HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - MOD-1734-2018 (40 Buena Vista) SFR new facadeARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject
to conditions.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING**
Review of a design modification to a previously approved single-family residence on a sensitive site
(SDU-1521-2015). Plans include a new façade design, removal of the roof deck, and revisions to the
previously approved exceptions including a building height increase of 7-feet, and a side yard setback
exception of 10-feet where 13.5-feet is normally required (Attachment 3, Building Exception Analysis).
General Location: The project site is located on an
existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access
off of Buena Vista Avenue in Monterey Heights.
The property is a downward sloping lot from west
to east with an average grade greater than 30%.
Present Use: No current use
Zoning: Low Density Residential within the Special
Considerations Overlay (R-1-S)
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Surrounding Uses:
East: Public Facility, Cuesta Park
West: Low Density Residential
North: Conservation/Open Space
South: No current use
3.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary Style
Design details: Cross gable roofs, balconies with cable railings
Materials: Hardi-Plank lap siding, composition roof, Milgard Style Line Series Vinyl windows, Natural
wood stain front door and garage.
Colors: “Evening Blue” lap siding, and “charcoal” roof system.
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 40 Buena Vista Avenue FILE NUMBER: MOD-1734-2018
APPLICANT: Gary & Sonja Withey REPRESENTATIVE: Antonio Xiques
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Meeting Date: November 19, 2018
Item Number: 4
Item No. 1
Packet Page 150
4.0 BACKGROUND
The project includes extensive background from the previous approvals and appeals, more
information can be found in Attachment 4 - Project Background.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Previous Council Review 5.3.16: http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1/doc/56274/Page1.aspx
5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
Chapter 7.2 Consistent Potentially
Inconsistent Staff notes
Hillside Development Standards – Building Design
Overall Design X A lower profile presents potential conflict with
driveway access.
Exterior Wall Surfaces X The South Elevation could benefit from
additional articulation.
Roofs X
Colors and Materials X
Height of Lowest Floor X Previously approved by City Council
Downhill Building Walls X Previously approved by City Council
Support Structures X Previously approved by City Council
Decks X Previously approved by City Council
View Protection X Previously approved by City Council
Landscaping X
6.0 JUST THE FACTS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required
Setbacks - Front 20 feet 20 feet
Setbacks – North Side 12 feet 15 feet
Setbacks – South Side 10 feet 14 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 34 feet 27 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 12% 40%
Total # Parking Spaces 2 2
7.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
7.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the
basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, CDG, Zoning
Regulations or other policy documents.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
8.1 Draft Resolution
8.2 Project Description & Plans
8.3 Building Exceptions Analysis
8.4 Project Background
8.5 ARC Report and Meeting Minutes – March 7, 2016
8.6 City Council Resolution No. 10712 (2016 Series) Packet Page 151
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-XXXX-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DESIGN MODIFICATION
TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A
SENSITIVE SITE, INCLUDING A NEW FAÇADE DESIGN, REMOVAL
OF THE ROOF DECK, AND REVISIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED EXCEPTIONS INCLUDING A BUILDING HEIGHT
INCREASE OF 7-FEET, AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK EXCEPTION OF
10-FEET WHERE 13.5-FEET IS NORMALLY REQUIRED. THE
PROJECT IS CATEGORICAL EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW. AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2018 (40 BUENA VISTA
AVENUE, MOD-1734-2018)
WHEREAS, the City Council 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 January
19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for
the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested
exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design
Guidelines without the then currently proposed height and setback exceptions Council Resolution
No. 10689 (2016 Series); and
WHEREAS, the ARC 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 March 7,
2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SDU-1521-2015; and unanimously approved the
design of a single-family residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height
exception (SDU-1521-2015) ARC Resolution No. 1003-16, Jeff Kraft applicant; and
WHEREAS, Naomi Hoffman, the appellant, filed an appeal of the ARC' s action on March
15, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 3,
2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SDU-1520-2015; denying the appeal and granting
final approval for the design of a single-family residence, Council Resolution No. 10712 (2016
Series); Jeff Kraft, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
Attachment 1
Packet Page 152
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-18
40 Buena Vista Avenue, MOD-1734-2018
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (MOD-1734-2018), based on the following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or
residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning
designation and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety
codes.
2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to
compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and
housing production (HE 6).
Hillside Development
3. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 755 because of concerns
relating to hillside development and public utility services. The project is consistent with the
General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status because the building design minimizes
the need for grading activities through the use of stepped foundation with piers; is compatible
with surrounding developments; and the conceptual landscape plan provides for native,
drought tolerant plantings visible from the public right-of-way that provide a transition from
developed to open space areas and softens the appearance of the home.
4. The project is consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines because the
project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101
and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with Hillside
Development Standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance of the hillside.
The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure
and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed
from Highway 101. As conditioned, landscaping of the project site further integrates the
structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas.
Side Yard Setback and Building Height Exceptions
5. The proposed building height of 34-feet where 27-feet was previously approved will not
obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for
the construction of covered parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines
and the Parking and Driveway Standards for a safe driveway design. The proposed building
height exception is warranted due to the existing site slope.
6. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood
character because the structure will appear as less than a one-story structure from the Buena
Vista Avenue public right-of-way surrounded by one- and two-story structures within the
Attachment 1
Packet Page 153
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-18
40 Buena Vista Avenue, MOD-1734-2018
Page 3
neighborhood and is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood.
7. A reduced side yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent
properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar access or privacy. The portion of the
residence requiring a setback exception will cast no greater shadow than the portions of the
residence which meet the setback/height requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations.
8. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the
street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any
adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected
by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each
adjacent parcel over two acres in size.
9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no significant fire
protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated.
10. The proposed minor property development exceptions are warranted due to difficult site
constraints (slope), since they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for
reasonable development of the site.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3
(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have
a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence
in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is
consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards
for hillside development.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC (MOD-1734-2018). 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.
2. The project shall comply with all conditions and code requirements, applicable to the project
site, established under City Council Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) and Council
Attachment 1
Packet Page 154
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-18
40 Buena Vista Avenue, MOD-1734-2018
Page 4
Resolution No. 10712 (2016 Series).
3. 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.
Indemnification
4. 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.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19th day of November, 2018.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 1
Packet Page 155
The Withey Residence at 40 Buena Vista Avenue
September 11, 2018
We are very excited to build our home in the city we love. I was born here in San Luis Obispo, as
was my daughter, and my wife has been in the area for many decades herself and has 3 grown
and successful children. We are home owners here, and my daughter just started SLO High. We
bought the land at 40 Buena Vista Avenue earlier in the year and intend to build a place that we
can call home for many years to come, while continuing to raise my daughter, and into
retirement. We love the location and can appreciate how others in the area do too and are
sensitive to change. We have used the previously approved plans and made some changes that
not only do we like better, but we believe address most of the concerns that the original project
raised with our future neighbors. We eliminated the rooftop deck for example and the plans no
longer include an ADU. Due to the steep sloping geography of the location, the original plans
were granted some variances and that will still be the case, but the overall footprint will be very
close to the originally approved plans.
The new plans eliminate the split level on the lower level, which has several advantages both
for the inside of the home and from the outside. Inside of course, there is now only a single
level for the floor, higher ceilings, and less stairs. On the outside, it allows for the removal of
the variance for the 20’ setback from the front and a nice almost level driveway, instead of a
downward sloped one, leading into the garage. The level driveway also improves drainage
issues and visibility and safety during ingress and egress. All but minor grading was also
eliminated by the new design and no retaining walls are required now. In addition, the house
now appears as a normal single level home from the Buena Vista Avenue street view, instead of
being sunken below street level. All setbacks, heights, etc., are provided with the separately
provided drawings and are reasonably close to the originally approved values.
The neighborhood currently is very eclectic and features a wide variety of different styles and
colors of homes. There is everything from brick, to stucco, to wood homes in the neighborhood.
We have designed a home with a blend of modern and traditional styling. The colors are a
neutral grayish blue earth tone color, with warm wood accent features, which blends into the
natural environment very nicely.
Attachment 2
Packet Page 156
Due to the steep slope of the site, the previous approved project was unable to comply with the
requirement that “No single wall on the downhill side of the house should exceed 15 feet in
height above grade.” To stay within that requirement would require extensive excavation and
retaining walls. The upper section is stepped back 5 feet instead of 10, to make the upper level
usable, otherwise it would be too narrow to be a livable space. This should be indistinguishable
from the highway or below the property on the downward facing side of the house however,
since both are quite a distance away and below the home, and there is a wood deck that
extends about 7 feet out from the upper level floor line, which gives it the appearance of a
larger setback and also serves as a nice contrast feature, breaking up profile of the downhill
side of the home. The overall effect is the nice stepped appearance desired, instead of a
monolithic block.
The previous project was unable to comply with “The vertical distance between the lowest
point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure should not
exceed six feet. Support structures (for example, column, pilings, etc.) below the lowest floor of
the downhill side of the house, shall be enclosed unless visible structural members are an
integral feature of the architectural design. Support structure wall surfaces shall not exceed six
feet in height.” The previous project included a third floor to meet the 6’ foot height limitation
above finish grade. Planning commission directed applicants to remove the third floor to reduce
the mass and scale of the project. Piers greater than 6 feet were provided and approved by the
ARC. Native Oaks and other landscaping will be used to camouflage the piers from the freeway
and views from below.
Our family and our cat look forward to becoming a part of the neighborhood!
Gary and Sonja Withey
Attachment 2
Packet Page 157
! "
"
#$#
"
"%&%
%!%! $ $
'
& $(
)
$
#
" "&#
*+
$
&
!,
#&
-
&
#
$""
"
'"
"
'
%&
& . . . .
'
&
'
&
'
& .
$
/
,
0
1
! .
!
&
1
"
.0.
1
#
$
2
"
/
"
3
&
4%&&
"
5
$,&
!&%0
.
67. 869:;<=>9"
&
/"
4&
/
&
4&1,
%
!4
.
!!0
..
.+?@;6*A8:><=>9
$,$& /&
&
/
"#&"
&
$
!!0
.
;*6?B:AA>=;:C?A8=>@*?C,,$
&
& /
%3
""
/
!,
#&
#
$,&
!&%0
. % / . 2 & /$
&2
/.0.
1
.
$%
/ D
#
!,&$/ , "& /&
"
$
/
'
%/
. ,
%
/
. #!%& '$
1"/
, "
%
%
&
&
%$ #&& &
% %3
"
$
.
%$&
",
$
%$
$
#&
!,&$"&
""
"
!,&$"&
""
"
&
%3
$$
%$
& /
$& &
&"
&$
"
$& &
%$, !&
"
$& &
$
&$
"
$& &
&$
"
$& &
&
"
$& &
"
$& &
!,&$"&
""
"
$
"&
"&
3
"
"%
"
!
$
&
"&
%%$&!$
0
%#&"
D
$%
&
,
%&&#
"&
!$"
""
$$
!
%#&"
"
!$"
&
,
%&&
!
!
%$& $
#&&!$
"
$
&!$
. &
%$
"
$$
!'0
0
&&
,&
%3
, "
&
%
&
%%
"
1
/
&"
/
,%%
$/
$
$/
"
/
$
&
/
.$
1
$/
.$
&2
/.0.
1
.
$
#
/
,,
/
1
D
%#& /
1
.D
&#
#
& /
1
D%
-
"
'/
%'& /
#
"
%'&
%
(
$
/
(
&
!""#$%& "'()*"+,-." -#" / !
0 1 2 1 3 4 /5 5 1
2 31 3 6 54127 1 5 5 4 7 43 1 2
255 5 4 1
7 5/1 Attachment 2Packet Page 158
" " " " " " " " " " " ,% . "!
!" '&
!
"
5.$
$
!
"
5! $$$
$
$
$$$&#& &
%$
4"& &5
&
%$
"
'" " " " . " ." . " " " " " . . . $, "
!
"
5! $
"%
!
$ &$ $$"
'
"&#
!
%#&"
#
&
%
,
& "
&
!
"
& %
$$&
!
/
&
$
%
!$
1
1
"
$
%
&
&
$
%
&
&
&"
4
&
&
4
!
$
%
&
& (
&
!""#$%& "'()*"+,-." -#" / !
0 1 2 1 3 4 /5 5 1
2 31 3 6 54127 1 5 5 4 7 43 1 2
255 5 4 1
7 5/1 Attachment 2Packet Page 159
%
$%
$%
$%
$
)
*
%
% 4
"&!"%
$
4
%
%$
&
!$
&$
%
..
&
!$
&$
%
..
&
!$
&$
%
..
$
%&%
$,
%
,0
%
&
!$
&$
%
..
%$
%$
$% . .!#
.
%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$
)
*
4
"&!"%
$
4
%
&
!$
&$
%
..
%
%
%$
%$
% $%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$
)*
.. !#
&
!$
&$
%
..
&
!$
&$
%
.. 4
"&!"%
$
4
%
%
%
$
%&%
$,
%
,0
%
%$
%$
%$
%$
% $% $ $% . .
%
$%
$%
$%
$
)!
*
%
% 4
"&!"%
$
4
%
%$
&
!$
&$
%
..
&
!$
&$
%
..
$
%&%
$,
%
,0
%.!#
&
!$
&$
%
..
%$
%$
% .
(
#
"
(
!#
,$
"
%(
!#
&
%& $%(
!#
$
%& &
(
+
!"/
"&
%$ '
#
&
!$,
$%
&"& /
& !
$ "
"
$
%
& $
& "/
&$"
$
$&
&
#& $
& "&$& /
!$
&$&
"/
,$
"
&
"/
,$
"
& .
!""#$%& "'()*"+,-." -#" / !
0 1 2 1 3 4 /5 5 1
2 31 3 6 54127 1 5 5 4 7 43 1 2
255 5 4 1
7 5/1 Attachment 2Packet Page 160
%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$
)
*
4
"&!"%
$
4
%
&
!$
&$
%
..
%
%
%$
%$
% $%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$%
$
)*
.. !#
&
!$
&$
%
..
&
!$
&$
%
.. 4
"&!"%
$
4
%
%
%
$
%&%
$,
%
,0
%
%$
%$
%$
%$
% $% $ $% . .
)
*
)*
&
. (
!""#$%& "'()*"+,-." -#" / !
0 1 2 1 3 4 /5 5 1
2 31 3 6 54127 1 5 5 4 7 43 1 2
255 5 4 1
7 5/1 Attachment 2Packet Page 161
%
$%
$%
$%
$
)
*
%
% 4
"&!"%
$
4
%
%$
&
!$
&$
%
..
&
!$
&$
%
..
&
!$
&$
%
..
$
%&%
$,
%
,0
%
&
!$
&$
%
..
%$
%$
$% . .!#
.
%
$%
$%
$
)!
*
%
% 4
"&!"%
$
4
%
%$
&
!$
&$
%
..
&
!$
&$
%
..
$
%&%
$,
%
,0
%.!#
&
!$
&$
%
..
%$
%$
% .
)
*
)!
*
&
!""#$%& "'()*"+,-." -#" / !
0 1 2 1 3 4 /5 5 1
2 31 3 6 54127 1 5 5 4 7 43 1 2
255 5 4 1
7 5/1 . (
Attachment 2Packet Page 162
Building Exceptions – 40 Buena Vista Avenue
File No. MOD-1734-2018 (previously SDU-1521-2015)
The project is subject to the 2015 Zoning Regulations.
Grading: Due to the average natural grade exceeding 30% for the site, the percentage of the site,
exclusive of the building area, to remain in its natural state shall be 100% in accordance with J101.6
Special Grading Standards. The project has been designed to avoid a large single elevation grading pad
and instead provides elevated support piers that provide all required grading within the building area.
Site Access: The residence is located close to the street in order to design a driveway that minimizes
the amount of grading to access the site (LUE 6.4.3.E). The Parking and Driveway Standards state that
driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured
from the worst condition between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at
the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The maximum slope
allowed at this site for the proposed driveway is approximately 14%. The garage has been designed to
accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 0% slope of the driveway. The driveway
complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access1.
Placement of Structures: Since access from Loomis Street is not feasible the placement of the structure
has been located in the most accessible, geologically stable portion of the site at the lowest feasible
elevation. The residence has been designed as close as possible to the street; the structure will appear
approximately 12-feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The
structure is also located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101 or Cuesta Park; two existing
residences are located approximately 30 feet above the subject property directly on the ridgeline2. All
hillside vegetation shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible, so not to destroy the natural
character of the site.
Building Height Exceptions: Section 17.16.040 of the zoning ordinance establishes the maximum
building height per zone. Any variation from these limits requires the approval of a variance except for
buildings within the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone and the Office (O) zone that may be approved
through an Administrative Use Permit for a maximum height of 35 feet3. The use permit may be
approved upon findings that the exception will be consistent with the existing conditions of the
neighborhood and that the exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
working or living at the site or within the vicinity. In accordance with Section 17.58.070 when an
administrative use permit for site development standards and ARC review are required, than only the
architectural review application need to be filed.
1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Site Access. Each driveway shall follow natural terrain
contours to the maximum extent feasible to minimize both the extent of grading and the visibility of the driveway… (c) A
driveway shall not have a grade steeper than five percent within 10 feet of a garage or carport entry. Driveway finished
grade shall not exceed an average of 15 percent.
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Placement of Structures. Each proposed structure shall
be located so that: (c) The silhouetting of a structure against the sky above the nearest ridge or knoll when viewed from
a public street is minimized.
3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet
with approval of an administrative use permit).
Attachment 3
Packet Page 163
Building Exceptions – 40 Buena Vista Avenue
File No. MOD-1734-2018 (previously SDU-1521-2015)
The applicant is requesting an exception to
allow a 34-foot maximum building height from
average natural grade4 where 25 feet is
normally allowed in the R-1 zone (see Figure 1).
From Buena Vista Avenue the building will
appear as less than a single-story structure due
to the downslope of the driveway. In order to
comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the
design of the building has minimized the
amount of grading required to develop the site
by locating the structure close to where street
access is available and by maintaining a
relatively small building footprint.
The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020, Yards, state that a 20-foot setback is required in the R-1
zone as measured from the right-of-way line to the nearest point of the wall of any building. The
Parking and Driveway Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope
based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition between the back of the
sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward &
Downward Driveways). The maximum slope allowed at this site for the proposed driveway is
approximately 14%. The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20
feet with a 0% slope of the driveway, which places the ceiling of the garage at 34-feet above the
average natural grade. If the driveway slope utilized the maximum driveway slope the structure could
be lowered but the maximum building height would be no less than 28-feet. The previous project was
approved with a maximum height of 28-feet.
Maximum building height per zone has been established in order to preserve neighborhood character,
and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed 7-foot exception will not detract or
negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one-
story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one- and two-story structures within the
neighborhood. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as
the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open
Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size, as seen in the solar study provided with the
previous project. The structure will appear approximately 12-feet in height as viewed from the public
right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from
Highway 101 and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside.
4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground
under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by
adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point
of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two.
Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade.
Attachment 3
Packet Page 164
Building Exceptions – 40 Buena Vista Avenue
File No. MOD-1734-2018 (previously SDU-1521-2015)
Side Yard Setback Exceptions: Section 17.16.020 Table 3 establishes the minimum required other yard
setback for the R-1 zone. Other yard setbacks, more commonly known as side yard setbacks, are
measured from the property line to the nearest point of the wall of any building5. The height of a
building in relation to a yard setback is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof,
measured from a specific distance from the property line. For reference, a structure with a wall that is
35 feet tall that faces the side yard property line requires a setback of 15 feet in the R-1 zone.
Section 17.16.020.E.2 identifies specific exceptions from the setback requirements that are
discretionary through the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. These discretionary exceptions
have to meet specific findings in order to grant approval. To clarify, these exceptions are not variances
and are not required to meet variance findings. Any exception that is not identified in Section
17.16.020.E.2 would require the approval of a variance. The discretionary exception that is being
requested for the proposed project is an exception to the other yard setback in relation to building
height which may be granted upon finding any of the following circumstances identified in Section
17.16.020.E.2.e.6
Upon approval of a use permit, the director (now ARC) may allow exceptions to setbacks when the
exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and
the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. The applicant is requesting a
12-foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure
that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 12 square feet of the structure would
intrude up to 3 feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the
sloping nature of the site, and the fact that the setback adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land
designated C/OS-5, (open space), this minor setback exception will not deprive the adjacent property
of reasonable solar access or privacy.
Special Considerations Overlay: Chapter 17.56 of the Zoning Regulations stipulates that a property
with a Special Considerations (S) zone overlay requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit before
any use may be established. The intent of the Permit is to assure compatibility of the use with its
surroundings and conformance with the General Plan. The Special Considerations zone overlay was
added to this location to address development on the sloping site and views from Highway 101
(Ordinance 0755). The Use Permit has been approved by the City Council through Resolution No. 10689
(2016 Series).
5 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the
vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property
line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site
improvements.
6 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director
may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar
circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be
deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning.
Attachment 3
Packet Page 165
Building Exceptions – 40 Buena Vista Avenue
File No. MOD-1734-2018 (previously SDU-1521-2015)
Building Design
The Land Use Element Hillside Development Policies state that development of structures on hillsides
shall keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes, avoid large continuous walls, and use
materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape (LUE 6.4.3).
Height of Lowest Floor Level: The applicant’s original design
of the residence included a third level that was designed to
conform to the natural slope through a stepped foundation,
this level was only proposed in order to maintain compliance
with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside
Development7. During the first review at the Planning
Commission on September 23, 2015, the Planning
Commission identified concerns of the third level and its
integration into the single-family residence. The concern
was that the third level could potentially be converted in the
future into a separate living area. In order to address this
concern for the project the applicant met with city staff and
evaluated removing the third level from the residence and
alternatively cantilevered the main floor over the natural
grade of the site to exceed a height of six feet on the north-
east corner of the residence, see Figure 2. Staff reviewed the
proposed redesign and determined that the removal of the
third level helped reduce the overall mass and scale of the
project and provides a more consistent design that
maintains the natural character of the hillside. The project
has been approved by the ARC as well as by the City Council
to include the columns that exceed the six foot limitation.
Roof Deck: The previous roof deck has been removed.
Colors and Materials: The design of the residence includes
exterior colors that emphasize medium earth tones that
blend the structure with the natural appearance of the
hillside and provides wood as a complementary natural-
appearing material.
View Protection: The residence has been designed and located on site that does not block any views
from any adjacent property. There are no privacy concerns as the adjacent property to the north is
zoned Conservation Open Space. The property to the south has not yet been developed and can
provide adequate room on the site for a building to be designed that includes private outdoor space,
due to the odd L-shape of the lot.
7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Height of Lowest Floor Level. The vertical distance
between the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure should not exceed
six feet.
Figure 2: (top) Original three level design
(bottom) Revised two level design.
Attachment 3
Packet Page 166
Building Exceptions – 40 Buena Vista Avenue
File No. MOD-1734-2018 (previously SDU-1521-2015)
The property can also be viewed from Highway 101 Southbound; the project site is located outside of
the State designated scenic corridor as the project site is within city limits. The residence is only
prominently visible from Highway 101 for approximately 18 seconds (when traveling at posted speed
limits) from a distance of 3,000 feet, prior to this stretch of Highway 101 the hillside that the project
site is located on is insignificant when compared to the views of the surrounding hillsides. Views toward
the property are also compromised by several billboards and existing residences on the same hillside
as the project above the ridgeline. The project site has been designed with colors and materials that
are consistent with Hillside Development standards that blend the structure into the natural
appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories that decrease
the mass of the structure when viewed from Highway 101. Required landscaping further integrates the
structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Over time
the proposed Oak trees will provide additional screening of the property when viewed from Highway
101 similarly to the two residences at the top of the ridgeline.
Attachment 3
Packet Page 167
Project Background – 40 Buena Vista Avenue
File No. MOD-1734-2018 (previously SDU-1521-2015)
BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project. Members of the public
attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions
for the project. At the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should
be elevated to the Planning Commission to address public concerns over site development.
On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a hearing to review the proposed project and
voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6, PC Hearing
Minutes). Specific Planning Commission directional items to be addressed by the applicant included:
1) Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space,
for its ability to be converted to habitable space.
2) Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy.
3) Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions.
On October 28, 2015, the Planning Commission held a hearing to review the revised project that
addressed concerns from the hearing on September 23, 2015, see Attachment 7 for an evaluation of
the applicant’s response to the directional items. The Planning Commission voted to deny the project
based on the finding that the project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The Planning Commission discussed concerns related to
pedestrians and vehicular traffic along the curve of Buena Vista Avenue which is a narrow street with
no sidewalks and no on-street parking available, and that parking for the four bedroom residence with
a Secondary Dwelling Unit will not be sufficient on-site within this neighborhood. The Planning
Commission also discussed concerns for the roof deck and views of the property from Highway 101 to
be evaluated by the Architectural Review Commission.
On October 29, 2015, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.
On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the Planning
Commission’ s decision to deny the use permit. The City Council upheld the appeal of the Planning
Commission action to deny the proposed project thereby granting final approval for the construction
of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing
direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform
with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions.
The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including, but
not limited to:
a) Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood,
b) Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure,
c) Appropriateness of the roof top deck,
d) Visual appearance of the support columns,
e) Landscaping plans,
f) Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101.
Attachment 4
Packet Page 168
Project Background – 40 Buena Vista Avenue
File No. MOD-1734-2018 (previously SDU-1521-2015)
On March 7, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) unanimously approved the architectural
design of the proposed residence with exceptions and determined the project in compliance with the
Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development.
On March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman appealed the ARC’s decision to approve the project, specifically
concerning the requested exceptions.
On May 3, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the ARC’s decision to
approval the project. The City Council unanimously denied the appeal thereby granting final approval
for the construction of the project which included exceptions such as an additional building maximum
height of 27.3 feet, where 25 feet is normally required, and a reduced street yard of 10 feet where 20
feet is normally required.
Attachment 4
Packet Page 169
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay)
zone that includes exceptions to the front yard building setback and height, with a categorical
exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 40 Buena Vista Avenue BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
VIA: Tyler Corey,
Housing Programs Manager TAC
FILE NUMBER: SDU-1521-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution ( Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and
subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The applicant has proposed to construct a single-family residence in the R-1-S zone that includes a
height and setback exception on a sloping lot. On January 19, 2016, the City Council approved the
construction of the home, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant
to work with staff and ARC to redesign the project to conform to the Community Design Guidelines
without the proposed height and setback exceptions.
Applicant Jeff Kraft
Submittal Date January 31, 2016
Complete Date February 11, 2016
Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential
with a Special Considerations
Overlay
General Plan Low-Density Residential
Site Area 13,321 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under Class
3, New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures;
Section 15303 of the CEQA
Guidelines
Meeting Date: March 7, 2016
Item Number: 2
ARC2-1
Attachment 5
Packet Page 170
SDU-1521-2015
40 Buena Vista Avenue
Page 2
Admin Review
August 27, 2015
PC Review
September 23, 2015
PC Denial
October 28, 2015
PC Appeal
October 29, 2015
CC Approval
January 19, 2016
Review elevated to PC Review continued
with direction
Use Permit Denied Use Permit Appealed Design ReviewUsePermitApproved
ARC Review
March 7, 2016
The proposed project is located on a “sensitive site” and requires architectural review by the
Community Development Director. A project site is considered sensitive when it has been
designated through an “S”, Special Considerations overlay zone. This project site has been
designated with an “S” overlay through Ordinance 0755 to enable review of hillside development
and adequacy of public utilities. Due to the amount of public input on the project as well as the Use
Permit appeal to the City Council, the Director has forwarded the design review to the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC).
1.0 BACKGROUND
For additional background information see Attachment 4, Project Background.
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines, Hillside Development Standards, the General Plan and applicable City standards.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
Site Size 13,321 Square Feet
Present Use & Development Vacant
Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, over 30% slope
Access Buena Vista Avenue
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space)
South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay)
East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park)
West: R-1 (Low Density Residential)
The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with access from Buena Vista Avenue in
the Monterey Heights neighborhood. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site,
including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from
west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to
the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is
bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site.
3.2 Project Description: The proposed project includes the following features (Attachment 3,
Project Plans):
1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage
ARC2-2
Attachment 5
Packet Page 171
SDU-1521-2015
40 Buena Vista Avenue
Page 3
a. Two stories with a proposed max height of 27.3 feet above average natural grade
b. Attached 406 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (Note: not part of this
application review)
2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with;
a. Glass panels
b. Cement board panels
c. Wood siding
d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce
the mass of the structure
3.3 Project Statistics
Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b
Street Yard Setback
Buena Vista Avenue)
18.5 feet 20 feet
Other yard setbacks
North
East
South
15
135
13.5
15 (35 foot structure)
15
13.5
Max. Height of Structure
Average Natural Grade)
27.3 feet 25 feet
Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40%
Parking Spaces 3 3
Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans
b. City Zoning Regulations
4.0 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision to deny the use permit. The City Council upheld the appeal of the Planning
Commission action to deny the proposed project thereby granting final approval for the construction
of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing
direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform
with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback
exceptions. The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns
including, but not limited to:
a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood,
b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure,
c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck,
d. Visual appearance of the support columns,
e. Landscaping plans,
f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project site is located within one of the City’s Hillside Planning Areas known as the Cal Poly-
Cuesta Park Area. The applicant has designed the project in accordance with the Community
ARC2-3
Attachment 5
Packet Page 172
SDU-1521-2015
40 Buena Vista Avenue
Page 4
Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development Standards and the Land Use Element 6.4
Hillside Policies. The Community Design Guidelines are intended to implement General Plan
Hillside Policies by minimizing the visibility and other impacts of allowable hillside development.
4.1 Site Plan: The project has been designed on a legal residential property entirely within the
Urban Reserve Line. The proposed residence is located as close as possible to Buena Vista
Avenue in order to design a driveway that minimizes the amount of grading to access the site
LUE 6.4.3.E). The garage has been designed to accommodate the minimum street yard setback
of 18.5 feet with a 14% sloped driveway which complies with the Community Design
Guidelines for site access 1. As discussed at the Planning Commission/City Council hearings,
access from Loomis Street has been determined infeasible due to the 60% slope along Loomis
Street and all utility connections have been provided for the site from Buena Vista Avenue.
Height and Street Setback Exceptions: The City Council denied the originally proposed
exceptions and directed the applicant to redesign the project to comply with property
development standards and the Hillside Development Standards. The applicant has worked
with staff to determine the impacts of full compliance with property development standards
verses full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards. Full compliance with the
Property Development Standards requires several exceptions from the Hillside
Development Standards, and similarly full conformance with the Hillside Development
Standards requires exceptions from the Property Development Standards. Therefore,
development of the site without some type of exception does not appear feasible.
The applicant has eliminated the side yard setback exception and redesigned the project to
request the least impactful exceptions. A street yard setback of 18.5 feet, when 20 feet is
normally required, provides for a slight decrease in the overall building height. Zoning
Regulations Section 17.16.020E.2a states that reductions in street yards may be approved
for garages when the driveway is long enough to accommodate a parked car that doesn’t
overhang the sidewalk (18.5 feet min.). If the building were to be located any closer to the
street, the driveway would not comply with street yard requirements. Likewise, if the
residence was located further down the hillside a steeper driveway grade would be required
that would be out of compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and potentially
create an unsafe driveway approach.
Maximum building heights per zoning district have been established in order to preserve
neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed 2.3
foot height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character
because the structure will appear as less than one story as viewed from the public right-of-
way on Buena Vista Avenue. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from
reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the
structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in
1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Site Access. Each driveway shall follow natural
terrain contours to the maximum extent feasible to minimize both the extent of grading and the visibility of the
driveway… (c) A driveway shall not have a grade steeper than five percent within 10 feet of a garage or carport
entry. Driveway finished grade shall not exceed an average of 15 percent.
ARC2-4
Attachment 5
Packet Page 173
SDU-1521-2015
40 Buena Vista Avenue
Page 5
size. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and
incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside.
4.2 Building Design: The Community Design Guidelines state that the building design of an
infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of
existing houses in the neighborhood. The Land Use Element Hillside Development Policies
state that development of structures on hillsides shall keep a low profile and conform to the
natural slopes, avoid large continuous walls, and use materials, colors, and textures which blend
with the natural landscape (LUE 6.4.3).
Hillside Integration: The residence has been designed and located on a site that does not
block views from adjacent properties. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed
from Highway 101 and Cuesta Park. There are two existing residences located
approximately 30 feet higher on the ridge above the subject property directly on the
ridgeline 2. All hillside vegetation will be retained to the maximum extent feasible, so as not
to destroy the natural character of the site.
Directional Item A (Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood): The
proposed residence is located within an eclectically designed neighborhood with varying
architectural styles, with residences range in size from 4,230 square feet to 1,500 square
feet. The average home size in the neighborhood is approximately 2,633 square feet
excluding garages and secondary units). The residence has been designed well below the
average at 1,921 square feet and is compatible with the neighborhood’s architectural
characteristics. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets, recessed windows and
entries, balconies, and the slope of the lot to relieve the form and mass of the building.
The contemporary design of the residence includes exterior colors that emphasize dark earth
tones that blend the structure with the natural appearance of the hillside and emphasizes
wood as the primary natural-appearing material. The structure demonstrates consistent use
of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. All elevations
include interesting architectural treatments.
Directional Item B (Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure): The
residence is located 150 feet above and over 1,000 feet from Highway 101. At this distance
the reflectivity of the proposed windows will have insignificant impact on Highway 101.
The proposed windows reduce the mass and the prominence of the structure as viewed from
Highway 101. The project also includes cantilevered decks that create shading from the sun,
which reduce glare from the exterior windows. The proposed colors and materials are
consistent with the Hillside Development standards for building design.
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Placement of Structure: Each proposed structure
shall be located so that: (c) The silhouetting of a structure against the sky above the nearest ridge or knoll when
viewed from a public street is minimized.
ARC2-5
Attachment 5
Packet Page 174
SDU-1521-2015
40 Buena Vista Avenue
Page 6
Directional Item C (Appropriateness of the roof top deck): Per the City’s grading standards
MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state
due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The applicant is required to
provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence,
providing usable outdoor space on the project site is limited due to slope and grading
requirements. The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.21.D.1(g)) allow provision of outdoor
space within above ground decks or balconies as long as minimum space requirements are
met, including a minimum dimension of 6-feet in every direction. The project provides
usable outdoor space in the form of balconies and a roof deck consistent with this
requirement. There are no privacy concerns from the roof deck as the adjacent property to
the north is zoned Conservation Open Space and is vacant. The property to the south is
zoned R-1-S and is also vacant.
Directional Item D (Visual appearance of the
support columns): The applicant’s original design
of the residence included a third level that was
proposed in order to maintain compliance with
the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside
Development 3. In order to address concerns
raised by the Planning Commission on September
23, 2015, the applicant met with city staff and
evaluated removing the third level from the
residence and alternatively cantilevering the main
floor over the natural grade of the site to exceed a
height of six feet on the north-east corner of the
residence, see Figure 2. The removal of the third
level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of
the project and provides a more consistent design
that maintains the natural character of the hillside.
The columns below the lowest floor on the
downhill side exceed six feet; however, the
proposed unenclosed design is an integral feature
of the architectural design that reduces the mass
of the structure.
Directional Item E (Landscaping plans): Landscape plans show eight new oak trees
proposed on the site surrounding the home. The applicant has proposed these trees to
integrate the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to
open areas. Over time the proposed oak trees will provide additional screening of the
property and soften the appearance of the building when viewed from Highway 101,
similarly to the adjacent residences at the top of the ridgeline.
3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Height of Lowest Floor Level. The vertical
distance between the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure should
not exceed six feet.
Figure 2: (top) Original three level design
bottom) Revised two level design.
ARC2-6
Attachment 5
Packet Page 175
SDU-1521-2015
40 Buena Vista Avenue
Page 7
Directional Item F (Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101): The property
can be viewed from Highway 101 Southbound. The project site is located within city limits
and is therefore outside of the State eligible scenic corridor, which generally runs from Los
Angeles County to Paso Robles. The residence is visible from Highway 101 southbound for
approximately 18 seconds (when traveling at posted speed limits) from a distance of 3,000
feet. During this view shed the site is partially obstructed from view by several freeway
billboards. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of
the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline
when viewed from Highway 101.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment
because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in
conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan,
Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue action on the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to
staff and the applicant regarding additional information needed to make a decision.
6.2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community
Design Guidelines, General Plan, Zoning Regulations or other policy document. The ARC
should specify findings.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced Project Plans
4. Project Background
5. PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report & Meeting Minutes)
6. City Council Hearing January 19, 2016 (Staff Report & Resolution)
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board
ARC2-7
Attachment 5
Packet Page 176
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1003-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A NEW
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES A FRONT
YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTION, WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED
IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 7, 2016
(40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, R-1-S ZONE; SDU-1521-2015)
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2016, 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, for the purpose of reviewing the design of a single-family
residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521-
2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council 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
January 19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final
approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the
requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to
redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the
currently proposed height and setback exceptions; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby approves the
design of the single-family residence on a sloping site, including a front yard setback and height
exception (SDU-1521-2015) based on the following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or
residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning
designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety
codes.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 177
Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16
SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue)
Page 2
2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to
compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and
housing production (HE 6).
Hillside Development
3. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 755 because of concerns
relating to hillside development and public utility services. The project is consistent with the
General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status because the building design minimizes
the need for grading activities through the use of stepped foundation with piers; is compatible
with surrounding developments; and the conceptual landscape plan provides for native,
drought tolerant plantings visible from the public right-of-way that provide a transition from
developed to open space areas and softens the appearance of the home.
4. Consistent with Planning Commission direction, the structural support piers below the lowest
floor are appropriate for the building design because the property that is adjacent to the piers
is designated as Conservation Open Space. The unenclosed design is an integral feature of
the architectural design that will have no visual impact toward any adjacent property.
5. Consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines, the project has been designed
in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101 and has been designed with
colors and materials that are consistent with Hillside Development Standards that blend the
structure into the natural appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been
reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to
integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. As
conditioned, landscaping of the project site further integrates the structure into the hillside by
providing a visual transition from development to open areas.
Front Yard Setback and Height Exceptions
6. The additional 2.3 foot building height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent
property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered
parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and
Driveway Standards for the driveway. The proposed maximum building height exception is
warranted due to the existing site slope and Engineering Standard requirement for maximum
driveway slope.
7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood
character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public
right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood, and is
consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood.
8. A reduced street yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent
property will not be deprived of reasonable solar access.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 178
Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16
SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue)
Page 3
9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no significant fire
protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated.
10. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the
street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any
adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected
by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each
adjacent parcel over two acres in size.
11. The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and
while they may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that
allow for reasonable development of the site
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class
3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not
have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family
residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety
codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City
standards for hillside development.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission does hereby grant final
approval of application SDU-1521-2015 subject to the following conditions:
Planning Department
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the ARC and the City Council. A separate full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and
code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2 (SDU-1521-2015 & USE-1520-2015).
Reference should 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.
2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on
elevation drawings.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other
related window features. Alternative colors that include lighter neutral tones and a physical
sample of the proposed glass shall be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and the ARC Chair.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit review shall include lighting fixture details. The
locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as
Attachment 5
Packet Page 179
Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16
SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue)
Page 4
part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic
representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted
for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded
to insure that light is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning
Regulations.
5. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all
walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards
described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges).
6. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The landscaping plans
shall address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the residence and the street,
and shall consider alternative materials beneath the cantilevered portion of the structure to
minimize glare. 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. The final landscape plan shall be in full conformance with
landscaping standards established in the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside
Development, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
7. The project shall be constructed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure
levels of Noise Element Table 1 (60 dB for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor
spaces).
8. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or
officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's
approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner /
Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in
the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect.
Engineering Division
9. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to
comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050.
10. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan
shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department
prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan
should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or
curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department and Fire Department.
11. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista
Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along
Attachment 5
Packet Page 180
Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16
SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue)
Page 5
both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to
install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the
approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance.
The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be
required.
12. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA
and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk
extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway
standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include
additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to
show compliance.
13. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The
driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be
perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-
set angle.
14. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings
shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and pedestrian
traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with
the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department.
15. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb
shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum
curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage
Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City
Standard driveway approach design.
16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway
standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity 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 material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
17. 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.
Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall
be shown or noted.
18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire
sprinkler plans.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 181
Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16
SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue)
Page 6
19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage 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 stormwater 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.
20. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that
is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an
analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and
the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to
accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking.
21. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be
required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction
with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and
proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on
any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the
improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate
a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage.
22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance
with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building
plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the
manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with
Engineering Standard Section 1010.B.
23. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended
in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature
of this hillside development.
24. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan
Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the
expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk
diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for
reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for
removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be
shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or
Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 182
Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16
SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue)
Page 7
26. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are
required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be
deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one
15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree
species and planting requirements.
27. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve
any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A
city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures
shall be shown or noted on the building plans.
Utilities Department
28. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be
relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering
Standards.
Fire Department
29. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required.
30. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California
Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire
exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and
ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents.
31. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in
accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of
non-combustible construction materials.
On motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Curtis and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, Soll, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn
NOES: None.
REFRAIN: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Root
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of March, 2016.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 5
Packet Page 183
Architectural Review Commission Minutes
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
March 7, 2016
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll,
Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn
Absent: Commissioner Allen Root
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Planning
Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant City
Attorney Jon Ansolabehere and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Wynn called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. and proposed the following
changes to the agenda: 1) Consideration of Minutes to follow Public Hearings; and 2)
reversed the order of Public Hearing Items 2 and 3. There were no objections.
Commissioner Andreen announced she would step down from Item 2 due to a potential
conflict of interest.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Higuera Street Right of Way. Review of wireless telecommunication facility
proposal to place antennas and associated equipment on existing or replaced
traffic signal poles (total of 6) within the public right-of-way along Higuera Street
between Carmel Street and Osos Street; C-D-H zone; Crown Castle
Communication Inc., applicant.
Chair Wynn announced that the Applicant was requesting a continuance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
ACTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Soll,
the Commission unanimously continued Item 1 by roll call vote:
Attachment 5
Packet Page 184
Minutes
Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016
Page 2
AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Soll, Root, Wynn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
ACTION: Upon a motion made by Commissioner Andreen seconded by Commissioner
Soll to made motion to continue Item 1 to a date uncertain passed unanimously.
2. 128 Chorro Street. APPL-1974-2015; Continued review of an appeal of the
Director’s approval of a Guest Quarters permit. Revised project includes the
requested approval of a side yard setback of four feet where five feet is normally
required for an addition along the north property line. (GUST-1645-2015); Holly &
Tony Garcia, applicant.
Commissioner Andreen recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest (resides in
the neighborhood).
Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen provided the Staff report. He noted that the
requested setback is minor in nature and consistent with the development pattern of
neighborhood, and clarified that Finding #5 in Section 1 of the draft resolution should
read “guest quarters have been moved to the western portion.”
Architect Frances Gibbs, on behalf of the Applicant, offered to respond to questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Patricia Andreen, representing the neighborhood, reported that she had not had any
discussions about this project with any of the Commissioners. She spoke in favor of the
revised design and indicated that she had no objections to the setback reduction. She
asked that if the Commission finds it appropriate, she would ask that it invoke tree
protection measures and require the Applicant to protect vegetation and its roots during
construction.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to questions from the Commission, Architect Gibbs indicated she had
discussed vegetation-protection measures with the Applicant and noted they have no
objections. She also confirmed that the skylight over the existing garage is operable.
Commissioner Curtis indicated he saw no need for an exception to the setback and
expressed objections to creating an additional non-conforming condition. He added that
he thought it possible to design an addition that could conform to all the standards.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 185
Minutes
Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016
Page 3
Staff responded that the request for the exception to the setback was not an unusual
request for that neighborhood.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SOLL , the Commission adopted a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the
Community Development Director’s action to approve a guest quarters in the low-
density residential zone, as amended (Condition #10: add protection of fence and
vegetation during construction). Motion passed 4:1:1:1 on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn
NOES: Curtis
RECUSED: Andreen
ABSENT: Root
3. 40 Buena Vista Avenue. SDU-1521-2015; Review of a new single family
residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes a
front yard setback and height exception, with a categorical exemption from
environmental review; R-1-S zone; Lee J. Kraft, ETUX, applicant.
Commissioner Andreen returned to the dais.
Deputy Director Davidson introduced Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, who provided the in-
depth Staff report. He emphasized that architectural review is required due to the
Special Considerations Overlay (S-Overlay), which designates the location as a
sensitive site due to the hillside development and announced that there are eight (8)
vacant properties within vicinity that will undergo same process.
Assistant Planner Bell informed the ARC that the City Council approved the Use Permit
while denying proposed exceptions and has asked that the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) review the project and address the following issues: 1) traditional
characteristics of neighborhood; 2) reflectivity of amount of glass; 3) appropriateness of
rooftop deck; 4) visual appearance of support columns; 5) landscaping plans; and 6)
prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101.
Assistant Planner Bell displayed Applicant-provided renderings to demonstrate the
project design and responded to numerous Commission questions regarding exceptions
to the Hillside Development Standards (HDS), street yard setback exceptions,
landscaping plans, and the proposed rooftop deck and balconies. Assistant City
Attorney Jon Ansolabehere pointed out the Applicant had made revisions to the project
based on City Council direction, which resulted in the current proposed height and
setback exceptions. Staff concluded that it is not unusual to request a height exception
on a sloping lot as it is a significant constraint.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 186
Minutes
Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016
Page 4
Todd Smith, Canon, representing the Applicant, explained the nature and need for the
height and setback exceptions. Applicant Jeff Kraft argued in favor of approving the
project with the requested exceptions.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Wynn reported that numerous correspondences have been received by Staff and
Commission on this item and they are posted on the City’s website.
The following residents of San Luis Obispo voiced objections to the proposed project
and urged denial, citing concerns about the size of the building footprint, issues with
neighborhood compatibility, height and setback exceptions, landscaping plan, traffic and
emergency access, impacts to the Highway 101 view shed, the rooftop deck and
potential for noise:
Naomi Hoffman
Shirley Ready
Robert Karger
James Lopes
Bill Cochran
Pat Dellario
Sandra Rowley, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN)
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
John Rogers, Canon, spoke in favor of the project.
Applicant Jeff Kraft provided rebuttal arguments to community concerns.
COMMISSION COMMENT
Staff responded to additional questions from the Commission. Commission discussion
followed specifically to address each of the six concerns the City Council directed the
ARC to review and consider:
1. Traditional architecture characteristics of neighborhood: Commissioner Andreen
commented that although the style may not be what the neighbors would have
selected, the contemporary style suitable for the hillside and not a basis for
denial. Commissioner Ehdaie recommended a more subdued, neutral color
scheme that would blend better with the nature of the hillsides. Commissioner
Curtis indicated the modern approach is suitable for the particular site and added
that the flat roof works fine whereas a gabled roof would accentuate mass and
visibility. Commissioner Nemcik reiterated the community’s desire for a smaller
mass and noted that the clean lines of style contribute to that. Chair Wynn had
no issues with the design’s modernist box style.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 187
Minutes
Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016
Page 5
2. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure. Staff reported
that the design guidelines stress minimizing the glazing to the furthest extent
possible but because there is not a specific threshold, it comes down to
compatibility and appropriateness more than percentage. Commissioner Andreen
recognized that residences are built on such sites for views and unless there are
safety concerns, the amount of glazing is suitable. Vice-Chair Ehdaie concurred.
Commissioner Curtis observed that the residence will be an illuminated box on
the hillside at night as seen from the scenic corridor freeway. Chair Wynn
commented that this particular concern is similar to the issue of prominence and
suggested binding them together in discussion. Commissioner Andreen
indicated that prominence concerns are also tied to landscaping, having thought
strongly about reducing prominence with trees. Vice-Chair Ehdaie wondered
what reducing prominence on this project communicates about other prominent
residences in the vicinity. Commissioner Curtis suggested the only feasible way
to reduce prominence at night is to break up the continuous expanse of glass.
Commissioner Nemcik shared she had no issue with glazing and that the rhythm
and look are appropriate. Chair Wynn agreed that this structure is an illuminated
box that will most certainly be seen from Highway 101 but concurs with Vice-
Chair Ehdaie that there are already 5-6 other prominently-scaled homes on the
hillside.
3. Appropriateness of rooftop deck: Commissioner Andreen stated she’s conflicted
between the concerns of neighbors and its proposed use for a play area for
children. Commissioner Nemcik observed that the rooftop deck is the same as a
yard. Commissioner Soll reiterated Staff’s commentary that side and front decks
already meet minimum outdoor area requirements. Commissioner Curtis offered
that the distance from other residences will provide minimal noise. Chair Wynn,
in support, stated that existent freeway noise outweighs potential cocktail party
noise and a well-maintained deck can be a visually appealing improvement.
Commissioner Andreen, citing Commissioner Nemcik’s comments, indicated
support to achieve quorum. Vice-Chair Ehdaie inquired whether it is in
Commission purview to discuss use. Chair Wynn responded by indicating that
the Council requested reviewing appropriateness, which is understood to include
use. Commissioner Soll indicated she was unsupportive.
4. Visual appearance of support columns. Commissioner Andreen considered
columns to be an improvement from the original conception. Commissioner
Curtis stated that while it is generally unsightly to have houses up on stilts,
enclosing the area below makes the structure appear more massive. A more
appropriate option, he added, would to have it open. Commissioner Nemcik
remarked piers are more appropriate and recommended the Commission
address materials and mitigation improvements in the open area underneath the
residence as part of motion. Commissioners Soll, Andreen Vice-Chair Ehdaie
concurred.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 188
Minutes
Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016
Page 6
5. Landscaping plans: In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiry, Deputy Director
Davidson affirmed that Condition #6 is a reasonably comprehensive condition but
if the Commission wishes to add language, Staff would accommodate it. Chair
Wynn pointed out that the Condition itself is the appropriate place for three
additional landscape plans: underneath the house, between the street and
house, and the rooftop deck. Commission confirmed support by consensus.
6. Height exception: Chair Wynn shared that he would have used the same
arguments and applied the same methodologies had he been working on this
difficult site, reasoning that the lot was made a legal lot long ago and the rules
changed later. He stated that he is inclined to move with Staff’s direction in
consideration of the give-and-take needed to make the project work on the
hillside and commented that if no exception were granted, the City would end up
with more destruction on the hillside. Commissioner Andreen agreed that her
analysis would be the same. Commissioner Curtis voiced his opinion that it is not
feasible to develop much differently on this lot than what is proposed without
violating some other principles of hillside development. Commissioner Soll
differentiated between the project on paper, which she would have difficulty
approving, and the project as she views it situated on a legal lot. Vice-Chair
Ehdaie commended the solutions in design and supported the exceptions.
Commissioner Nemcik agreed with Staff’s recommendations.
Commission discussion followed regarding the color scheme. Commissioner Andreen
requested a modification of the color palette to lighter earth tones. Other members of
the Commission agreed.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
CURTIS to adopt a Resolution approving a new single family residence in the R-1-S
(Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes a front yard setback and height
exception with a categorical exemption from environmental review (40 Buena Vista
Avenue), as amended (modify Condition #6 to stipulate that the landscaping plans shall
address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the residence and the street,
and shall consider alternative materials beneath the cantilevered portion of the structure
to minimize glare; add a new condition requiring the Applicant to submit a revised
color/materials board that includes lighter neutral tones and a physical sample of the
proposed glass subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and
the ARC Chair; and to add a new Finding, as follows: “The project site contains difficult
constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may have some
impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable
development of the site.”). Motion passed on the following 6:0 roll call vote:
AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Root
Attachment 5
Packet Page 189
Minutes
Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016
Page 7
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Commissioner Curtis proposed the following amendments to the Architectural Review
Commission Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2016:
1) Insertion on Page 3, third paragraph: “provided to the ARC and the Airport…”
2) Correction on Page 5, second paragraph: strike “specific”, change to “the
proposed”
3) Insertion and Correction on Page 5, second paragraph, first sentence: “were
truly representative of” ; strike “a general” and change to “stated styles”; and
strike “representation” and “historically”.
4) Correction on Page 5, second paragraph, second sentence: strike “commented”,
change to “opined”
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
CURTIS to approve the Minutes, as amended, passed unanimously 6:0.
AGENDA FORECAST
Deputy Director Davidson announced agenda items for the next two ARC Meetings, as
follows:
March 21: Motel Inn project; conceptual review of affordable housing component of Via
Tuscano in Margarita Area.
April 4: BMW relocation from LOVR to Calle Joaquin auto lot; 323 Grand Avenue
previously ARC-reviewed, appealed to City Council and re-submitted; deck
improvement project at relocated SLO Brew’s 736 Higuera site; POSSIBLE:
neighborhood signage with Public Works Wayfinding Program.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIR EHDAIE,
and carried 6:0 to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Brad T. Opstad
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on April 18, 2016.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 190
RESOLUTION NO. 10712 (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN OF
A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES FRONT
YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS, WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 3, 2016 (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
SDU-1521-2015)
WHEREAS, the City Council 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 January
19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for
the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested
exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design
Guidelines without the then currently proposed height and setback exceptions; and
WHEREAS, the ARC 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 March 7,
2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SDU-1521-2015; and approved the design of a
single-family residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception
SDU-1521-2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman, the appellant, filed an appeal of the
ARC’s action on March 7, 2016; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings 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:
R 10712
Attachment 6
Packet Page 191
Resolution No. 10712 (2016 Series) Page 2
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working
or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s
zoning designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building,
fire, and safety codes.
2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to
compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and
housing production (HE 6).
Hillside Development
3. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 755 because of
concerns relating to hillside development and public utility services. The project is
consistent with the General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status because the
building design minimizes the need for grading activities through the use of stepped
foundation with piers; is compatible with surrounding developments; and the
conceptual landscape plan provides for native, drought tolerant plantings visible from
the public right-of-way that provide a transition from developed to open space areas
and softens the appearance of the home.
4. The structural support piers below the lowest floor are appropriate for the building
design because the property that is adjacent to the piers is designated as Conservation
Open Space. The unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design
that will have no visual impact toward any adjacent property.
5. The project is consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines because
the project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from
Highway 101 and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with
Hillside Development Standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance
of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease
the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well
below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. As conditioned, landscaping of
the project site further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual
transition from development to open areas.
Front Yard Setback and Height Exceptions
6. The additional 2.3 foot building height exception will not obstruct views from any
adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction
of covered parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the
Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. The proposed building height
exception is warranted due to the existing site slope and Engineering Standard
requirement for maximum driveway slope.
R 10712
Attachment 6
Packet Page 192
Resolution No. 10712 (2016 Series) Page 3
7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood
character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the
Buena Vista public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within
the neighborhood, and is consistent with the development pattern of the
neighborhood.
8. A reduced street yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the
adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar access.
9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no
significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are
anticipated.
10. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood
or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not
deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that
would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open
Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size.
11. The proposed minor property development exceptions are warranted due to difficult
site constraints (slope), since they are the least detrimental to any of the options that
allow for reasonable development of the site.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3
New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have
a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence
in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is
consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards
for hillside development.
Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural
Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project (SDU-1521-2015), hereby
granting final approval of a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations
Overlay) zone that includes front yard setback and height exceptions, subject to the following
conditions:
Planning Department
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance
with the project plans approved by the ARC and the City Council. A separate full-size
sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list
all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2 (SDU-1521-
2015 & USE-1520-2015). Reference should 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.
R 10712
Attachment 6
Packet Page 193
Resolution No. 10712 (2016 Series) Page 4
2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials
on elevation drawings.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the
type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors.
Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds
recesses and other related window features. Alternative colors that include lighter
neutral tones and a physical sample of the proposed glass shall be incorporated into the
project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the ARC
Chair.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit review shall include lighting fixture details. The
locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations
included as part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for the building shall
include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall
be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The
selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent
with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations.
5. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of
all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development
standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and
Hedges).
6. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The
landscaping plans shall address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the
residence and the street, and shall consider alternative materials beneath the
cantilevered portion of the structure to minimize glare. 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. The final landscape plan shall be in full conformance with
landscaping standards established in the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside
Development, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
7. The project shall be constructed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise
exposure levels of Noise Element Table 1 (60 dB for outdoor activity areas and 45
dB for indoor spaces).
8. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its
agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the
City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole
or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to
promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or
that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall
thereafter be of no further force or effect.
R 10712
Attachment 6
Packet Page 194
Resolution No. 10712 (2016 Series) Page 5
Engineering Division
9. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or
upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050.
10. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The
plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire
Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or
construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section,
signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department.
11. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and
Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage
improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the
recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later
date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements
shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the
agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required.
12. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per
ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible
sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the
parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan
submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot
elevations and/or contours to show compliance.
13. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The
driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way
shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require
access at an off-set angle.
14. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and
plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle
and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided
in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public
Works Department.
15. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high
street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb
capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City
Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a
transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design.
R 10712
Attachment 6
Packet Page 195
Resolution No. 10712 (2016 Series) Page 6
16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and
driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials.
Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity 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 material shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
17. 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. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work
in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted.
18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the
approved fire sprinkler plans.
19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage 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 stormwater 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.
20. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope
watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include
reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage
per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a
standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach
and to support potential curb side parking.
21. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer
will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in
conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall
evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil
engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch
construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away
from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level
spreader design to mimic historic drainage.
22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing
compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design
Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in
accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality
management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B.
R 10712
Attachment 6
Packet Page 196
Resolution No. 10712 (2016 Series) Page 7
23. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are
recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due
to the sensitive nature of this hillside development.
24. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control
Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to
document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk
diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown
for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are
proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies
should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve
by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and
proposed street trees.
26. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street
trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis
Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are
required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The
City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements.
27. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection
measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The
City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or
grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety
pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the
building plans.
Utilities Department
28. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall
be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering
Standards.
Fire Department
29. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required.
30. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California
Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior
wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof
assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents.
R 10712
Attachment 6
Packet Page 197
Attachment 6
Packet Page 198