), based on the following findings [NOTE:
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FINDINGS TO UPHOLD
THE APPEAL AND DENY THE PROJECT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
GOVERNMENT CODE § 65589.5(d)(2)]:
Packet Pg. 78
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
1. That the project is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working
at the site or in the vicinity because the project is not compatible with site constraints and the
scale and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The mechanical lift parking is not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because
the lifts are not adequately screened and compatible with the building and site design of the
proposed project.
3. The project is not consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the
proposed project does not incorporate similar materials and architectural features to the
surrounding neighborhood and provides a complementary color scheme.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The design approval of 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 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. Based on the above findings and evidence submitted in support
thereof, the City Council does hereby uphold the appeal thereby requiring the project (application
APPL-4278-20160 be redesigned per direction and reviewed by Architectural Review
Commission.
Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 79
6
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 80
6
Packet Pg. 81
6
Packet Pg. 82
6
Packet Pg. 83
6
Packet Pg. 84
6
Packet Pg. 85
6
Packet Pg. 86
6
Packet Pg. 87
6
Packet Pg. 88
6
Packet Pg. 89
6
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 APPL-4278-201622 Chorro Street ¯
Packet Pg. 90
6
Packet Pg. 916
Packet Pg. 926
Packet Pg. 936
Packet Pg. 946
Packet Pg. 956
Packet Pg. 966
Packet Pg. 976
Packet Pg. 986
Packet Pg. 996
Packet Pg. 1006
Packet Pg. 1016
Packet Pg. 1026
Packet Pg. 1036
Packet Pg. 1046
Packet Pg. 1056
Packet Pg. 1066
Packet Pg. 1076
Packet Pg. 1086
Packet Pg. 1096
Packet Pg. 1106
Packet Pg. 1116
Packet Pg. 1126
Packet Pg. 1136
Packet Pg. 1146
Packet Pg. 1156
Packet Pg. 1166
Packet Pg. 1176
Packet Pg. 1186
Packet Pg. 1196
Packet Pg. 1206
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS GASGAS
GAS
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
W
W WXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXW
SSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTEW
W
W
W
E
E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEESSSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSD252.6FS252.4FS251.9FS252.4FS252.6FS249.1FS247.9FS252.6 FF252.4 FF251.9 FFMAX
1.5%250.6FS252.4FS3%250.0 TPMATCH EXIST247.5 TPMATCH EXIST251.4 TPMATCH EXIST252.9 TPMATCH EXIST252.4FS252.4FS250.7 TW250.0 FS250.1FS8%252.3 TW249.6 FS249.3FS249.3FS1.5%251.6BSW/FL248.0FL252.4TC/FL252.9FS251.4 TCMATCH EXIST251.7TC252.2TC1.5%252.4TC251.2 TPMATCH EXIST252.7TC252.8 TPMATCH EXIST251.0TC252.8FS252.1FS249.6TC250.4TC248.2 BSWMATCH EXIST2%2%4.2%4.2%5%2%PROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENT1.5%
1.5%252.6FS1.5%Ashley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A LSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:DRIVEWAY APPROACH AND RAMP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 2110.EXISTING WALL TO REMAINTRASH ENCLOSURE PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 9110.VEGETATED SWALE FLOWLINE. ROOF DRAINS AND DOWNSPOUTS TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD SWALE.SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD SIDEWALK PER DETAIL 4110, 4120 AND 4910.STRUCTURAL COLUMNSBUILDING WALLSAWCUT AND REPLACE 24" MIN PAVEMENT SECTION, MATCH EXITING STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTION.SEE SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 7110 FOR REFERENCE.SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 3415.CURB AND GUTTER PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 4030INSTALL 12" CATCH BASIN WITH ATRIUM GRATE.6" PVC STORM DRAINCURB RAMP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 4440 AND APPENDIX A.BUS TURN IN PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 4920.BUS STOP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 4930.RESET LID TO GRADERELOCATE VAULT AND RESET TO GRADERELOCATE UTILITY BOX AND RESET LID TO GRADEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED SITE RETAINING WALL4' PAINTED BIKE LINERE-STRIPE CROSS WALKUNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERSPROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT010 10 20HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETNCHORRO STREETFOOTHILL BLVD1236TYP22DRAINAGE NOTE: MAJORITY OF HARDSCAPE IS COVERED BY MULTISTORY BUILDING. STORMRUNOFF WILL BE ROUTED TO THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS THROUGH ASERIES OF 2ND AND 3RD STORY ROOF DRAIN SYSTEMS OUTLETTING TO VEGETADEDSWALES AND STORM DRAINS. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR 2ND AND 3RD STORYLAYOUT.SITE STATISTICS:21,874 SF AREAEARTHWORK:2,000 CY CUT50 CY FILL11' MAX CUT2' MAX FILLLID STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, TIER 2PROJECT UTILIZES:xUNDERGROUND RETENTIONxDISCONNECTED DOWNSPOUTSxVEGETATED SWALES455557TYP7TYP411888888910101010101010101414151313161616161617161818191919192020202121222323PROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENT2412STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS:BSW BACK OF SIDEWALKFF FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONFG FINISHED GRADEFL FLOWLINEFS FINISHED SURFACETC TOP OF CURBTG TOP OF GRATETP TOP OF PAVEMENTTW TOP OF WALLTYP TYPICAL202020PROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENT252525PROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENTPROPOSED PUBLICACCESS EASEMENTPacket Pg. 1216
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS GASGAS
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
WXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXW
SSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELTELW
W
W
W
E
E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ESSSSSSSSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDWAshley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L010 10 20HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETNSITE UTILITY NOTES:MECHANICAL ROOM4" FIRE WATER. CONNECT TO BUILDING PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6590.6" SDR 35 PVC SEWER LATER PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6810.SEWER CLEANOUT PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6710.INSTALL NEW 1.5" COMMERCIAL WATER METER IN PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED WATER METER BOXINSTALL NEW 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER AND 3/4" IRRIGATION METER PER CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6210, 6220, AND 6260.2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICEEXISTING FIRE HYDRANT6" SDR 35 PVC STORM DRAIN.STORM TECH SC-740 UNDERGROUND STORAGE CHAMBERSEXISTING MANHOLE, CLEANOUT AND SEWER LOCATED IN THIS AREA NOT SHOWN IN TOPO.SEWER TO BE ABANDONED, CONTRACTOR SHALL SEVER AND PLUG TIE-IN LOCATION ATDOWNSTREAM MANHOLE.122346588247.6 TG244.6 INV94710STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS:INV INVERTTG TOP OF GRATEGENERAL NOTES:ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE BEST KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE. ANYEXISTING SEWER LATERALS TO SITE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEABANDONED. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL POINTS OF CONNECTION AND VERIFY ALLCLEARANCES. MATERIAL DEPTH AND LOCATION SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. IFTHERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCES FROM PLAN WITH ANY OF THESE ITEMS, ENGINEER OF WORKSHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY.11Packet Pg. 1226
Packet Pg. 1236
Packet Pg. 1246
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.
Packet Pg. 125
6
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 is
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;
Packet Pg. 126
6
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.
Packet Pg. 127
6
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).
Packet Pg. 128
6
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
Packet Pg. 129
6
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).
Packet Pg. 130
6
(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
Packet Pg. 131
6
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.
Packet Pg. 132
6
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 incentives 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.
Packet Pg. 133
6
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.
Packet Pg. 134
6
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
Packet Pg. 135
6
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
Packet Pg. 136
6
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
Packet Pg. 137
6
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
Packet Pg. 138
6
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
Packet Pg. 139
6
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
Packet Pg. 140
6
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
Packet Pg. 141
6
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
Packet Pg. 142
6
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
Packet Pg. 143
6
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
Packet Pg. 144
6
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.
Packet Pg. 145
6
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;
Packet Pg. 146
6
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.
Packet Pg. 147
6
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.
Packet Pg. 148
6
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
Packet Pg. 149
6
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.
Packet Pg. 150
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
Packet Pg. 151
6
Packet Pg. 152
6
Packet Pg. 153
6
Packet Pg. 154
6
Packet Pg. 155
6
Packet Pg. 156
6
Packet Pg. 157
6
Packet Pg. 158
6
Packet Pg. 159
6
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 160
6
22 CHORRO STREET
KEYS TO SUSTAINABILITY –LOCATION & LOCAL SERVICES
KEYS TO SUSTAINABILITY ‐TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
KEYS TO SUSTAINABILITY –BICYCLE AMENITIES
SUSTAINABLE POLICY ‐FEDERAL–Housing Development Toolkit•Recommends cities eliminate off street parking requirements•“When transit‐oriented developments are intended to help reduce automobile dependence, parking requirements can undermine that goal by inducing new residents to drive, thereby counteracting city goals for increased use of public transit, walking and biking.”•“by reducing parking and designing more connected, walkable developments, cities can reduce pollution, traffic congestion and improve economic development.”
SUSTAINABLE POLICY ‐STATE–California AB 744•The Cost of building affordable housing in California is impacted by local opposition, changes imposed by local design and review and requirements for on‐site parking.•The biggest single determinant of vehicle miles traveled and therefore greenhouse gas emissions is ownership of a private vehicle.•It is the state policy to promote transit‐oriented infill development to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
SUSTAINABLE POLICY ‐STATE–California AB 744•Increases in public transportation and shared mobility options and the development of more walkable and bikeable neighborhoods reduce the demand for parking•Minimum parking requirements provide large subsidies for parking, which in turn encourage more people to drive cars•Parking requirements shift what should be the cost of driving, the cost of parking a car, into the cost of housing, which artificially increases the cost of housing
SUSTAINABLE POLICY ‐STATE–California AB 744•Encourages allowing builders and the market to decide how much parking is needed
SUSTAINABLE POLICY ‐LOCAL–Climate Action Plan•Replacing vehicle trips with alternative modes of transportation, including bicycling and walking, reduces VMT and related GHG emissions.•New developments may reduce the number of required parking spaces by providing additional bike parking.•Research has shown that compact development which includes higher density, increased diversity, and greater accessibility can reduce VMT to 20% to 40% below average.•Achieve 20% bicycle mode share by 2020
SUSTAINABLE POLICY ‐LOCAL–Climate Action Plan•Encourage compact urban form and mixed‐use developments•Incentivize mixed‐use development by reducing parking requirements, allowing alternatives to Parking and Driveway Standards, and streamlining permit review.•Reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions by further reducing parking requirements for land uses that share the same parking lot.•Reductions in available parking spaces can reduce VMT if alternative modes of transportation are easy and accessible.
ADDITIONAL HOUSINGGeneral Plan and Major City Goals•Add housing–Project site highest designated zoning (36 units/acre)–Project vacant for almost 10 years–Project adds 27 units•Add affordable housing–Per the 2015 General Plan Annual Report, city seeks to add 143 Very Low Income rental units between 2014 and 2019–Project adds 4 housing units rent restricted to Very Low Income Households
CONSISTENT WITH UPDATED LUCE–LUCE Section 8.2.1 – Foothill/Santa Rosa SPA•“This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Blvd between Chorro and Santa Rosa”•“The City shall work with property owners to redevelop the area as mixed use to include … High Density Residential”•“Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered with mixed use development”
CONSISTENT WITH UPDATED LUCE–LUCE Section 8.2.1 – Foothill/Santa Rosa SPA•“Redevelopment plans shall include consideration of improving the existing complex intersections of Foothill/Chorro… and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections across Foothill and Santa Rosa/Highway 1 and to Campus”•“As part of this project, the city will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements to account for predominant pedestrian and bike access”
22 CHORRO STREET
22 Chorro StreetAPPL-4278-2016February 7, 2017Appellant: Lydia Mourenza and Richard Racouillat
RecommendationAdopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding theArchitectural Review Commission’s approval of the newfour-story mixed-use project that includes ground floorcommercial/retail space, 27 residential units, andmechanical parking lifts.2
Procedural History Regarding the Use Permit3August 24, 2016- the PC reviewed the proposedproject and voted to deny the Use Permit.August 31, 2016- the applicant appealed the PC’sdecision to deny the Use Permit.
Procedural History Regarding the Use Permit4October 18, 2016- The City Council reviewed theappeal on and voted 4:1 to uphold the appeal andapprove the project. The use permit allows:A mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard special planningareaA maximum building height of 43-feet,A 40% parking reduction, andThe use of mechanical parking lifts.January 16, 2017– Expiration date of the time tochallenge the approval of the use permit and underlyingCEQA determination. The City has not received noticeof any such challenge.
Procedural History Regarding the Design Review5December 5, 2016- The ARC held a public hearingto review the proposed architecture of the projectand determined the project was consistent with theCDG and voted 4;1 to approve the project.December 14, 2016- Ms. Mourenza and Mr.Racouillat filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision.
Site Information6Zone: C-C-SFSize: .55 acres (24,033 s.f.)General Plan: CommercialCurrently VacantG. Brothers SmokehouseFoothillRougeotUniversity Square Shopping CenterFerrini SquareResidentialBroad
Site Information7Zone: C-C-SFSize: .55 acres (24,033 s.f.)General Plan: CommercialCurrently VacantFoothillRougeotBroadC-R-SFC-C-SFR-1C-C-SF
Site Information8
Project Description9
Project Description10Bike BoxBus TurnoutRight lane turnout
Project Description11Landscape PlanNew Street TreesNew LandscapingExisting Trees
Project Description12Front (North Elevation)Front (North Elevation)West ElevationWest Elevation
Project Description13South Elevation (Back)South Elevation (Back)East ElevationEast Elevation
Project Description1443 ft.~33 ft.Residential PropertyFoothill Boulevard
Appeal15Ms. Mourenza and Mr. Racouillat filed an appealof the ARC’s decision stating that the project:Failed to meet the Categorical Exemption for CEQA forInfillDid not include a traffic studyMiscalculated the parking space reductionFailed to receive approval for a zero setback along ChorroStreetBlocks viewsheds along Foothill Boulevard
Staff Analysis16
The Role of ARC17The ARC is responsible for reviewing compliance of aproject’s architecture with the Community DesignGuidelines.Exceptions to the development standards were approvedby the City Council as part of the approved Use Permitand were not part of the ARC review.The ARC determined that the project was consistent withthe City’s Community Design Guidelines and approved theproject.
Categorical Exemption for CEQA for Infill18Staff determined that the project was categoricallyexempt from environmental review under Section15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQAGuidelines.The project, as designed, is consistent with the City’sGeneral Plan and Zoning Regulations.Does not result in a significant impact on trafficbecause the project is estimated to have only 23 peakhour trips.
Traffic Study19The project is estimated to have only 23 peak hour tripsand does not trigger a Traffic Study.The proposed project is not part of the redevelopment ofUniversity Square.The intersection of Chorro and Foothill will be modifiedwith the construction of the project.The project is anticipated not to change the currentLevel of Service of Foothill Boulevard (LOS D) which isconsistent with the Circulation Element.
Parking Space Miscalculation20The applicant requested a 40% parking reduction for atotal of 33 parking spaces.This request was based on a combination of two separateprovisions in the Zoning Code which allow for thereduction of on-site parking requirements:1)30% Mixed Use and Shared Parking Reductions; and2)10% Bicycle Parking Space Reduction.These reductions were requested and approved by theCity Council as part of the Use Permit and were not withinthe purview of the ARC.
Zero Setback along Chorro Street21The Zoning Regulations require setbacks within the C-Czone to follow the setback established for the adjacentproperty.Because of the triangular nature of the site and theadjacent zoning, the property required an interpretationof how the setbacks should apply.Providing a 20-foot setback along Chorro Street wouldbe inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines.
Blocks Viewsheds along Foothill Boulevard22Foothill Boulevard is considered a scenic roadway in theCOSE, but it does not identify any specific viewsheds or“cone of views” for the roadway.The COSE provides policy for the protection of viewsfrom public areas such as streets, parks, etc., but theCity does not regulate private viewshed rights.This City Council approved a height exception via theUse Permit.
Environmental ReviewOn October 18, 2016, per City Council Resolution No.10749 (2016 Series), the project was determined to bestatutorily exempt under Section 15195 and categoricallyexempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects;Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.A Notice of Exemption was filed on December 12, 2016 inthe San Luis Obispo Clerk Recorder’s Office.Design approval of the project does not change the projectin a manner that would impact that previous environmentaldetermination.23
RecommendationAdopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding theArchitectural Review Commission’s approval of the newfour-story mixed-use project that includes ground floorcommercial/retail space, 27 residential units, andmechanical parking lifts.24
Questions/Comments25
27FOOTHILL & BROAD, FOOTHILL & CHORRORanked #3,4 for Arterial-Collector IntersectionsPATTERN:RECOMMENDATION:EB/WB left-turns vs. thru • Evaluate conversion of protective/permissive left turn phasing to Flashing Yellow Arrows.• Upgrade from 8” to 12” signal indications (Foothill/Chorro)8”12”Foothill/Chorro
28
Project Analysis: Form and Mass299 AM12 PM3 PMWinter Solstice Shading Model
Project Analysis: Site Planning30
31Project Analysis: Balconies, patioand rooftop decks4thFloor Plan1stFloor Plan
32Project Analysis: Balconies, patioand rooftop decks2ndFloor Plan4thFloor Plan
Project Analysis: Balconies, patioand rooftop decks337-foot wide planterGate
Project Analysis: Balconies, patioand rooftop decks34Replaced the concrete wall with concrete planters and landscaping
Project Analysis: Mechanical Parking Lifts35
Project Analysis: Mechanical Parking Lifts36
37