HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
Street, during normal business hours.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 24, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of September 10 & 11, 2014. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
1.1941 Slack Street.AP-PC 95-14: Appeal of the Director’s decision to deny an
application for an addition to a nonconforming structure; R-1 zone; SLOCA, LLC,
applicant; Stalwork, Inc., appellant. (Erik Berg-Johansen)
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
3.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Erik Berg-Johansen
Meeting Date: September 24, 2014
Item Number: 1
2X
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director’s Decision to deny a request for an addition to a nonconforming
single-family residence in the R-1 zone.
PROJECT ADDRESS:1941 Slack Street BY:Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: 781-7573
e-mail: eberg@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: AP-PC 95-14 FROM:Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1)denying the appeal and supporting
the Director’s decision to deny the project.
SITE DATA
Appellant Brian Ridley, Architect, Stalwork
Construction
Zoning R-1, Low-Density Residential
General Plan Low-Density Residential
Site Area 6,670 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under
Section 15270, projects which a
public agency rejects or
disapproves.
SUMMARY
In May of 2014, Stalwork Construction submitted a request to allow a 1,095 square foot addition to a
1,089 square foot nonconforming single-family residence. The proposal included a two-story addition
at the rear of the existing residence and an interior remodel. The proposal was ultimately denied by the
Community Development Director. Denial of the proposal was based on parking concerns, a potential
high-occupancy residential use, and inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines and the
General Plan. Mr. Bryan Ridley, the representative for Stalwork Construction, appealed the Director’s
Action on July 24, 2014.
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
D.D.
PC1 - 1
AP-PC 95-14 (1941 Slack)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project’s consistency with the Zoning Regulations,
Community Design Guidelines and General Plan.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located in the Monterey Heights Neighborhood adjacent to Cal Poly’s
campus. The immediate neighborhood consists of older single-family homes. According to the San
Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the residence at 1941 Slack Street was constructed in 1949
and includes two bedrooms. Please see Attachment 2 for a Vicinity Map.
Table 1: Site Summary
Site Size 6,670 Square Feet
Present Use & Development Single-family residence
Topography Sloping downward from North to South
Access Slack Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: (City limits; Cal Poly)
South: R-1 (Single-family residences)
East: R-1 (Single-family residences)
West: R-1 (Single-family residences)
2.2 Project Description
The proposed project includes an addition to a nonconforming single-family residence and an
interior remodel of the existing structure. The existing structure is nonconforming due to a
substandard 2’- 6’’ side yard setback on the western side of the property. Table 2 below
summarizes the proposal:
Table 2: Project Summary
Item Project Ordinance Standard
Other Yard Setbacks of Addition
East
West
South
10 feet
9.5 feet
50 feet
6 feet
6 feet
6 feet
Height of Addition 20 feet 25 feet
Lot Coverage 29.5% 40%
Parking Spaces 1 conforming space
2 conforming spaces (more parking
required for high-occupancy
residential use)
Square Footage of Residence 2,184 sq. ft. Limited by lot coverage (40% in the
R-1 zone)
Number of Bedrooms 6 No limit, but high-occupancy use
triggered with 6 unrelated adults
PC1 - 2
AP-PC 95-14 (1941 Slack)
Page 3
2.3 Appeal Summary
Stalwork Construction’s appeal letter (Attachment 8) indicates that the project is not intended to
create a high-occupancy residential use, and states that the lower story “family room” does not
meet the City’s 2013 definition of a bedroom. The appeal also states that because the project meets
zoning requirements, it should not be held to a higher standard in terms of onsite parking provided.
In terms of neighborhood compatibility, the appellants state that the project was designed at a
smaller scale to reduce negative impacts to adjacent properties and the neighborhood as a whole.
More specifically, the split-level design and increased setbacks of the project minimize site
crowding and overlooks to neighboring properties.
In summary, the appellants believes that the project is indeed consistent with the neighborhood’s
character, and that some of the concerns expressed by the City are issues that can (and should) be
dealt with through enforcement. The appellants also note that neighborhood stability could actually
be increased if the project is approved because the property will be upgraded and properly
maintained.
3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
3.1 Consistency with Zoning Regulations:
The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations in terms of setback and height
requirements. However, the Director determined that the project proposes a total of six (6)
bedrooms. Five (5) bedrooms are labeled on the plans; however, the “family room” in the lower
floor of the addition is a bedroom according to the definition in the Zoning Regulations1. While it
is clear that the subject room is connected to a staircase, the room meets the 2013 Zoning
Regulations definition of a bedroom, and could easily be used for sleeping purposes. Due to the
proposal of a sixth bedroom, the project creates a high-occupancy residential use scenario.
Approval of a high-occupancy residential project would not be feasible on the subject property
because five (5) parking spaces would need to be provided onsite2.
The subject property has one conforming parking space outside of the street yard setback (where
two conforming parking spaces are normally required), and one nonconforming parking space in
the driveway. A typical conforming property would have room for four onsite parking spaces (two
in the garage and two in the driveway), where the subject property, due to non-conforming parking,
has room for only two onsite parking spaces. Due to the fact that the existing structure is built to
the front and side yard setbacks, creation of an additional onsite parking space is not feasible.
1 Bedroom Definition (2013 Zoning Regulations): "A room within a dwelling unit that is designed for sleeping and consists of at least 70-
square feet in area, has light, ventilation and egress consistent with Building Code requirements and has less than a 50% open wall
area with an adjoining room."
2 Zoning Regulations, Section 17.93.040, Performance standards for high-occupancy residential use: 2. The parking requirement shall
be the greater of: (a) The number of spaces required for dwellings as described in Section 17.16.060; or (b) One off-street parking
space per adult occupant, less one.
PC1 - 3
AP-PC 95-14 (1941 Slack)
Page 4
3.2 Consistency with the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines:
Neighborhood Compatibility
The project is inconsistent with Community Design Guidelines Section 5.5 C-13 and Land Use
Element Policy 2.2.104 because the scale and character is inconsistent with that of adjacent
residences, and therefore does not promote neighborhood compatibility. As detailed in
Attachments 4 and 5 (a study of nearby residences), the majority of homes in the near vicinity have
between 2 and 3 bedrooms. While the properties included in the study have an average of 3.1
bedrooms, the neighboring properties at 110 Graves Street and 1961 Slack Street have two and
three bedrooms, respectively.
The proposed project also has a substantially higher ratio of home size to parcel size (33%) than
the neighborhood average (20%). The proposed addition to the existing residence at 1941 Slack
Street also proposes four new bedrooms (six bedrooms total) and doubles the onsite floor area.
The size of the addition and number of proposed bedrooms paired with the property’s close
proximity to Cal Poly creates an inconsistency with Housing Element Goal 75 because the project
would not encourage owner occupancy. These factors also create an inconsistency with
Community Design Guidelines Section 5.3 A-16 because the project proposes a residence that is
larger than others in the neighborhood (see Attachment 4, Property Statistics Study), and is
therefore out of scale with smaller scale buildings that are both adjacent to the subject property and
within the immediate neighborhood. The proposed addition will be clearly visible from
neighboring properties, and could create new noise and privacy issues that did not exist before.
Parking
The project is also located within the Monterey Heights Residential Parking District, which allows
each residence two on-street parking permits. As Table 3 below states, the Monterey Heights
parking district is enforced 20 hours a day during weekdays. No overnight parking for guests or
residents without a parking permit is allowed.
Table 3: Monterey Heights Parking District Statistics
Date Enacted No. of
Households
No. of
Permits Linear Feet Days of
Enforcement
Hours of
Enforcement
May 1997 162 324 15,480 Mon – Fri 2am – 10pm
3 Community Design Guidelines Section 5.5 C-1 (Additions and alterations in older neighborhoods): Additions to residential structures
built before 1950 should respect the architectural style, detailing, scale, and composition of the original building so that they look
integrated with the original structure, rather than a tacked-on afterthought. Additions should also be designed with consideration
for the design and massing of adjacent residences, to promote neighborhood compatibility.
4 Land Use Element Policy 2.2.10 (Compatible Development): Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in
character with that neighborhood.
5 Housing Element Goal 7 (Neighborhood Quality): Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage
neighborhood stability and owner occupancy, and improve neighborhood appearance, function and sense of community.
6 Community Design Guidelines Section 5.3 A-1 (Infill Development): Infill residential development should: Be compatible in scale,
siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. This is crucial when a
new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the neighborhood. When new homes are developed adjacent to
older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings.
PC1 - 4
AP-PC 95-14 (1941 Slack)
Page 5
Two on-street permits plus two onsite parking spaces allows a total of four vehicles to park at or
near the subject residence. The proposed floor plan, which includes six bedrooms, could create a
scenario where a fifth or sixth vehicle will be without a parking space; if this scenario is realized
one or more occupants would be forced to park in a nearby residential neighborhood where no
parking district currently exists. Due to its close proximity to Cal Poly and numerous student
rental properties, the area has existing parking issues that would likely be intensified by the
proposed project. These parking issues make the project inconsistent with Land Use Element
Policy 2.2.12 G7 and Housing Element Policy 7.18 because the parking deficiency has the potential
to degrade quality of life for existing and future residents of the Monterey Heights neighborhood
and surrounding neighborhoods.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The appellant’s proposal for an addition to a nonconforming single -family residence was denied by the
Community Development Director through the Director’s Action. The project was denied based on the
project’s inconsistency with the Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines and General Plan
due to insufficient parking and incompatibility with adjacent properties and the Monterey Heights
neighborhood. While the proposed addition complies with the Zoning Regulations in terms of its
height and setbacks, the project has the potential to create a high-occupancy residential use in a
neighborhood that is already impacted by a large number of rental properties. Many of the rental
properties in the neighborhood create a scenario where the number of people with vehicles outweighs
the number of available parking spaces. The subject site supports only one conforming parking space;
if approved, the project would contribute to the issue of vehicle parking being pushed into
neighborhoods that are not within a designated parking district.
Finally, the proposed project is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines and General Plan
due to its size and relatively high number of bedrooms. The neighborhood is generally composed of
smaller residences with 2-3 bedrooms meant to support small families or two-three unrelated adults.
The proposed structure is not only out of scale with the vast majority of nearby residences, but it has
the potential to support 6+ occupants if used as a rental property. A high number of occupants have the
potential to create noise, privacy, traffic and parking impacts to adjacent residents, the Monterey
Heights neighborhood, and other nearby neighborhoods.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant the appeal based on different or modified findings.
2. Continue the action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information.
7 Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12 G (Residential Project Objectives): Adequate parking and storage space.
8 Housing Element Policy 7.1 (Neighborhood Quality): Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a
character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and
future residents.
PC1 - 5
AP-PC 95-14 (1941 Slack)
Page 6
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Plan Reductions
4. Property Statistics from Nearby Residences
5. Map of Properties Included in Attachment 4
6. Monterey Heights Parking District
7. Site Photos
8. Stalwork Construction appeal letter
PC1 - 6
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC- XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPEAL FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AS
REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 (1941 SLACK AP-PC 95-14)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 24, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under AP-PC 95-14, Stalwork
Construction, appellant.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed structure has the potential to support six or more unrelated adults which would
trigger the City’s High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations; due to the site’s existing
parking configuration, the property would not be able to meet the High-Occupancy
regulations.
2. The project would only provide two onsite parking spaces for a six-bedroom dwelling, which
has the potential to adversely affect parking in the surrounding neighborhoods.
3. The project is inconsistent with Community Design Guidelines Section 5.5 C-1 (Additions
and alterations in older neighborhoods) and Land Use Element Policy 2.2.10 (Compatible
Development) because the scale and character is inconsistent with that of adjacent residences,
and therefore does not promote neighborhood compatibility.
4. The project is inconsistent with Community Design Guidelines Section 5.3 A-1 (Infill
Development) because the project includes a house that is larger than others in the
neighborhood, and could therefore negatively impact smaller scale buildings that are adjacent
to the subject property.
5. The project is inconsistent with Housing Element Goal 7 (Neighborhood Quality), because
due to its close proximity to Cal Poly and the number of bedrooms proposed by the project, it
does not encourage owner occupancy.
PC1 - 7
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-14
AP-PC 95-14 (1941 Slack)
Page 2
6. The project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12 G (Residential Project
Objectives) and Housing Element Policy 7.1 (Neighborhood Quality). The property’s existing
nonconforming parking layout coupled with the proposed number of bedrooms creates a
scenario where adequate parking cannot be provided, and this deficiency has the potential to
degrade quality of life for existing and future residents.
7. The proposed project would double the square footage of a nonconforming structure that does
not meet required side yard setbacks. The proposed addition has the potential to intensify
existing negative impacts (related to the structure’s nonconformance) to neighboring
properties.
Environmental Review. Section 15270, Projects which are disapproved, states that CEQA does not
apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny application AP-PC 95-14.
On motion by _______, seconded by _______, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24th day of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 8
R-1
R-1R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1
HAYS
SLACK
GRAVESHENDERSONVICINITY MAP File No. 95-14
1941 SLACK ST ¯
Attachment 2
PC1 - 9
11x17 reductionAttachment 3
PC1 - 10
11x17 reductionAttachment 3
PC1 - 11
11x17 reductionAttachment 3
PC1 - 12
11x17 reductionAttachment 3
PC1 - 13
Attachment 4
Property Statistics from Nearby Residences
Nearby Property
Address
Parcel Size
(square feet)
*Home Size
(square feet)
Home Size relative
to Parcel Size
(percent)
Reported #
Bedrooms
1841 Slack 10,600 1,336 13% 3
1961 Slack 7,244 1,232 17% 2
101 Graves 5,750 1,127 20% 3
131 Graves 5,700 1,017 18% 2
110 Graves 7,300 876 12% 2
141 Graves 5,750 1,530 27% 4
150 Graves 6,000 939 16% 2
160 Graves 6,900 1,670 24% 2
1924 Hays 6,435 2,406 37% 5
1950 Hays 6,650 2,115 32% 3
1958 Hays 6,668 528 8% 1
100 Henderson 11,310 2,083 18% 4
144 Henderson 7,800 1,473 19% 4
145 Henderson 12,668 3,492 28% 5
161 Henderson 13,500 2,620 19% 3 to 4
AVERAGE 8,018 1,630 20% 3.1
NOTE: The above figures are based on data provided by the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office
EXISTING Subject
Property 6,670 1,089 16% 2
PROPOSED
Subject Property 6,670 2,184 33% 6
* The reported square footage includes secondary dwelling units and studios where applicable and
when data was available.
PC1 - 14
Figure 1Source: World Imagery, City of SLOProperties Included in Table 1101GRAVES131GRAVES141GRAVES110GRAVES150GRAVES160GRAVES161HENDERSON1941SLACK1961SLACK1924HAYS1950HAYS1958HAYS100HENDERSON144HENDERSON1841SLACK145HENDERSONSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community100010050FeetSubject Property$WWDFKPHQW
PC1 - 15
8835203633431453443403473103573002682462302412762402492922542502362101901661441001611591601501101651411311011661401301201103464704764304104114604484284714494354113764904744604564304101961194018201861196219571837183318241834184418901841199119591943188918651990195619441934199119591935191118901891184118451874186018441983199019581950192419611941205720922042207620842090204520612077209920412085205320112008204420602076209020941810184018901886186618811861184319211965199019601958194219081924199020202031201120492067206920992045206120712075204420482050205620602044205820742092Cal Poly UniversityLOOMISSLACKGRANDHAYSHOPEHENDERSONFREDERICKSS A N M I G U E L
GRAVESSANTA YNEZMcCOLLUMBUENA VISTASLACKMcCOLLUMMONTEREY HEIGHTS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTμ2am-10pm M-FAttachment 6
PC1 - 16
Site Photos Attachment 7
Subject Property (1941 Slack)
Adjacent Property (1961 Slack)
Adjacent Property (110 Graves)
PC1 - 17
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
c/o Erik Berg-Johansen July 24, 2014
Project Address: 1941 Slack Street
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 052-121-002
Re: DA 95-14, Appeal of Director’s Action of Denial
This letter serves to explain the reasons why the appeal to Director’s Action of Denial DA 95-14 of July 16, 2014
should be considered. Each finding of the appeal is transposed here along with a response detailing the justification
for appeal.
Finding 1. The project would only provide two onsite parking spaces for a six-bedroom dwelling, which has the
potential to adversely affect parking in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Response 1. The project is designed as a five-bedroom dwelling, with a lower level family room that provides direct
connection between interior and exterior common areas; please see response #7. The parking impact is a
potentiality, not a guarantee. The proximity to Cal Poly increases the likelihood that a 1:1 ratio of occupants to
vehicles is not reached. Parking is provided as allowed in the zoning code for the subject property’s arrangement,
and neighborhood street parking is controlled by two parking passes as is the case for all properties in this
neighborhood. This project should not be held to a higher performance standard than any other. Allegorically, every
vehicle on the road can exceed the speed limit and violate traffic laws but this does not precipitate a ban on driving,
or a speed limiter installed in each car, rather a dependence on individual responsibility and proper enforcement is
required.
Finding 2. The proposed structure has the potential to support six or more unrelated adults which would trigger the
City’s High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations; due to the site’s existing parking configuration, the property
would not be able to meet the High-Occupancy regulations.
Response 2. Nearly any project with four or more bedrooms is capable of supporting six unrelated adults. This
project is not designed for high-occupancy residential use; rather it is designed to the allowable performance
standards in the R-1 zone throughout the City limits. Overcrowding of residential properties is a problem of
enforcement and illegal conversions. This project continues to follow the rules for design and the guidance of the
General Plan for housing.
Finding 3.The project is inconsistent with Community Design Guidelines Section 5.5 C-1 and Land Use Element
Policy 2.2.10 because the scale, character and massing is inconsistent with that of adjacent residences and,
therefore, does not promote neighborhood compatibility.
Response 3. While the term “scale” is not clearly defined in the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, or
Zoning Code, it is understood within the design professions as not equivalent to size, rather the relationship of one
entity to another. In this case it is the relationship of the proposed project to its own site, the public way (Slack
Street), and the neighboring properties. The addition is purposely designed to minimize its massing to maintain an
appropriate scale relationship with the neighborhood, with offset wall planes and a compatible roof design. The split
level arrangement allows for a minimal overall height increase of 30” and provides ample setbacks on the east, west,
and south to avoid overcrowding the property or creating dominant overlooks to neighbors. The minimal increase in
height effectively eliminates impacts to Slack Street, as the addition will be negligibly visible if not unseen. Land Use
Element Policy 2.2.10 (Compatible Development) is cited as a finding for denial, subsections 2.2.10.A and 2.2.10.B
provide more detailed explanation of how a project can be compatible including respecting existing architectural
character and providing privacy/solar access respectively. The project follows the guidance of both subsections by
Attachment 8
PC1 - 18
maintaining the existing simple detailing and material palette of the residence, and protecting privacy and solar
access via the aforementioned setbacks and minimal height increase. Community Design Guidelines subsections
5.5 C-1.a (Roof Changes) and 5.5 C-1.b (Additional Floors) should be referenced as well, as these more specific
points of direction were considered and addressed in the project design for compatibility. Many of the properties
within the same block are two-story or feature a split-level.
Finding 4.The project is inconsistent with Community Design Guidelines Section 5.3 A-1 because the project includes
a house that is larger than others in the neighborhood, and could therefore negatively impact smaller scale buildings
that are both adjacent to the subject property and within the immediate neighborhood.
Response 4. Community Design Guidelines Section 5.3 A-1 applies to “Infill Development” defined as “multi-family
structures or individual houses that entirely replace existing units or are constructed on vacant parcels between
existing units.” This project is an addition and does not entirely replace the existing home. In response to the
qualitative guideline, however, while the project as proposed is larger than some of the other buildings in the
neighborhood, it is not larger than all and there are buildings at or above that floor area (1924 Hay, 1950 Hays, 145
Henderson, 161 Henderson). Indeed the neighboring property to the south (1950 Hays) is reported as 2,115 square
feet, within 4% of the proposed project’s area. 4% appears to be within the range of floor area compatibility. Floor
area alone is not a reasonable metric of scale and compatibility, as the design of the project intentionally takes
measures to reduce height and bulk via the split level design and larger than required setbacks. Please also see
response #3 for a thorough discussion regarding scale.
Finding 5. The project is inconsistent with Housing Element Goal 7 because, due to its close proximity to Cal Poly
and the number of bedrooms proposed by the project, it does not encourage owner occupancy.
Response 5. Owner occupancy is not a requirement of the Housing Element, rather it “encourage(s) owner
occupancy and neighborhood stability,” and there is no prohibition or limit on renting property in R-1 zones. In fact, it
should be argued that the investment in the property supports neighborhood stability as it will ensure that the existing
residential structure is upgraded and remains maintained. Owner occupancy alone is not a guarantee of property
maintenance, quality, or conformity. It is equally important to note that the General Plan supports rental properties
close to Cal Poly which at the very least should be given equal weight when establishing findings. Using the same
guiding language as Housing Element Goal 7 of “encourages,” Land Use Element Policy 2.7.4 (Residential Project
Objectives) states “Housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to
reduce commute travel.” Proximity to Cal Poly reduces the need for vehicles and parking, allowing students or faculty
to get to and from campus via non-vehicular means.
Finding 6. The project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12 and Housing Element Policy 7.1. The
property’s existing nonconforming parking layout coupled with the proposed number of bedrooms creates a scenario
where adequate parking cannot be provided. This deficiency has the potential to degrade quality of life for existing
and future residents.
Response 6. The existing parking scenario is indeed nonconforming, following the historic pattern of the
neighborhood, but this exact issue is addressed in the zoning code and allowed without administrative approval when
meeting the requirements of Section 17.16.060.L.1 for Minor Additions, which this project does. Please see
response #7 regarding the quantity of bedrooms.
Finding 7. The project could create additional future impacts to the neighborhood due to the fact that the “family
room” proposed within the addition could be easily converted into a bedroom or used for sleeping purposes. If a sixth
sleeping space is created, negative impacts related to parking could be amplified.
Response 7. Per the definition of a bedroom contained within the Zoning Code at the time of submittal, the family
room is not a bedroom. It was designed to keep its function as a family room intact by landing the staircase in the
Attachment 8
PC1 - 19
room; walling the room off as a separate bedroom would create an oddly shaped ‘L’ and eliminate the home’s only
common indoor/outdoor access to the exterior patio. Due to the site’s sloping terrain, this is the only direct access
the interior has to the rear yard. While illegal conversion and/or overcrowding of residential properties are recognized
problems within the City, the use of those problems as cause for denial is entirely speculative. The project is
designed to meet or exceed the performance standards of the Zoning Code and comply with the provisions of the
General Plan and Community Design Guidelines.
Finding 8. The proposed project would double the square footage of a nonconforming structure that does not meet
required side yard setbacks. The proposed addition has the potential to intensify existing negative impacts (related to
the structure’s nonconformance) to neighboring properties.
Response 8. The square footage increase is factually accurate, though the nature of the setback nonconformity does
not negatively impact the subject property or the neighborhood. In fact, the reduced setbacks contribute to the
historic pattern and character of the neighborhood; a common feature of neighborhoods of this age. The property to
the east (1961 Slack) shares the same type of setback nonconformity while the property to the west (150 Graves)
abuts the subject property with its rear yard, itself nonconforming due to height relative to the property line (5’-11”
setback only allows for 13’ of height; the structure is two-stories tall). In part due to the existing nonconforming
setbacks the addition was designed to well exceed the minimums allowed by the zoning code.
In summary, denying this project due to other unrelated problematic properties puts the majority of nonconforming
housing in San Luis Obispo at risk for denial when owners attempt to legally upgrade, maintain, and increase
neighborhood appeal and value. Indeed this kind of bottleneck to approval actually encourages property owners to
attempt illegal conversions to avoid denial of well-intentioned and compliant projects. Supplying ample room and
tenant comfort reduces overcrowding, degradation of properties, and spillover of interior living spaces into yards,
decks, etc. as is seen with sofas and folding tables that blight the neighborhood. Denial due to creating ample living
spaces seems wholly inappropriate. Designing to an appropriate residential use rather than cramming students into
unsatisfactory living conditions that abound in older houses in San Luis Obispo is contrary to “fixing” the problem.
Most of our local housing issues stem from “slumlord” owners renting unkempt and decrepit overcrowded houses—
everything this project is not.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bryan Ridley, architect | agent
805.542.0033 office
805.704.0535 mobile
Attachment 8
PC1 - 20
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 10, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent:Commissioner John Fowler and Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari
Staff:Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Public Works
Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Traffic Operations Manager Jake
Hudson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary
Kaiser,Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording
Secretary Diane Clement
Consultants:Nick Johnson, Johnson Aviation; Rick Rust, Matrix Design Group; and
Jeff Oliveira, Oliveira Environmental Consulting
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. The Agenda Forecast was done first to
accommodate Commr. Draze who recused himself from consideration of the two items
on the agenda.
MINUTES:
Minutes of August 13, 2014, were approved as amended.
Minutes of August 27, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Bob Hitchner, Nexus eWater, described his company's water recycling solutions for
homeowners and stated he is interested in working with staff to see how practical his
system would be for the City. He left copies of his company’s white paper and noted
that information can be downloaded from the company's website:
http://www.nexusewater.com.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.City-Wide.GPI/ER 15/12: Review of Draft Land Use Element (LUE) Chapter 7,
Circulation Element Chapter 11 of the General Plan, Proposed Airport Overlay
Zone, and associated changes to Noise and Safety Elements for consistency, City
of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Continued from
August 27, 2014, meeting)(Gary Kaiser)
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 2
Commr. Draze recused himself from hearing the two items on the agenda and left the
Council Chamber.
Contract Planner Kaiser presented the staff report, which recommends the Commission
review and recommend approval of the Draft Land Use Element Chapter 7, Circulation
Element Chapter 11, proposed Airport Overlay Zone, and amendments to airport-
related sections of the Noise and Safety Elements for consideration by the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Marilyn Reasoner, SLO, expressed concern about a change in airport landing patterns
that has commercial planes making a hard left turn over her home in Los Verdes. She
stated she made many calls to the airport resulting in short-term improvement followed
by the problem getting worse.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, stated that she is concerned about the safety of residents
and tourists on the ground and in the air if the safety zones surrounding the airport are
changed and urged the City to work with the Airport Land Use Commission. She stated
that the plans for the Chevron property should be considered. She expressed concern
that safety restrictions are being cast aside due to pressure from development interests.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Community Development Director Johnson stated that safety has been at the forefront
of all City recommendations and that the City also wants the airport to remain
economically viable. He noted that City policies ensure ongoing compliance with State
requirements and that the City will be working with the ALUC with the objective of
reaching consensus.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the safety and noise issues were discussed extensively at
the LUCE Task Force and that future safety issues in any of the special areas would
come to the Planning Commission.
Commr. Larson noted that a “buyer beware” notification for future residences that may
be subject to airport noise is the last solution to be considered and that first the City
should try to resolve airport noise problems. Having said that, he noted that the City
went through a very deliberate, thoughtful, and well-documented evaluation that
supports the LUCE development concept and addresses airport operational noise and
safety issues.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Dandekar, seconded by Commr. Malak, to approve the
Resolution recommending the City Council approve updates to Chapter 7 of the Land
Use Element and Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element and minor changes to the
Noise and Safety Elements to ensure internal consistency of the General Plan.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 3
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES:None
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to adopt a Resolution
recommending the City Council approve zoning regulations amendments and adopt
Airport Overlay Zoning Regulations (Title 17 – Zoning Regulations) (GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES:None
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
2.City-Wide.GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use Element
(LUE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Dept., applicant (Gary Kaiser)
Contract Planner Kaiser presented the staff report, recommending the City Council take
the following actions: (1) Certify the LUCE FEIR and associated documents; (2)
Approve policy and program updates to Land Use Element Chapters 1-6 and 8-12; and
(3) Approve policy and program updates for South Broad Street Area Plan; and (4)
Approve policy and program updates for Circulation Element Chapters 1-5.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Andrew Christie, SLO, director of the SLO Chapter of the Sierra Club, suggested
several recommendations for incorporation into the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to deal with impacts on air quality, the drought, and protection of the natural
environment, including rainwater percolation and water recycling systems for new
homes.
Steve DelMartini, SLO, stated that he disagreed with the requirement to have
residences only on the upper floors for property on the corner of Broad Street and Tank
Farm Road. He noted that there is little housing planned for that area but there are
many employees working near the airport who could benefit from nearby housing. He
added that putting in more housing would benefit the City's trip reduction goals.
Victor Montgomery, SLO, representing the 111-acre Madonna property south of Home
Depot, stated that the LUCE recommendations for this property should be retained to
give developers design flexibility.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, noted that there are inconsistencies in the description of
future portions of Prado Road; it is referred to as both a two-lane and a four-lane road in
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 4
the Draft EIR. She referred to it as a four-lane truck highway and stated that developers
need to be informed of the cost of an overpass or interchange at Prado and Highway
101. She noted that the City has received letters from Cal Trans specifically stating that
an interchange is not desirable or feasible yet the LUCE update says there will be one.
She stated that this needs clarification. She added that an EIR is needed for the
proposed northern alignment of Prado and, if Prado is going to be a four-lane truck
road, there is a need to study the cumulative impacts and costs for future developers.
She stated that the LUCE update did not adequately address the drought or other
environmental impacts.
Marshall Ochylski, representing the San Luis Ranch property, stated that he would like
the minimums designated in the performance standards of Chapter 8 of the Land Use
Element either eliminated or be footnoted to indicate that the minimums are not required
if there are constraints that make it infeasible. He expressed concern that otherwise
applicants would be required to apply for a General Plan amendment if the minimums
cannot be met. He also supported retaining the possibility of meeting ten acres of the
open space requirement for the specific plan via an off-site mitigation.
Sarah Flickinger, SLO, representing the two Los Verdes Park HOAs, stated that
clarification is needed about the alternative rerouting of Los Osos Valley Road to the
south side of Los Verdes, known as the Buckley by-pass.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Dandekar stated that there was much discussion at the LUCE Task Force
about the San Luis Ranch property as a scenic entry to the City and concluded that
guidelines for development were needed.
Commr. Larson stated that the fundamental performance standard of 50% open space
for this property is in the table and the nuance that allows a portion to be met with off-
site mitigation is a controversial issue.
Commr. Malak suggested a footnote or modification to the minimum and maximum
space required for residential and commercial development.
Mr. Rust stated that, in light of sustainability, a minimum gives developers an idea of
what is expected but there could be a footnote stating that reductions are based on
physical and/or environmental constraints although the City would still expect
development to be close to the minimum requirements.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she has an issue with some requirements for the
Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road area. She noted that the Task Force came up with
minimum numbers based on the discrepancy between future housing plans and target
goals, and she thinks the range of 250-300 defeats that purpose.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 5
Mr. Rust stated that the smaller estimate of housing for the Madonna property included
moving housing away from the noise of Los Osos Valley Road.
Commr. Malak stated that he wants a general minimum that is not specific to one site.
Commr. Riggs stated that he does not understand the need for the footnote because
the Commission has discretion when development comes up for review.
Director Johnson explained that if development is less than the minimum, it might
trigger the need for a General Plan amendment, and the purpose of a footnote would be
to provide some discretion if site constraints prevented a development from meeting the
minimum performance standards.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the point was to get workforce housing that would reduce
traffic. She added that the Task Force saw a need for pockets of higher density where
young people could live near their work. She explained that there is a need to maintain
that principle and that the sites were not lightly identified by the Task Force.
Director Johnson stated that this policy and the table were the result of much discussion
in the community and with the Council. He added that off-site mitigation remains a
policy issue and not an EIR issue because staff did not have a specific site to evaluate.
Commr. Malak stated that he supports a footnote applicable to all development that
requires justification for going below the minimum because it would avoid the potential
need for a General Plan update.
Commr. Larson stated he had no problem with the footnote and Commr. Riggs stated
he was not comfortable with it.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the percentages generated by the Task Force were not
about nostalgia but were in recognition that this is a gateway to the City and there is an
aesthetic to protect. She added that even Cal Poly students have pointed out that these
corridors are important and she gave the example of how the British have preserved
much of the English countryside.
Commr. Riggs stated that a general policy of transferability of use is important.
Commr. Larson stated that the 50% open space requirement for the Dalidio property
has been a notable benchmark for many years and the possibility of meeting it with any
off-site consideration is a policy issue.
Mr. Oliveira read from the Draft EIR about guidance for off-site consideration which
noted that specific consideration is too speculative when there is no particular project to
evaluate.
Commr. Dandekar noted that this language takes care of the agricultural and open
space land. She stated that the ability to reduce open space in exchange for work force
housing is a principle.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 6
Director Johnson stated that he is not sure staff has set the stage for applying this to all
specific plan areas noted in the Land Use Element. He also noted that the Dalidio
property is not yet a part of the City and there is a long-standing policy of requiring 50%
open space when annexing property.
Commr. Malak stated he would like to remove the language for the Broad Street/Tank
Farm area that limits housing to upper floors.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the Task Force concluded it is very important to have
mixed use at this very significant corner and that this is no place for ground floor
residences.
Commr. Malak stated that this language ties the hands of developers.
Commr. Riggs stated that the actual corner is not mentioned in the statement and there
could be specific language about the corner.
Commr. Larson stated that it is a key intersection and he can picture commercial on the
corner with residential behind it.
Mr. Rust recommended this language: “The site will provide a strong commercial
presence at the intersection”which drops any reference to upper floor residences.
In response to a question from Commr. Larson, Public Works Deputy Director Bochum
read a letter from Cal Trans that does not preclude an interchange at Prado Road but
recommends that the City evaluate alternatives and establish a clear purpose and need.
Deputy Director Bochum noted that this will be a difficult project to get approved and will
probably happen in conjunction with the development of San Luis Ranch.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that the City had a legal agreement with Los
Verdes to consider a Buckley Road/Los Osos Valley Road bypass but that scoping did
not include closure of any portion of the current LOVR. He noted that the bypass on its
own improved access in and out of Los Verdes and some creekside properties, and
provided some relief to South Higuera. He added that when properties come up for
development, the City will deal with the bypass, however closure of a portion of the
existing road would need to be further considered through separate environmental
review.
A motion by Commr. Dandekar to continue until tomorrow received no second and was
withdrawn.
On motion by Commr. Malak , seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to approve the
recommendation that the City Council certify the final EIR prepared for the LUCE
Update Program. (Application #GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES:None
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 7
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to recommend the City
Council approve updates to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
(GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES:None
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to recommend the City
Council change the language in 8.3.3.12 of the Land Use Update to read “The site will
provide a strong commercial presence at the corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm
Road”and delete “residential limited to upper floors.”
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES:None
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
Commr. Riggs proposed, and Commr. Malak seconded, the motion below. In the
discussion that followed, Commr. Riggs stated that the City Council directed staff to look
into off-site open space and agricultural provisions for San Luis Ranch and staff found
that, while it was a good idea, the evaluation was inconclusive because there was no
specific off-site open space to consider.
Commr. Malak stated that when this was before the City Council, a number of residents
indicated that they did not want any off-site mitigation for open space.
Commr. Riggs stated that the Council gave direction to staff at that meeting to look at it,
so it is worthy of consideration.
Commr. Dandekar noted that in the LUCE Task Force discussions this was seen as a
way for the City to gain more acreage for open space.
Commr. Larson stated that, given what the community has said regarding the
importance of open space, he is not inclined to recommend tinkering with this provision
and he is not supporting the motion.
Director Johnson stated that the motion by Commr. Riggs is recommending that the
Council consider this principle with the details to be determined later and that it refers to
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 8
a maximum ten acre off-site mitigation with the multiplier to be determined when there is
an actual proposal.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, recommending that the City
Council consider the exploration of the off-site open space and agricultural provisions
for the San Luis Ranch project.
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Malak, and Riggs
NOES:Commr. Larson
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 3:1 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to retain minimum
performance standards required as part of the specific plans listed in Chapter 8 of the
Land Use Element but add a footnote stating that reductions to the minimums may be
allowed based on physical and environmental constraints.
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES:None
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
Commr. Riggs proposed, and Commr. Dandekar seconded, the motion below. In the
discussion that followed, Commr. Malak stated that he could anticipate situations where
developers will use that 30% reduction to simply build for more profit while reducing
open space.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this possibility of trading open space for housing is
important because the City has not been able to get developers to consider this kind of
housing.
Commr. Malak pointed out that very little affordable housing has been built or planned in
the Margarita area.
Commr. Dandekar responded that having a minimum plus an incentive takes the
developer beyond doing just the minimum which is what has been done at Margarita.
Commr. Malak stated that he sees the Commission as a gatekeeper of development
and that the City needs to tell developers to build to the needs of the City.
Commr. Riggs stated that this consideration for a reduction of open space is in addition
to a low market rate policy and is icing on top of that cake. He added that there is a real
need to incentivize workforce housing and this is the equivalent of a density bonus.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 9
Commr. Dandekar noted that the City does not have the tools to force development of
workforce housing.
Director Johnson noted that the question for consideration is whether to expand the
draft footnote to specific plan areas in addition to Avila Ranch and that the intent is not
to set up conflicts between community goals of housing with community goals of
acquiring open space.
Commr. Larson stated this is a controversial item for Avila Ranch with significant
opposition and that expanding this to the other specific plan areas is a non-starter.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to request that the City
Council explore a 30% reduction of open space where it is appropriate for specific plan
areas to accommodate affordable housing needs consistent with the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment.
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar and Riggs
NOES:Commrs. Larson and Malak
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion resulted in no action based on a 2:2 vote.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson
x Meetings on September 11, 17, and 18, 2014—LUCE Update
x September 24, 2014—appeal of Director's decision for a nonconforming
structure
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent:Commissioner John Fowler and Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari
Staff:Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Public Works
Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Traffic Operations Manager Jake
Hudson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary
Kaiser, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording
Secretary Diane Clement
Consultant:Rick Rust, Matrix Design Group
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of September 10, 2014, were continued.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.City-Wide.GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use Element
(LUE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Dept., applicant. (Gary Kaiser)
Focus for this meeting: Provide recommendation to City Council for Policies and
Programs in Chapters 1-6 and 9-12 of the draft Land Use Element and Policies
and Programs in Chapters 1-5 of the draft Circulation Element, as part of a City-
wide effort to update the Land Use and Circulation elements of the General Plan.
Contract planner Gary Kaiser presented the staff report and summarized how public
input and staff recommendations were reflected in the staff report attachments,
including a staff recommendation for a new policy regarding limits to provision of
recycled water outside the City limits.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eugene Jud, SLO, thanked the City for reducing the vehicle share to 50% and
emphasizing multimodal transportation. He suggested the addition of a new
transportation goal in the Circulation Element to project the image of the City as a
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 2
known non-car city to continue the legacy of the City as a pioneer, such as with no
smoking and no drive-through service ordinances. He also suggested that transit
access be required with development like utilities such as water and electricity. He
gave several examples of how transportation is handled in Zurich, Switzerland.
Myron Amerine, SLO, stated that he hoped the City and the County will add protected
bikeways with buffer zones as provided for in the new State law.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, expressed concern that the piecemeal development of
Prado Road as a truck highway is for the benefit of developers and that no
comprehensive EIR has been planned. She supported Class 1 bicycle lanes but stated
that the 800,000 square feet planned for development on the Chevron property should
be reduced by half. She noted that the San Luis Ranch is one of only one 100 parcels
classified as prime agricultural land and development on this land is in conflict with the
LUE which calls for preservation. She expressed concern about tall hotel development
on lots zoned for one-story car dealerships and noted that this view shed is a gateway
to the City. She added that she agrees with Mr. Jud and the letter from the Sierra Club.
Blayne Morgan, SLO, supported the modal split objectives and suggested Higuera be
closed to vehicles for short periods, and a study be done of the resulting impacts.
Eric Meyer, SLO, stated that as a private citizen he is proud of the LUCE document and
the advocates on various issues who came to Task Force meetings time after time and
how everyone worked together.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Land Use Element--Chapter 1
Commr. Draze stated that he supports the language in 1.13 about consideration of a
range of financing options for calculating the fair share of costs for new development.
Commr. Larson stated that the concept of fair share payment by new development has
been tested and is in statutory language. He added that the City has some limitations
on what they can impose on new development. He stated that staff has done a good
job in the way this has been addressed in policy.
Commr. Dandekar noted that the rationale for annexation of all or part of the Cal Poly
property is not included in 1.12.3.
Director Johnson stated that studying the benefits and costs of annexing Cal Poly would
be done at the direction of the City Council at some future time.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this seems expansionist and there should be a definition
of what parts of the campus are being considered for annexation.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 3
Commr. Larson stated that this is the first time he has seen this policy in writing but he
noted that the concept has been discussed for decades.
Director Johnson stated that counting Cal Poly in demographics could be beneficial to
the City.
Land Use Element--Chapter 4
Commr. Larson stated that the reference to “A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center” in the Introduction helps for clarity when considering new projects.
Commr. Riggs suggested adding “parklets” to the new policy about downtown green
space between 4.0.6 and 4.0.7 on page 67 so it reads as follows: “including pocket
parks and parklets, as the number of people living Downtown increases.”
Land Use Element--Chapter 9
Commr. Riggs commended staff, the City Council and the public for including a new
program about renewal of the urban forest.
Commr. Malak recommended inclusion in 9.3.7 encouragement for building solar-ready
homes and solar canopies, such as the solar panel arrays in local school parking lots.
Commr. Larson supported this as providing more details for sustainability.
Mr. Rust recommended language to read “The City shall encourage….”
Comm. Riggs wanted to include a description of the term solar canopies.
Commr. Draze stated he was happy to see that grey water is included under Plumbing
in 9.3.7D.
Mr. Rust pointed out that on page PC 2-43 of the Staff Report, staff has recommended
adding “and encourage new homes to be constructed grey water ready” to 9.3.7D.
Commr. Draze stated he likes “encourage” because requiring this could be a deal
breaker for some types of housing.
Commr. Malak stated he prefers “where appropriate” instead of “encourage.”
Commr. Draze stated that he favors “encourage” until the City has more experience
dealing with grey water.
Commr. Larson stated “encourage” is appropriate. This was acceptable to Commr.
Malak.
Commr. Dandekar supported the staff addition of a new incentive program for
sustainable design features as it sets a direction for the future.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 4
Land Use Element--Chapter 10
Commissioner Draze asked how the City would support healthy food retailers as part of
supporting sustainable local food systems.
Commr. Riggs stated that in in West Oakland there is a city-supported back-to-work
program at a food retailer. He added that keeping the language flexible is important.
Land Use Element--Chapter 12
Commr. Draze commended the language in 12.3.12 Interagency Communication as
being much better and more sensible than the original wording.
Circulation Element--Chapter 1
Commr. Larson stated that the revised Table 1 Modal Split Objectives shows the most
important change in the update and illustrates the City's significant commitment.
Commr. Riggs thanked Mr. Jud for his comments and suggested adding “creative
transportation demand management”after “strategies”and before “telecommuting” in
1.5.1 Transportation Goals, #8. He noted that he appreciates Mr. Jud's request for a
non-car goal but prefers the intent of 1.5.1 as a fair plan that speaks to all people.
Commr. Draze stated that he agrees with this change and noted that the beauty of the
short two-column Table 1 is that it emphasizes the modal split.
Circulation Element--Chapter 3
Commr. Riggs suggested adding “The City shall encourage transit accessibility” to 3.0.7
Transit Service Access just before the sentence that begins “New development....” The
other Commissioners agreed.
Circulation Element--Chapter 4
Commr. Larson noted that, in reference to 4.0.4 New Development and 6.0.4 Defining
Significant Circulation Impact, the State has released new draft CEQA requirements
that involve measuring traffic impacts by Vehicle Miles Traveled, rather than Level of
Service, because it tells more about emissions, energy consumption and the adverse
effects of vehicles. He suggested that the City should try to reconcile its language with
this, even though continuing to use LOS may be allowed by legislation.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson responded that staff is struggling with this right now
because new State language is not yet approved. He added that the City will continue
to use LOS to identify impacts but will override that when necessary.
Commr. Draze stated that not all impacts rise to the level of CEQA, and he prefers to
leave the current language in place to cover these other kinds of impacts.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 5
Mr. Rust stated that there was agreement to add “and maintaining” just after
“expanding” in 4.1.9 Bicycle Licensing.
Commr. Riggs stated that he sees no reason to move 4.1.1 from Chapter 4 to the Traffic
Reduction section as recommended by the Task Force. He added that he would like
this statement to be stronger and to directly incentivize cycling.
Commr. Larson recommended moving this language to the Traffic Reduction section
and keeping a copy of the same language in 4.1.1 but substituting “bicycling” for
“alternative forms of transportation.”
Commr. Dandekar supported this modification.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
Chair Larson reopened Public Comment at this time.
Eric Meyer, SLO, noted that the recycling symbol shows up randomly throughout the
document but is not explained or defined until page 11 in Chapter 2 of the Circulation
Element. He suggested that this should be at the end of the Table of Contents.
Myron Amerine, SLO, asked if there is a goal to establish a pedestrian/bicycle advisory
commission that is separate from the bicycle advisory groups. He stated that maybe
there should be a multimodal coordinator.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that a letter was received asking that
consolidation of the transit advisory bodies be considered, which will be done after the
policies and programs are finalized.
Director Johnson added that staff will get direction from the City Council about whether
the organizational structure in place can support this paradigm shift.
Mr. Jud stated that Chapter 3 Transit Service should have language making transit a
prerequisite for new development.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that new development triggers an impact
study that includes transit and, if there is no transit, the LOS grade would be F.
Mr. Jud asked if there is a standard for walking from an advocacy group like there is for
biking. He stated that the City should set a walking goal.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre stated she would like to see consideration for light rail, perhaps
with a route from the airport to San Luis Obispo High School to Cal Poly.
Commr. Larson responded that this would have to be done through SLOCOG and it
would be about improving intra-county use of current rail lines, not light rail.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 6
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Draze asked that staff present an explanation of LOS at a future meeting.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, recommending the City
Council approve updates to Chapters 1-6 and 9-12 of the Land Use Element and
Chapters 1-5 of the Circulation Element including all changes made by staff and the
following changes:
a. LUE new policy between 4.0.6 and 4.0.7 to read: “including pocket parks
and parklets,..”
b. LUE 9.3.7: add “H. The City shall encourage the building of solar-ready
homes.” and “I. The City shall encourage the building of solar canopies.”
c. CE 1.5.1.8: insert “creative transportation demand management”after
“strategies”and before “telecommuting.”
d. CE 3.0.7: insert “The City shall encourage transit accessibility” before the
sentence that begins “New development....”
e. CE 4.1.1: move the language in 4.1.1 from Chapter 4 to the Traffic
Reduction section and keep a copy of the same language in 4.1.1 but
substitute “bicycling” for “alternative forms of transportation.”
f. CE 4.1.9: add “and maintaining” just after “expanding.”
g.Policy recommendations provided in the policy matrix attachment as noted
during the presentation.
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson
x Wednesday, September 17, 2014—LUCE Update
x Thursday, September 18, 2014—LUCE Update
x September 24, 2014—appeal of Director's decision for a nonconforming
structure
3.Commission
a. Commr. Malak encouraged Commrs. Riggs and Dandekar to have their
students to do short presentations at Commission meetings. Commr.
Dandekar stated that this was a very kind invitation which she will use
judiciously. Commr. Riggs stated that he has students doing an open space
study for Natural Resources Manager Hill about accessibility, who uses natural
spaces, how to steward open spaces better and interfaces with the public.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 7
Students have been interviewing individuals about their experiences with
natural spaces.
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary