Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-25-2022 PC Agenda Packet - AMENDED
Planning Commission REVISED AGENDA Wednesday, May 25, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo The City of San Luis Obispo has returned to in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be supported. For those attending in-person, City facilities will be at limited capacity and masks are strongly recommended. Planning Commission meetings can be viewed remotely on Channel 20 and the City’s YouTube Channel: http://youtube.slo.city INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting): Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting. Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. *All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received after the deadline will not be processed until the following day. Public Comment during the meeting: Meetings have returned to an in-person format. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be present in the Council Chambers. Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy, Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation are encouraged to provide display-ready material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100. Pages 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Quincey will call the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order. 2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Comments are limited to three 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. 3.CONSENT Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non- controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Planning Commission to pull an item for discussion. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time limit. Recommendation: To approve the Consent Item. 3.a.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - MAY 11, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 2022. *3.b.REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 22-23 BUDGET SUPPLEMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY 11 Recommendation: Report to the City Council that all projects in the Capital Improvement Plan proposed as part of the 2022-2023 Budget Supplement conforms with the City’s General Plan. 4.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. 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. 4.a.1381 CALLE JOAQUIN (ARCH-0783-2021) REVIEW OF A NEW 30,986 SQUARE FOOT AUTO DEALERSHIP AND SIGN PROGRAM, WITH A REQUEST FOR A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION 17 Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the project based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 4.b.2406 & 2414 JOHNSON AVE. (APPL-0182-2022) APPEAL OF THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL OF TWO, NEW PRE- MANUFACTURED SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENCES AND A PRE- MANUFACTURED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 65 Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal of the minor development review approval of two, new pre-manufactured single-unit residences and a pre-manufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots with shared driveway access. 5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a.STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Receive a brief update from Senior Planner Rachel Cohen. 6.ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for June 8, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES for the hearing impaired--see the Clerk The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Planning Commission meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 and on the City's YouTube Channel: http://youtube.slo.city. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are available for public inspection on the City’s website: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and- city-council/agendas-and-minutes. 1 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Planning Commissioners Present: Commissioner Emily Francis, Commissioner Bob Jorgensen, Commissioner Juan Munoz-Morris, Commissioner Mike Wulkan, Vice Chair Steve Kahn, Chair Nick Quincey Planning Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Michael Hopkins City Staff Present: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Assistant City Attorney Markie Kersten, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on May 11, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Quincey. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Public Comment: None --End of Public Comment-- 3. CONSENT 3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - APRIL 27, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Motion By Commissioner Jorgensen Second By Commissioner Munoz-Morris To approve the minutes of the April 27, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting. Page 5 of 332 2 Ayes (6): Commissioner Francis, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Munoz-Morris, Commissioner Wulkan, Vice Chair Kahn, and Chair Quincey Absent (1): Commissioner Hopkins CARRIED (6 to 0) 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.a 1701 MONTEREY ST. (USE-0103-2022) REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A MULTI-VENDOR FACILITY THAT INCLUDES A BAR/TAVERN, RESTAURANT, COMMERCIAL RECREATION, GENERAL RETAIL, INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AND FOOD TRUCKS Associate Planner Hannah Hanh presented the staff report, specifically addressed the issues of noise, light spillover, creek impact, increased traffic, and roadway improvements for bicyclists, that were brought up in public comment received prior to the meeting, and responded to Commission inquiries. Applicant representative, George Peterson, presented an overview of the project as a community hub and responded to questions raised. Chair Quincey opened the Public Hearing Public Comments: Steve Hansen Bob Lucas Rick Chapman Scott Dubrul Marina Weber Kelsea Weber Hana Novak PJ Novotny Cindy Vix Lea Brooks James Dantona --End of Public Comment-- Chair Quincey closed the Public Hearing Motion By Commissioner Munoz-Morris Second By Commissioner Jorgensen Page 6 of 332 3 Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the project, based on modified findings and subject to the modified conditions of approval. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A MULTI-VENDOR FACILITY THAT INCLUDES A BAR/TAVERN, RESTAURANT, COMMERCIAL RECREATION, GENERAL RETAIL, INDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AND FOOD TRUCKS IN THE TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONE WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY AND CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE ZONE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST TO REPLACE SIX (6) PARKING SPACES WITH 30 BICYCLE SPACES. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 11, 2022 (1701 MONTEREY STREET, USE-0103-2022)" with the following modifications and additions: - Modify Section 2: Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) described in Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15332 (In-Fill Development) of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is exempt under Section 15301 because it operates within an existing development with negligible expansion of the former retail use due to code requirements and conditions that address potential impacts related to traffic, noise, lighting, etc. to less than a significant level. The project is also exempt under Section 15332 because it is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Regulations, is located on a site that is less than five acres in size (3.63 acres) surrounded by other urban uses (existing hotels/motels, res taurant, service station, and vehicle repair services), and is not a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species because it is a developed urban site. Approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to (1) traffic because the Traffic Division reviewed the project and determined that the proposed uses would not generate a number of trips that substantially exceeds trips associated with the former retail use (approximately 30 additional peak PM trips); (2) noise because proposed uses will occur within the project building and enclosed outdoor areas, which are buffered by existing buildings and accessory structures onsite. Proposed uses will occur a minimum of 180 feet away from the top of bank and approximately 250 feet away from the nearest residential property line to the south. The project shall Page 7 of 332 4 comply with the noise thresholds outlined in the noise ordinance for the C-T zone, which are 60 dBA from 10 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA from 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. To ensure ongoing compliance, Conditions #10–15 include limitations on indoor live entertainment and outdoor activities; (3) air quality because construction-related emissions associated with the project are temporary and limited to minor improvements to the project building and parking area. In addition, operation of the uses would not generate emissions that exceed thresholds outlined in the Climate Action Plan; or (4) water quality because the project is not proposing access to the creek. In addition, Condition #9 requires that any liquid discharge from the food trucks shall be contained and properly disposed of by the applicant. Lastly, the site is served by all required utilities and public services. - Modify Condition No. 25: The property owner shall enter into an open space agreement with the City to dedicate a portion of the commercial lot which lies within the C/OS zone as an open space easement. Prior to building permit issuance, the open space agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. - Add new Condition: Submit a line-of-sight analysis to confirm that the existing building is not visible from residential neighbors across the creek to the south. If it is visible, provide screening to restore and enhance the creekside vegetation. - Add new Condition: Plans submitted for a building permit shall identify the location of commercial loading areas and hours of operation. - Add new Condition: Provide a barrier at the rear of the site to block visibility of the parking area from residential neighbors across the creek to the south, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Ayes (5): Commissioner Francis, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair Kahn, and Chair Quincey Noes (1): Commissioner Wulkan Absent (1): Commissioner Hopkins CARRIED (5 to 1) Page 8 of 332 5 5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey provided an update of upcoming projects. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for May 25, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. _________________________ APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2022 Page 9 of 332 Page 10 of 332 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: FY22-23 BUDGET SUPPLEMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY BY: Brian Nelson, City Engineer FROM: Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner Phone Number: 805-781-7113 Phone Number: 805-781-7574 Email: bnelson@slocity.org Email: rcohen@slocity.org APPLICANT: City of San Luis Obispo REPRESENTATIVE: Matt Horn, Director RECOMMENDATION Report to the City Council that all projects in the Capital Improvement Plan proposed as part of the 2022-2023 Budget Supplement conforms with the City’s General Plan. 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW State law requires the City to prepare a coordinated program of "proposed public works for the ensuing fiscal year" and to submit the plan to its planning agency "for review and report...as to conformity with the adopted general plan or part thereof '.1 San Luis Obispo's multi-year budget approach complies with the intent of this section, with the Planning Commission fulfilling the role of "planning agency" in its review of the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) every two years. The Commission's reporting that a proposed CIP conforms with the General Plan does not necessarily mean that the City endorses the project in a particular form. Individual projects must be more fully scoped, planned, designed, and undergo environmental review prior to receiving approval to be implemented. The City Council has full discretion in deciding CIP items. There are no specific sanctions in State law if a CIP item is found not to conform with the General Plan; however, a finding of non-conformance would indicate that the plan should be re-evaluated. 2.0 SUMMARY The CIP proposed as part of the 2022-23 Budget Supplement includes a variety of projects. Construction projects and equipment purchases costing $25,000 or more are included in the CIP. Capital outlays of less than $25,000 are included in the Financial Plan operating program budgets. Through the CIP, the City sys tematically plans, schedules, and finances capital projects to ensure cost-effectiveness and conformance with established policies and longer-term plans. 1 California Government Code Section 65401 Meeting Date: 5/25/2022 Item Number: 3b Time Estimate: N/A Page 11 of 332 Item 3b GENP 0265-2022 Planning Commission Report – 5/25/2022 The City Council prioritizes and allocates limited resources every two years after carefully considering community input. Not all General Plan goals, Specific Plans, or Concept Plans may be funded. Consequently, the proposed CIP must prioritize funding based on the Council's assessment of community needs and priorities. The proposed CIP Budget Supplement is an amendment to the second year of the five -year plan established with the 2021-23 Financial Plan, where funding is approved by Council for the first two years and the last three years are projected for consideration in the next Financial Plan. 3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW At the April 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the 2021-23 Financial Plan’s CIP was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Commission reported to Council that the CIP conformed with the General Plan. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Evaluation of General Plan conformity focuses on the objects of proposed spending, not the sources of funds. CIP projects can be funded from various funding sources which include the General Fund, Grants, Impact Fees as well as the City’s Enterprise Funds which include the Sewer Fund, Water Fund, Whale Rock Fund, Parking Fund, and Transit Fund which are typically supported by user fees. A General Plan policy audit was conducted and the tables below document how each proposed capital improvement in the 2022-23 Budget Supplement conforms to the City's General Plan. Each CIP item implements a program or policy in the General Plan, indicated in blue. The tables below provide a summary of the new projects recommended for funding in FY 2022-23. Many of these new requests reflect emergent or urgent needs. Circulation Element: Parking Management The City shall manage curb parking in the downtown to encourage short -term use to those visiting businesses and public facilities. Project No.: 1000163 Project Name: Installation of pay stations on Upper Monterey Street Proponent Department: Parking Project Summary: Council approved the expansion of paid parking in the upper Monterey area with the 2021-23 Financial Plan as part of the long-term approach to address the Parking Fund's health and ensure it was able to meet debt service. This project is for the infrastructure needed to complete the implementation of paid parking. Page 12 of 332 Item 3b GENP 0265-2022 Planning Commission Report – 5/25/2022 Budget Information Fund 2022-23 Rec Budget Funding Source Notes Parking $ 122,000 Parking fund undesignated capital N/A Project No.: 1000163 Project Name: Installation of pay stations in the Railroad Square parking lots Proponent Department: Parking Project Summary: Council approved the expansion of paid parking in the Railroad Square parking lots with the 2021 -23 Financial Plan as part of the long-term approach to address the Parking Fund's health and ensure it was able to meet debt service. This project is for the infrastructure needed to complete the implementation of paid parking. Budget Information Fund 2022-23 Rec Budget Funding Source Notes Parking $ 66,200 Parking fund undesignated capital N/A Safety Element: Emergency Preparedness and Response. There should be adequate planning, organization, and resources for emergency preparedness and emergency response. Project No.: NEW Project Name: Fire Department Extractors Proponent Department: Fire Project Summary: Project to install washing machine extractors at Stations 2, 3 and 4. Washing Machine Extractors are used to extract carcinogenic material from personal protective equipment after structure fires or hazardous materials exposures. Currently the department only has one extractor located at Station 1, which cannot keep up with demand after a large incident. Project was paused in FY 2020 due to COVID-19 and is being funded through the Public Safety Equipment Fund. Budget Information Fund 2022-23 Rec Budget Funding Source Notes Public Safety Equipment $ 135,000 Public Safety Equipment Fund Department had initially intended to do this project in FY 2019-20, but it was delayed due to COVID-19. Unable to accommodate in FY 2022 due to staffing constraints. Budget was set at $120,000 in January 2020. Increase to $135,000 to accommodate inflation. Page 13 of 332 Item 3b GENP 0265-2022 Planning Commission Report – 5/25/2022 Conservation and Open Space Element: The City will use material efficiently in its buildings and facilities, services and operations, and encourage others to do the same. Project No.: NEW Project Name: Tenant Improvements at 1260 Chorro Proponent Department: Transit Project Summary: This project will redesign the 1260 Chorro Street office to accommodate all of the mobility services that the City offers. Transit Services staff will be relocating and share the office currently occupied by Parking Services. This project will provide one counter where the community can reach both services. Budget Information Fund 2022-23 Rec Budget Funding Source Notes Transit $ 250,000 Undesignated Capital Transit Fund N/A Water and Wastewater Management Element: Manage the City’s water resources to meet the current and future water demand requirements associated with development envisioned by the General Plan. Project No.: NEW Project Name: Chorro - Palm to Monterey Pipeline Replacement Proponent Department: Utilities Project Summary: The City’s wastewater collection system includes approximately 140 miles of sewer pipelines with some portions of the system being older than 100 - years. The older areas of the wastewater collection system are near the end of their useful life and have been prioritized based on need as recorded by field inspections. The objective of this project is to replace sewer pipeline along Chorro from Palm to Monterey Street. The existing ductile iron pipe crossing the creek experienced a corrosion problem and is need of replacement as a high priority project since the sewer system serves key components of the downtown area. The new pipeline will meet City Engineering Standards and will provide resiliency in the wastewater collection system against corrosion problems normally encountered near the creek. Page 14 of 332 Item 3b GENP 0265-2022 Planning Commission Report – 5/25/2022 Budget Information Fund 2022-23 Rec Budget Funding Source Notes Sewer $ 60,000 Project is recommended to be funded through the reallocation of funding approved for other FY 2022-23 projects included in the 2021-23 Financial Plan which are recommended to be deferred to a future fiscal year. FY 2022-23 recommended project budget funds design for the project. An additional $253,000 will be recommended in FY 2023- 24 for project construction. Project No.: NEW Project Name: Johnson - Iris to Bishop Pipeline Replacement Proponent Department: Utilities Project Summary: The objective of the project is to replace a critical water transmission pipeline along Johnson Avenue from Iris to Bishop Street. The existing cast iron pipe has been deteriorating faster than anticipated and is need of replacement as a high priority project given this pipeline serves a major hospital and other essential facilities along Johnson Avenue. The new pipeline will meet standards by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) that will provide resiliency in the distribution network against variations in pressure and flows for current and future developments. Budget Information Fund 2022-23 Rec Budget Funding Source Notes Water $ 180,000 Project is recommended to be funded through the reallocation of funding approved for other FY 2022-23 projects included in the 2021-23 Financial Plan which are recommended to be deferred to a future fiscal year. FY 2022-23 recommended project budget funds design for the project. An additional $1,890,000 will be recommended in FY 2023-24 for project construction. Water and Wastewater Management Element: The City will make available recycled water to substitute for existing potable water uses as allowed by law and to supply new non-potable uses Page 15 of 332 Item 3b GENP 0265-2022 Planning Commission Report – 5/25/2022 Project No.: NEW Project Name: Recycled Water System Retrofits Proponent Department: Utilities Project Summary: The City operates and maintains the recycled water system comprised of one distribution zone, one booster-pump station, and a concrete tank located at the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). With the on-going efforts for water conservation, this project will convert existing irrigation systems from potable water use to recycled water systems. In 2017, a series parcels were identified as priority projects that could provide water conservation measures of the City’s potable water portfolio by changing into recycled water systems; “purple pipe". The objective of this project is to follow the recommendations from the 2017 study and expand the use of recycled water systems within the City’s service areas approved by the Regional Board. Budget Information Fund 2022-23 Rec Budget Funding Source Notes Water $ 200,000 Project is recommended to be funded through the reallocation of funding approved for other FY 2022-23 projects included in the 2021-23 Financial Plan which are recommended to be deferred to a future fiscal year. FY 2022-23 recommended project budget funds design for the project. An additional $200,000 will be recommended in FY 2024- 25 further efforts. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The determination of conformity with the General Plan is exempt from environmental review as a Statutory Exemption Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies (CEQA Guidelines Section 15262). Each project listed as part of the CIP will need future authorization and environmental review prior to construction. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended CIP projects proposed as part of the 2022-23 Budget Supplement. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Continue Review. The Planning Commission may direct staff to revise the report. There is no legally mandated deadline for Commission action. Page 16 of 332 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: 1381 CALLE JOAQUIN (ARCH-0783-2021) REVIEW OF A NEW 30,986 SQUARE FOOT AUTO DEALERSHIP AND SIGN PROGRAM, WITH A REQUEST FOR A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION BY / FROM: Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner Phone Number: 805-781-7574 Email: rcohen@slocity.org APPLICANT: Rich Development REPRESENTATIVES: Kristine Simmons & Tab Johnson 1.0 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) entitled, “A resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the architectural design of a new 3 0,986 square foot auto dealership and sign program with a request for a fence height exception and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as represented in the Planning Commission Agenda Report and attachm ents dated May 25, 2022 (1381 Calle Joaquin, File #ARCH-0383-2021).” 2.0 SITE DATA Location 1381 Calle Joaquin Site Area 2.84 Acres (123,710 s.f.) Site Condition Vacant Zoning C-T-SF (Tourist Commercial) with a Special Focus Overlay General Plan Tourist Commercial Surrounding Uses East: Highway 101 West: Agriculture and Auto dealerships North: Hotel, Agriculture, and Auto dealership South: Auto dealership and motel 3.0 SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a new 30,986 square foot auto dealership (Attachments B - D). The project’s architecture is modern in design and utilizes rectilinear forms, flat roofs, and large areas of glazing / storefronts. Exterior materials include concret e panels, metal panels, metal canopies, and an aluminum storefront. The structure is mostly gray and white with accents of neon red. The project also proposes a sign program that includes sizing, quantity, and design standards for all signs on the site (Attachment E). Meeting Date: 5/25/2022 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 30 minutes Figure 1: Project Site Page 17 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0783-2021 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 The applicant is also requesting a fence height exception to allow an 8-foot-tall metal picket style fence where normally a 6-foot-tall fence is allowed (Attachment B, Sheet A- 4). 4.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations, and applicable City development standards. Planning Commission (PC) review is required for development projects that consist of 10,000 square feet or more of new commercial construction. Figure 3: Elevation of the Project as viewed from Calle Joaquin Figure 2: Site and Landscape Plan Page 18 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0783-2021 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 5.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW On April 18, 2022, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the project for consistency with the CDG and Sign Regulations (ARC Report, 04/18/2022). The ARC recommended that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the CDG and Sign Regulations with direction that the applicant should include additional articulation along the auto dealership’s exterior north elevation through the use of colors, materials, and/or windows. 6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Setbacks Front Side Side Rear ~150 feet 37 feet 37 feet ~205 feet 10 feet No setback No setback 20 feet Maximum Height of Structure 30 feet 45 feet Max Lot Coverage 25.05% 75% F.A.R. 0.25 2.5 Number of Vehicle Parking Spaces 175 88 EV Ready 10 9 EV Capable 22 22 Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces 13 13 Number of Motorcycle Parking Spaces 5 5 *2019 Zoning Regulations 7.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed development must conform to the intentions, standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations and Engineering Standards and be consistent with the applicable CDG and Sign Regulations. Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant requirements and has found it to be in compliance, as discussed in this analysis. 7.1 Consistency with the General Plan The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Chapter 8 provides policies for Special Focus Planning Areas. The proposed project site is located within the Calle Joaquin Auto Sales planning area (Program 8.111), which identifies that parcel in this area may be appropriate for auto sales depending on the market. The proposed auto dealership is consistent with Program 8.11 because it proposes auto sales and provides transition to the agricultural parcels to the north and preserves the viewsheds from Highway 101. 1 8.11. Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area. These four vacant lots are suitable for commercial mixed use and other uses described under the Tourist Commercial designations. Portions of the site may be appropriate for use as auto sales, depending on market demand. Development of this area must address preservation of and transition to the agricultural parcels/uses to the northwest; connectivity to the Dalidio Ranch area; viewshed preservation; and treatment as a gateway to the City visible from Highway 101. Page 19 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0783-2021 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 7.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations In accordance with Chapter 17.52 (Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone) of the Zoning Regulations, auto dealerships are an allowed use within the C-T-SF zone because the use is consistent with and expressly allowed by Land Use Element Program 8.11. The project complies with the development standards noted in Section 17.52.030 because it adheres to the requirements of the underlying C-T zone and the provisions set forth in the Calle Joaquin Auto Sales planning area. Fence Height Exception: The project includes an 8-foot tall black, iron, picket fence around the project site. The applicant is requesting a 2-foot fence height exception where normally a 6-foot fence is allowed. The fence height exception is consistent with the intent of Section 17.70.070 of the Zoning Regulations because the additional height addresses concerns related to security for the project site and would not pose any potential adverse effects on surrounding properties such as, traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, scale, and lighting because the proposed fence is an open picket design that allows for visibility from adjacent properties and is not located within any site triangles for vehicular or pedestrian paths of travel. 7.3 Architectural Review Commission Review Direction The ARC found the project consistent with the CDGs and provided one directional item for the applicant to consider incorporating into the project design to be reviewed and evaluated by the PC prior to taking final action on the project: ARC Direction: The applicant should include additional articulation along the auto dealership’s exterior north elevation through the use of colors, materials, and/or windows to be consistent with CDG guidance on four-sided architecture. Response: Per ARC’s direction, the applicant has provided revised elevations that show the addition of windows on the north elevation (see Figure 4). Staff finds that the revised elevation is consistent with ARC direction and recommends Condition of Approval No. 2 to ensure that plans submitted for a building permit include windows as proposed, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. REVISED PREVIOUS Figure 4: Comparison of the previous and revised north elevation Page 20 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0783-2021 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 7.4 Sign Regulations The Sign Regulations are intended to protect and enhance the character of the community against visual blight and the proliferation of signs. Signs have an important design component and must be architecturally compatible with the character of surrounding development. It is the intent of the Sign Regulations to regulate the time, place and manner under which signs are permitted, and not the content of signage. Content shall not be used as a basis for determining whether or not a proposed sign may be permitted. Per Section 15.40.485 of the Municipal Code, a Sign Program is required for the project to establish ongoing sign requirements and to ensure the signage is complementary and compatible with the development and surrounding commercial district. Table 2 (below) outlines the proposed Sign Program for the project. Sign programs may supersede limitations outlined in the City’s Sign Regulations and do not have to comply with standards such as height, size, and number. A detailed Sign Program is included as Attachment E. The ARC reviewed the Sign Program at their April 18, 2022, meeting, and found that the proposal results in signage that is compatible with the development, complementary to project architecture, and provides a superior design. Page 21 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0783-2021 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 Table 1: Proposed Sign Program Sign Program Proposed Number of Signs 4 + miscellaneous signs and temporary window signs Cumulative Area of Signs 288.84 sq. ft. + miscellaneous signs and temporary window signs Major Building Tenant Signage (Wall Signs) Total number of signs = 3 Areas: 17.45 s.f., 88.78 s.f., and 9.28 s.f. Illuminated: Internal LED The sign area shall not exceed two (2) square foot per every, one (1) lineal foot of the building’s frontage. The maximum length of the sign shall not exceed 75% of the tenant leasehold space. Center Freestanding Sign Total number of signs = 1 Height = 20 feet Width = 8 feet 8 inches Area = 173.33 square feet Illuminated: Internal LED Miscellaneous Small Signs for Exterior Service / Charging Station Signs Total number of signs = no limit Area = 6 square feet Height = The maximum letter and logo height shall not exceed 18 inches. Illuminated: None Temporary Window Signs Shall not exceed 25% of window area of each window; total area of all signs shall not exceed 50 square feet. 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 32, Infill Exemption) because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the app licable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property within city limits, of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses, with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Page 22 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0783-2021 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 Based on compliance with existing regulations, approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise, air quality, or water quality, and is served by required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the size and location of the project. 9.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including Planning, Engineering, Transportation, Building, Utilities, and Fire. Staff has not identified any unusual site conditions or circumstances that would require special conditions. Other comments have been incorporated into the draft resolution as conditions of approval. 10.0 ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Continue project. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required to make a decision. 10.2 Deny the project. An action denying the project should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, CDG, Sign Regulations, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. 11.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Draft Resolution approving application ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) B - Project Plans_ARCH-0754-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) C - Landscape Plans_ARCH-0754-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) D - Preliminary Improvement Plans_ARCH-0754-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) E - Sign Program_ARCH-0754-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 23 of 332 Page 24 of 332 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A NEW 30,986 SQUARE FOOT AUTO DEALERSHIP AND SIGN PROGRAM WITH A REQUEST FOR A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 25, 2022 (1381 CALLE JOAQUIN, FILE #ARCH-0783-2021) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on April 18, 2022 for the purpose of reviewing development review application ARCH-0783-2021, Rich Development, applicant, for a new auto dealership, sign program and fence heigh exception and recommended the Planning Commission approve the design with direction to include additional articulation along the auto dealership’s exterior north elevation through the use of colors, materials, and/or windows; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on May 25, 2022 for the purpose of reviewing development review application ARCH-0783-2021, Rich Development, applicant, for a new auto dealership, sign program and fence heigh exception; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, recommendation by Architectural Review Commission, and the evaluation 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 hereby approves the architectural design of a new auto dealership, sign program and fence heigh exception (“Project”), application ARCH-0783-2021, based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The project design is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding character and scale of the existing neighborhood because it is single story, maintains a similar front yard setback as other nearby auto dealerships and provides landscaping that enhances the architecture and site design. Page 25 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 2 3. The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, Section 3.4(A) Auto dealerships because it provides on-site areas for the unloading of vehicles from carriers, storage and outdoor activity areas (e.g., car washing, stacking areas for vehicles waiting for service, etc.) are screened from view from public right of way, as conditioned the building provides 4-sided architecture and is consistent on all sides in terms of architectural style and exterior finish materials, the showroom is oriented toward the street, the fencing is consistent with the architectural design of the building, service areas are entirely contained within the building, and landscaping is provided along the perimeter of the site and will be maintained at low level. 4. The proposed auto dealership is consistent with the General Plan at the proposed location because it complies with Land Use Element Policy 8.1 and Program 3.7.5 which has identified the site as an appropriate location for auto sales. 5. The proposed auto dealership is consistent with Chapter 17.52 (Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone) of the Zoning Regulations because the project complies with the development standards of the underlying zone and provisions outlined in Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element. Sign Program 6. The proposed sign program is consistent with the Sign Regulations because the signage will be architecturally compatible with the new structure and the character of surrounding development, while providing for effective identification for the business. 7. The proposed sign program is consistent with Community Design Guidelines Sections 6.6(B)(C)(F)(J) because the design of the signs compliments the architecture of the building and the type of business activity conducted within. 8. The proposed signs consist of a superior design that complies with the Design Principles of the Sign Regulations that do not result in clutter or excessively sized signage in comparison to the other commercial structures in the vicinity. The proposed signs have been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and found to be consistent with the intent of the Sign Regulations and Community Design Guidelines. Fence Height Exception 9. The fence height exception is consistent with the intent of section 17.70.070 of the Zoning Regulations because the additional height of 2 feet, for a total height of 8 feet, addresses concerns related to security for the project site. 10. The additional fence height would not pose any potential adverse effects on surrounding properties such as, traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, scale, and lighting because the proposed fence is an open picket iron fence design that allows for visibility from adjacent properties and is not located within any site triangles for vehicular or pedestrian paths of travel. Page 26 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 3 Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 32, Infill Exemption) because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property within city limits, of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses, with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Based on compliance with existing regulations, approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise, air quality, or water quality, and is served by required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the size and location of the project. 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 Planning Commission does hereby grant final approval of the Project, application ARCH-0783-2021, located at 1381 Calle Joaquin, subject to the following conditions: Planning Division – Community Development Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as approved through this architectural review process. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval as Sheet No. 2. 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, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director or reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission with a recommendation to the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include windows along the building’s exterior north elevation as presented in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 25, 2022, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 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 the Development Review application. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window trim details. Plans shall indicate 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. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director. Page 27 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 4 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required short and long-term bicycle parking for all intended uses; plans submitted for construction permits shall include bicycle lockers or interior space or other area for long-term storage. Short-term bicycle racks shall be consistent with the City Active Transportation Plan Design Guidelines and feature “hi-low style” campus racks (such as “Peak Racks”) or City-approved equivalent (inverted “U” rack designs shall not be permitted) and shall be installed in close proximity to, and visible from, the main entries into the building. Sufficient detail shall be provided about the placement and design of bike racks and lockers or interior rooms to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. 6. The locations of all lighting, including landscaping or parking lot lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall -mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter §17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. 7. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a landscape plan that is in substantial compliance with the project plans as approved through the architectural review process and include an irrigation system plan. 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 surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall also be identified and included on the landscaping plan. 9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back-flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. Page 28 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 5 10. Building plans shall include elevation and detail drawings identifying all colors and materials of all walls and fences. Fences shall be in substantial with the project plans and shall not exceed a maximum height of 8 feet. 11. Plans submitted for project signage shall be in substantial conformance with the project plans Sign Program. Modifications to the Sign Program or a request for additional signage may require review by the Architectural Review Commission or the Community Development Director, as deemed appropriate. Housing Programs – Community Development Department 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the required Inclusionary Housing In-lieu fee per Municipal Code Section 17.138.060, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development 13. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard, Municipal Code 12.16.050. 14. The building plan submittal shall show any section of damaged or displaced curb, gutter or sidewalk to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The building plan submittal shall show and label on the plans that the street improvements shall include pave-out of the street or repair along the property frontage to correct any existing separation between the asphalt and adjoining gutter line, if applicable. 15. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any work or construction staging in the public right-of-way. 16. The building plan submittal shall show the existing or proposed fire service lateral and double-check assembly per City Engineering Standards and adopted codes for the required fire sprinkler system. The double check assembly, type, location, and screen plantings shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Planning Division. The location of the FDC whether on the device or remote shall be approved by the Fire Department. The location of the on-site fire hydrant shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 17. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the city’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. Page 29 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 6 18. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. An elevation certificate or topographic survey will be required as part of the building permit review with a final elevation certificate provided at the completion of construction. Unless an alternate analysis is received and approved, the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) established in conjunction with the parcel map and minor subdivision improvements shall be honored. The building shall be elevated or protected to at least one foot above the BFE. The existing flood storage volume shall be maintained or replaced in accordance with the original analysis. 19. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include a complete hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report in compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III Drainage Design Manual. The project shall show how the post development run-off will not exceed the pre-development flows for the 2 through 100-year storm events. The detention basin(s) used for peak management shall be able to drain within 48 hours. 20. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements (PCR’s) as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Con trol Board for developed sites. Provide a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The plans and reports shall utilize retention-based Stormwater Control Measures (SCM’s) unless an alternate strategy is specifically approved as part of the treatment train. 21. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals. 22. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also requires a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). 23. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference. Page 30 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 7 24. Any changes proposed to the reciprocal access easement(s) and storm drain easement(s) shall be resolved prior to building or grading permit issuance to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Departments. The landscape and site development plans shall honor the existing access easements unless otherwise approved for abandonment and quit-claim by the grantee. A separate covenant agreement and plan to complete the landscaping in the easement may be required if development on the neighboring parcels abandons the access easement in the future. If temporary landscaping is proposed and supported, a separate agreement to remove the landscaping and irrigation may be required. Any driveway approaches approved for abandonment shall be abandoned per City Standards. Any required quit-claim deeds and other easement agreements, etc. shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 25. The building plan submittal shall show and label the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference. 26. 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. 27. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Run-off from the containment area shall be treated as a potential point source for pollutions. The PCR SCM’s may be used for water quality treatment to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Utilities departments. 28. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Proposed underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structures shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 29. The building plan submittal shall show all required street trees. One 15-gallon street tree is required for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve the tree species and planting requirements. Page 31 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 8 30. The building plan submittal shall show all existing or proposed tree and shrub planting upgrades or alterations to the landscaping located within the parkway between Calle Joaquin and Highway 101 for the portion located in front of the property as required by the conditions of approval of ARC 9-06. This area shall be properly landscaped and maintained with this development to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Landscape irrigation, if required, may extend across Calle Joaquin with an encroachment agreement. Otherwise, the developer could work with the adjoining property owner(s) and the existing irrigation system(s) and metering. The building plan submittal shall show and label the existing or proposed landscape buffers between the City Ag Open Space and between the adjoining parcels. Transportation Division - Public Works Department 31. Project shall be required to pay applicable Citywide Transportation Impact Fees and Los Osos Valley Road Subarea Add-On Transportation Impact Fees. Fees are due prior to issuance of building permits. Utilities Department 32. Where automobiles are serviced, greased, repaired, or washed, separators shall be provided to prevent the discharge of oil, grease, and other substances harmful or hazardous to the City’s wastewater collection system consistent with City standards. Any proposed automobile service bays and equipment wash-down areas shall be sloped to prevent any spills, contaminants, or wash water from flowing out of the service bays. The service bays shall include a floor drain system that includes a clarifier or sand/oil separator, as appropriate, that then discharges to the sanitary sewer. Any drain that flows to the sanitary sewer shall be covered and protected to prevent storm water from entering the wastewater collection system. 33. An Industrial Wastewater Discharge Survey and Permit Application shall be submitted, and permit obtained prior to issuance of occupancy permit. 34. The project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) to support new ornamental landscaping shall not exceed the project’s maximum applied water allowance (MAWA). Information shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit to support required water demand of the project’s proposed landscaping. 35. The construction plans for sewer, water, and recycled water services shall be in accordance with the engineering design standards in effect at the time the building permit is approved. 36. Building permit submittal shall clarify size of existing and proposed water services and water meters for the project, including both potable and recycled water. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. Page 32 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 ARCH-0783-2021 (1381 Calle Joaquin) Page 9 37. Trash enclosure(s) shall conform the requirements by the San Luis Garbage Company and refuse bins shall be sized to provide a reasonable level of service. Separate refuse bins shall be accommodated within the site for the three (3) waste streams, trash, recycling, and organics. 38. Upon submittal of a building permit, plans shall include an interim temporary connection for potable irrigation to be used to establish landscaping until completion of construction and installation of the recycled water meter. Indemnification 39. 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______________, seconded by ______________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of May 25, 2021. _____________________________ Rachel Cohen, Secretary Planning Commission Page 33 of 332 Page 34 of 332 !" !#! ! !$%" &' (" )*%+*, -- *. *-*" ! !$# - */ 0* +. !#1 , ! !$0 +2 # * !, -*" 1 " , 3 , ) ,- 1 % * 4* !1,! ! ! !$5 5 1 Page 35 of 332 GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS CALLE JOAQUIN(PUBLIC R.O.W.)SIGNAGEN27°46'24"E7N27°46'24"E R1676.68' / 676.56' R1S28°09'15"W / S28°09'07"W R1647.17' / 647.32' R1215.40' / 215.66' R1215.86' / 215.83' R1216.06' / 216.02' R1215.85' / 215.81' R1N54°24'10"W / N54°23'13"W R1577.47' / 577.44' R1N54°24'09"W / N54°23'13"W R1578.92' / 578.88' R1BASIS OF BEARINGS41.50' R.O.W.28.50'10.00'BUILDINGSETBACKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW RWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG FSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFS WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW RWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRW FSFS WW IRRIRR GG SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS U.S. HIGHWAY 1 0 1 T ECALLE JOAQUIN 18'24'18'2814101012RETAILBUILDING±30,986 SF18'24'24'18'10'30'SETBACKPRIVATE DRAINAGE & EASEMENT TO BE VACATEDPRIVATE DRAINAGE & EASEMENT TO BE VACATED18'8'24'5'24'5'PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE12'(E) RETAINING WALL219'-11"136'-3"85'-3"20'-4"30'-8"12'-0"12'-0"9'TYP.37'-11"26'9'TYP.38'-10"219'-11"18'AUTHORIZEDVEHICLE ONLYSIGN, TYP ATCHARGE POSTS108'26'9'18'24'36'24'36'24'282819162'-5"111101042C CCC (N) SECURITY GATES(N) MONUMENT SIGNFIRE HYDRANTFIRE HYDRANTE244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTORM801 WC R=31' (MIN) FORFIRE TRUCK TURN9'-3"51'-2"280'-4"UNDERGROUND STORM WATERDETERNTION FACILITY (TYP.)30'3'BIKE RACKLOCATIONTRANSFORMERLOCATIONTWALL CHARGERS ALONG STALLS E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WCE244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTORM801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WCE244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WCE244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WCE244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WCE244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC WITH KNOX BOX (N) SECURITY GATESWITH KNOX BOX R=31' (MIN) FORFIRE TRUCK TURN(N) FENCE5'STREET ACCESS4'29'26'29'-6"(N) RETAINING WALLAND FENCE, SEE DETAILS SHEET A-4DETAILS SHEET A-4(N) FENCEDETAILS SHEET A-4SUPER CHARGERCABINETNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE CALLE JOAQUIN NEAR LOS OSOS VALLEY RD.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAN21.353.0101/07/2022MCG ARCHITECTURE 2021 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0SITE PLANScheme AScale : 1" = 30'15 30' 60'PROJECT INFORMATIONBUILDING AREA123,710 SF 2.84ACRESLAND30,986 SFBUILDING2.99 / 1 LAND / BLDG RATIO:PARKING SUMMARY:PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:25.05 %COVERAGE:USERREQUIREDCITY RATIOREQUIREDOFFICE/CUSTOMER300 SF/1SPTOTAL REQUIRED PARKINGS.F.SALES/SERVICE±4,360±26,626±40,000OUTDOOR SALES15532088TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED175BUILDING500 SF/1SP2000 SF/1SPN LOCATION MAPOCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: B-BUSINESSFLOOD ZONE INFORMATION: FLOOD ZONE 'A'PARCEL INFORMATION:BEING LOT 2 OF PARCEL MAP SLO 04-0615,BOOK 67, PAGES 68-70 OF PARCEL MAPSA.P.N.: 053-152-002ZONING: C-T (COMMERCIAL TOURIST)LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ORDER NO.FSLC-512100364-RB:LOT 2 OF PARCEL MAP SLO 04-0615, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAPRECORDED NOVEMBER 8, 2006 IN BOOK 67, PAGES 68-70 OFPARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OFSAID COUNTYA-1Page 36 of 332 CREDENZA SLIDING DOORLATERAL FILING CABINETS MOOD-MEDIAAMPLIFIERE851 F32125" HEIGHTF32125" HEIGHTF32125" HEIGHT F32125" HEIGHT 03040506E291SOLAR PANELG8128 X 12 GRAPHICE292SOLAR TILEG8128 X 12 GRAPHICPOWERWALLG8128 X 12 GRAPHICE281G8128 X 12 GRAPHICE51049" TOUCHSCREENE5133" BEZELM510WOODFRAMEE518TV WALL MOUNTG8098' X 9' GRAPHICSE102SE102SE102SE102REFRIGERANTDRYERSE5XX8' X 12' GRAPHICG8128' X 12' GRAPHICG812SE102SE102EYEWASHSTATIONFLS9PALLETJACKSC-2400X950 H-1950SC-2400X950 H-1950LIFTTABLEESD FLOORMATGROUNDEDESD FLOORMATGROUNDEDESD TABLE MATGROUNDEDCABINETF32230" HEIGHTF32230" HEIGHT F32230" HEIGHTM120F880 E131COFFEEMAKER55" TV - SURFACE MOUNTED W/ SWING ARME142WATER DISP.COUNTERCOFFEE BARF105P32P31(MIRROR)BABY CHANGING TABLEHORIZONTALE580F303F303F303F303F303 E110FULL SIZE FRIDGEE120MICROWAVEE131COFFEEMAKERF1 0 5 F401F401F401F401F105F4 0 1 F401F401F401F940F940F940F940F940F940F940F940E810VENDING MACHINEFOOD AND DRINKE810VENDING MACHINEFOOD AND DRINKE850TIMECLOCKF32230" HEIGHTF32230" HEIGHTF32230" HEIGHTM120 SE102CABINETCABINETCABINETCABINETCABINET CABINET 8' X 12' GRAPHICG812 F880G8098' X 9' GRAPHICM140 F32525.5" HEIGHTF32525.5" HEIGHT F990F990F990SE-620SE-6XXCABINETCABINETWHEEL BALANCERTIRE CHANGERSE4XXSE4XXF800KEY DROP BOX CABINETP32P31(MIRROR)BABY CHANGING TABLEHORIZONTAL 55" TV - SURFACE MOUNTED W/ SWING ARMG8098' X 9' GRAPHICF32230" HEIGHTF32230" HEIGHT F32230" HEIGHTM120 CABINET CABINETCABINETCABINET CABINET CABINET E551PRINTERF105F401 F401F401F401F105F4 0 1 F401F401F401F940F940F940F940F940F940F940F940F940F940F940F940F940F940 F960 1AD7BC234551'-8"49'-5"52'-6"42'-0"24'-4"136'-3"47'-0"48'-8"40'-7"12'-0"36'-4"6136'-3"20'-4"85'-3"30'-8"9'-4"12'-0"9'-4"3'-0"2'-0"6'-0"36'-5"8'-0"25'-2"8"4'-2"12'-0"4'-2"29'-2"4'-6"12'-0"4'-0"12'-0"6"4'-0"6"4'-0"WALL POP-OUTWALL POP-OUT4'-6"6"WALLPOP-OUT6"TE244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WC E244 WALL CONNECTOR M801 WCKNOXBOXLOCATION6.8SHOWROOMLOUNGEOFFICE AREAWOMEN'SMEN'SSERVICE AREAPARTS AREASERVICE INTAKE AREARRRRCAR WASH AREABREAK RM.FSR1"FIREHYDRANTWALLPOP-OUTLOCKER AREACOMPRESSORRM4'-8"231'-11"TRANSFORMERLOCATIONEXITEXITEXITJANITORCLOSETTSUPERCHARGERCABINETFIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES:1. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS: ACCESS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITHCHAPTER 5 AND APPENDIX D OFTHE 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC). ACCESS ROADS SHALL HAVE ANUNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET AND ANUNOBSTRUCTED VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 13’ 6”. ACCESS ROADS SHALLBE DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSED LOADS OF A60,000 POUND FIRE APPARATUS AND SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ASURFACE SO AS TO PROVIDE ALL-WEATHER DRIVING CAPABILITIES. THEALLWEATHER ACCESS ROAD(S) SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THESTART OF COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION. DEAD END ROADS IN EXCESSOF 300 FEET IN LENGTH SHALL TERMINATE IN A CUL-DE-SACTURNAROUND WITH A MINIMUM UNOBSTRUCTED TURNING RADIUS OF 35FEET (70 FOOT DIAMETER). THE MAXIMUM ROADGRADE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS IS 15%, WITH A MAXIMUM CROSSSLOPE OF 5%. THE MAXIMUM ANGLE OF APPROACH AND ANGLE OFDEPARTURE IS 10%.2. ADDRESS NUMBERS: APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE PLACEDON ALL NEW BUILDINGS IN SUCH A POSITION TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE ANDLEGIBLE FROM THE STREET FRONTING THE PROPERTY. NUMBERS SHALLBE A MINIMUM OF 10" HIGH BY 1" STROKE AND BE ON A CONTRASTINGBACKGROUND3. WATER SUPPLIES: WATER SUPPLIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITHSECTIONS 507 OF THE CFC. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY CAPABLE OFPROVIDING THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION ISREQUIRED. THE FIRE FLOW SHALL BE DETERMINED USING APPENDIX B OFTHE CFC.4. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO EQUIPMENT: ROOMS OR AREASCONTAINING CONTROLS FOR AIR-HANDLING SYSTEMS, AUTOMATICFIRE-PROTECTION SYSTEMS, OR OTHER DICTION, SUPPRESSION ORCONTROL ELEMENTS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED FOR USE BY THE FIREDEPARTMENT AND SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE SAME AREA. A SIGN SHALLBE PROVIDED ON THE DOOR TO THE ROOM STATING “FIRE SPRINKLERRISER” AND “FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL”. FIRE SPRINKLER RISERSSHALL BE LOCATED IN A ROOM WITH EXTERIOR DOOR ACCESS.5. KNOX BOX: A KNOX BOX SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THEFIRE SPRINKLER RISER ROOM WITH A KEY TO THE ROOM.6. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT: FIRE PROTECTIONSYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CFC AND THECALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. AN APPROVED NFPA 13 FIRE SPRINKLERSYSTEM WILL BE REQUIRED. SHOP DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIORTO INSTALLATION. FIRE MAIN AND ALL ASSOCIATED CONTROL VALVESSHALL BE INSTALLED PER NFPA 24 STANDARDS AND CITY ENGINEERINGSTANDARDS.7. FIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION: BUILDINGS UNDERGOINGCONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCEWITH CHAPTER 34 OF THE CFC.8. ALL EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIAL SHALLCOMPLY WITH CHAPTER 7A (IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION) OFTHE BUILDING CODE, EXCEPT FOR WINDOWS, FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED INWILDFIRE PRONE AREASNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.MCG JOB #:REVISIONSCALLE JOAQUIN NEAR LOS OSOS VALLEY RD.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA21.353.0112/23/2021MCG ARCHITECTURE 2021 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED0PROPOSEDFLOOR PLANScale: 3/32" = 1'-0"8' 16' 32'NA-2Page 37 of 332 Page 38 of 332 6" CONCRETECURB4YTRASH BIN58d”x84w”x68h”4YRECYCLE BIN58d”x84w”x68h”ORG.68"x68"65 Gal8" REINFORCEDCONCRETE BLOCKCOLUMN, Typ.CONCRETE APRONDOUBLE SWINGMETAL GATESSERVICEDOOR4'-0"8"8'-10"13'-6"METAL CANOPY ABOVE19'-6"21'-2"15'-9"9'-5"9'-5"5'-0"ORG.68"x68"65 GalTRASHENCLOSURE265 SFPEDESTRIAN PATHCONNECTING TO MAINBUILDINGPARKINGPARKINGU.S. HIGHWAY 101CALLE JOAQUIN E244 WALL CONNECTORM801WCE244 WALL CONNECTORM801WCE244 WALL CONNECTORM801WCE244 WALL CONNECTORM801WCE244 WALL CONNECTORM801WCE244 WALL CONNECTORM801WCE244 WALL CONNECTORM801WC 6'-0"4'-0"6"10'-6"PAINTED CMU-F-D6'-0"4'-0"6"6"10'-6"-DMETAL GATE TYP.CANE BOLT TYP. SLIDING LATCH BOLT TYP.6'-0"3'-6"6"6"10'-6"-D-FPAINTED CMU6'-0"3'-6"6"6"10'-6"-D-FPAINTED CMUMETAL GATE134" FORERUNNER RAIL6'-0"3'-0" MIN.FOOTING DEPTHPOST SIZE VARIES WITH HEIGHT2"NOM.1" X .125 WALL PICKETGATE UPRIGHT 2" X .250 WALLWELD ON BOX HINGES-SERIES TUBULAR GALVANIZED DOUBLE GATES30 FEET WIDECOLOR TO MATCH FENCEBY: HOOVER FENCE3'-0" MIN.FOOTING DEPTH1" X .065 WALL PICKETBRACKET OPTIONS4" TYPICALPOST SIZE VARIES WITH HEIGHT2" NOM.8' O.C. NOM.134" FORERUNNER RAIL8'-0"3'-0" MIN.FOOTING DEPTH1" X .065 WALL PICKETPOST SIZE VARIES WITH HEIGHT8' O.C. NOM.134" FORERUNNER RAILPOST SIZE VARIES WITH HEIGHT134" FORERUNNER RAIL1" X .065 WALL PICKET8" THK. RETAINING WALL1'-4"3'-0"FOOTING DEPTH1'-4"6'-8"8'-0"8" THK. RETAINING WALL6'-8"8'-0"10INOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE CALLE JOAQUIN NEAR LOS OSOS VALLEY RD.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA21.353.0112/23/2021MCG ARCHITECTURE 2021 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCSITE DETAILSScale: AS NOTEDMATERIALS1--APT-1: NEON REDBM - 2087-10PT-2: CHANTILLY LACEBM - 65COLORSKEY PLANEXTERIOR PLASTER FINISHWITH SCORE LINESMETAL PANELMETAL PANEL CANOPYFULL VISION HIGH SPEEDROLL UP DOORSERVICE ENTRY SIGNAPPROX 1'-0" T X 10'-0" WADDRESS NUMBER(10" H X 2' W MIN.)N PT-3: WROUGHT IRONBM - 2124-10PT-5: TROUT GREYBM - 2124-20PT-6: DEEP SILVERBM - 2124-30PT-8 BUNNY GREYBM - 2124-50ILLUMINATED EXTERIORSIGNAGE WORDMARK(APPROX 3'-0" H X 32'-0" W)LOGO CABINET SIGN(APPROX 4'-0 H X 2'-6" W)ALUMINUM STOREFRONTCLEAR GLASSSPANDREL GLASSAFRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"CREAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"BSIDE ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"DSIDE ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"C-D-A-B-1FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EDOUBLE GATESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"FTYPICAL FENCESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9--B-C-D-E-F-G-HA-4TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILSFENCE AND GATE DETAILSGRETAINING WALL w/ FENCESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"ELEVATION SECTION-IECHELLON II - BLACKBY: AMERISTARALUMINUMFENCE10-Page 39 of 332 Page 40 of 332 4388 Old Santa Fe Rd San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-543-0875 January 10, 2022 Luisa Costa, Project Designer MCG Architecture 15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 949-522-3931 Re: 1381 Calle Joaquin – Retail Building Development Plans – MCG Job # 21.353.01 This letter is to act as a Will-Serve letter for the collection of solid waste, recycling, and organic waste at: 1381 Calle Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93405 Per Site Plan Pages A-1 and A-4 Received on 01/06/2022 In accordance with the franchise agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Garbage Company will provide collection of the three waste streams at the enclosure per the following schedule: Solid Waste: 1 4YD bin, 1x weekly* Recycling: 1 4YD bin, 1x weekly* Organic Waste: 2 65G cans, 1x weekly* *Service frequency TBD based on volumes and seasonality It will be the property owner’s responsibility to make sure that all bins and cans are accessible by 6:00 AM on the day(s) of collection. Based on my review of the property and plan set, the space allotted for waste storage and service is sufficient. Based on my review of the property and plan set, the volume of bins anticipated for use at this property is sufficient. It is the property owner’s responsibility to increase frequency or volume of service if necessary pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.04.070(E). Notes Regarding Service: The enclosure is limited to 4YD containers due to lack of direct-stab access, meaning containers need to be rolled out of enclosure to be serviced. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kris Mazurek Operations Supervisor 360-789-0991 Cell Page 41 of 332 1.01.01.01.01.11.11.11.01.11.21.21.31.41.61.81.81.91.91.81.71.51.41.31.21.21.11.00.91.01.01.01.01.01.00.90.91.31.41.41.41.41.51.41.31.41.41.51.61.61.71.91.92.02.01.91.81.71.61.51.51.41.31.31.31.41.41.41.31.31.31.21.21.61.71.71.71.81.81.81.71.71.71.81.81.81.92.02.02.12.12.01.91.81.71.71.71.71.61.51.61.71.81.71.71.71.61.51.41.81.92.02.02.12.12.12.01.92.02.02.02.02.02.12.12.22.12.12.01.91.91.91.91.91.91.81.92.02.12.02.02.01.91.81.71.31.51.71.92.12.22.42.42.52.52.52.42.22.22.22.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.02.01.91.92.02.12.22.12.12.22.42.52.42.42.32.22.11.91.71.51.31.41.71.92.22.42.52.62.72.72.82.82.52.32.42.32.22.22.12.12.12.12.12.02.02.02.02.12.22.22.32.22.42.72.72.62.62.62.52.42.11.91.61.41.51.82.12.42.62.72.72.82.82.92.92.62.42.42.32.32.22.22.12.02.02.02.02.02.02.12.12.22.32.32.32.52.82.82.82.82.72.62.52.42.11.81.51.61.92.22.52.72.72.82.92.92.93.02.72.42.42.32.22.22.12.01.91.91.91.91.92.02.12.12.12.22.32.32.63.02.92.92.82.82.72.62.52.21.91.61.62.02.32.62.72.83.03.03.13.33.43.02.62.42.32.22.12.01.91.81.81.81.81.81.91.92.02.12.22.32.52.93.33.23.13.02.92.72.72.62.32.01.61.62.02.42.62.82.93.03.33.53.73.83.42.92.52.22.12.01.91.81.71.61.61.61.71.81.91.92.12.22.42.83.33.73.73.53.23.02.92.82.62.42.01.71.72.02.42.72.82.93.23.53.84.14.13.73.02.62.32.11.91.81.71.71.71.71.71.61.71.81.92.02.22.52.93.54.14.03.83.53.12.92.82.72.42.11.71.82.12.52.82.93.03.43.84.14.54.74.13.22.82.42.22.01.91.81.71.71.71.71.71.81.91.92.12.32.73.14.04.64.54.13.83.43.02.92.82.52.11.81.72.12.62.93.13.33.64.14.34.84.94.33.02.72.52.32.11.91.81.61.61.61.61.61.71.92.02.22.42.62.94.24.84.84.44.13.63.33.12.92.62.11.81.72.02.52.72.93.13.43.84.04.44.54.03.02.62.32.01.81.61.51.41.31.31.31.41.51.61.82.02.32.63.03.93.74.54.13.93.53.12.92.72.52.11.71.62.02.32.62.82.93.13.43.53.73.43.22.52.32.01.81.61.41.31.21.21.21.21.21.21.41.61.82.02.22.43.13.33.73.63.53.22.92.82.62.32.01.61.61.92.32.62.82.93.13.33.43.43.23.02.42.22.01.81.61.41.31.21.11.11.11.21.31.41.61.82.02.22.42.93.23.53.43.33.12.92.82.62.32.01.61.72.02.32.62.72.83.03.13.23.23.22.92.42.22.01.81.61.51.31.21.21.21.21.21.31.51.61.82.02.22.42.83.23.33.23.13.02.92.72.62.32.01.71.71.92.22.52.72.82.93.13.13.13.12.72.42.32.11.91.71.51.41.31.31.31.31.31.41.51.71.82.02.32.42.73.13.13.13.13.02.82.72.52.32.01.71.61.82.12.42.62.72.82.92.92.92.92.62.32.22.01.91.71.61.41.31.31.21.31.31.41.61.71.82.02.22.32.52.92.92.92.92.82.72.62.42.21.91.61.41.72.02.32.52.62.62.72.72.82.82.52.12.11.91.71.61.51.41.31.21.21.21.31.41.51.61.71.92.02.12.42.82.82.72.72.62.62.52.32.01.71.51.31.51.82.02.22.42.52.52.72.82.82.62.22.01.91.71.51.41.31.21.11.11.11.21.31.41.51.71.92.02.22.52.82.82.72.52.52.42.22.11.81.51.31.11.31.51.82.02.22.32.52.83.03.02.82.42.11.91.71.51.41.21.11.01.01.01.11.21.31.51.71.82.12.42.73.03.02.82.52.32.22.01.81.61.31.11.11.21.41.61.82.12.32.52.93.13.02.92.62.32.01.71.51.31.11.11.11.11.11.11.11.31.51.72.02.32.62.92.93.12.92.62.32.11.91.61.41.21.11.11.31.51.71.82.12.42.83.33.73.23.63.22.72.21.91.61.51.41.31.31.31.31.31.41.51.61.92.22.73.13.63.23.73.32.82.42.11.81.71.51.31.21.11.31.62.02.12.42.83.33.94.34.44.33.93.32.82.32.11.91.81.61.51.51.51.61.81.92.12.32.83.33.84.24.44.43.93.32.82.42.22.01.71.41.21.01.21.41.71.82.12.53.03.54.03.44.03.63.02.62.11.81.71.61.51.41.41.41.51.61.71.82.12.53.03.54.03.44.03.63.02.52.11.91.71.51.31.10.80.91.01.21.51.82.02.42.83.02.73.02.82.52.11.81.61.41.31.31.31.31.31.31.31.41.61.82.12.52.83.02.73.02.82.52.01.81.51.31.11.00.90.71.51.71.92.22.52.72.92.82.62.32.01.81.61.51.31.21.21.21.21.21.31.51.61.82.02.32.62.82.92.82.52.21.91.71.51.31.10.90.80.11.51.72.02.12.32.52.62.52.42.22.11.91.81.71.61.51.41.41.41.41.61.71.82.02.12.22.42.52.62.52.32.22.01.71.61.41.21.00.80.11.71.82.12.32.32.52.62.62.52.52.42.32.32.22.11.91.91.81.81.92.12.22.32.32.42.52.52.62.62.52.42.32.11.91.71.61.31.10.90.21.92.12.32.62.62.82.92.93.03.03.02.92.92.92.82.62.52.52.52.62.72.82.93.03.03.03.03.02.92.92.82.72.52.21.91.71.51.31.00.40.50.60.72.02.22.52.82.83.03.23.33.43.43.43.33.33.33.23.13.03.03.03.13.13.23.33.33.43.43.43.33.23.23.03.02.72.32.01.81.61.31.10.50.60.71.82.02.32.52.92.83.13.33.53.63.73.73.63.53.53.43.43.43.43.43.43.43.43.43.53.63.73.73.63.53.33.13.12.72.32.11.81.61.41.11.01.31.51.82.12.32.62.92.73.03.33.53.73.83.83.73.73.63.63.63.63.73.73.63.53.53.63.63.73.83.83.63.53.33.03.12.82.42.11.91.61.41.11.11.31.51.82.12.32.62.92.62.83.13.43.73.83.83.83.83.83.83.73.83.93.83.73.63.73.83.73.73.83.73.63.43.12.93.12.82.52.21.91.61.31.11.11.31.61.92.12.42.62.92.42.62.93.33.73.93.83.73.83.83.73.73.84.03.93.73.63.63.83.73.53.73.73.73.43.02.73.12.92.52.21.91.61.31.01.11.31.61.92.22.42.62.92.12.32.73.33.84.03.83.53.53.63.53.64.04.24.13.83.43.43.53.43.33.63.83.83.42.82.43.02.82.42.11.81.51.31.01.21.41.72.02.22.52.62.91.82.12.63.23.73.93.63.33.23.23.23.53.94.24.13.73.23.13.23.03.13.43.73.83.32.72.13.02.82.52.21.81.61.31.01.11.31.51.71.81.81.81.71.61.71.71.61.41.31.10.91.11.41.61.81.92.02.01.91.71.71.71.71.61.41.20.91.11.41.71.92.12.32.42.72.12.01.91.91.71.51.30.91.11.51.82.02.32.72.83.12.52.52.22.01.81.61.30.91.11.51.82.02.32.82.93.22.92.82.42.11.91.61.30.91.11.51.82.02.22.52.63.03.02.82.52.21.91.61.30.91.11.41.71.81.92.02.12.32.62.52.22.01.91.61.30.91.11.31.51.71.71.71.71.72.12.01.91.81.71.51.30.91.01.21.31.51.61.61.51.51.61.71.71.71.61.41.20.90.91.11.21.31.41.41.41.31.51.51.61.51.41.21.10.90.80.91.01.11.21.11.11.11.31.31.41.31.21.11.00.80.80.91.01.01.11.01.01.01.11.11.11.11.01.00.90.70.70.91.01.01.01.00.90.91.01.01.01.11.00.90.80.70.70.91.01.01.01.01.01.00.91.01.01.11.00.90.80.60.80.91.01.11.11.11.01.01.01.01.01.11.00.90.80.60.80.91.11.21.21.21.21.21.01.11.11.11.00.90.80.71.01.11.21.41.51.51.41.41.21.31.31.31.21.00.90.81.01.21.41.51.61.61.61.51.51.51.51.51.31.21.10.81.11.41.61.71.81.81.81.91.61.61.61.61.51.31.20.91.11.41.71.92.02.22.32.61.91.91.81.81.71.51.30.91.11.41.72.02.22.52.73.12.52.42.12.01.81.61.30.91.11.41.82.02.32.72.93.32.92.72.42.11.91.61.30.91.11.41.72.02.22.52.63.13.02.92.52.11.91.61.30.91.11.41.71.82.02.12.22.42.62.52.22.01.81.61.30.91.11.31.51.71.71.81.71.82.12.01.91.91.71.51.30.91.01.21.31.51.61.61.51.51.71.71.71.71.61.41.20.90.91.11.21.31.41.51.41.41.51.61.61.51.41.21.10.90.80.91.01.11.21.21.11.11.31.41.41.31.21.11.00.80.80.91.01.01.11.01.01.01.11.11.21.11.11.00.90.70.70.91.01.01.01.01.00.91.01.01.11.11.00.90.80.70.70.91.01.01.01.01.00.90.91.01.01.01.00.90.80.60.80.91.01.01.11.01.01.01.01.01.01.11.00.90.80.60.80.91.01.11.21.21.11.11.01.01.11.11.00.90.80.70.91.11.21.31.41.51.41.41.21.21.31.21.11.00.90.81.01.21.31.51.61.61.51.51.41.51.51.41.31.21.00.81.11.31.51.71.71.81.71.81.61.61.61.61.51.31.20.91.11.41.71.82.02.12.12.41.91.81.81.81.71.51.30.91.11.51.72.02.22.52.63.12.42.32.12.01.81.61.30.91.11.51.82.02.32.82.93.32.82.72.42.11.91.61.30.91.11.51.82.02.22.62.73.23.12.92.52.21.91.61.30.91.21.41.71.92.12.22.32.72.82.62.32.11.91.61.31.01.21.41.61.81.81.91.92.02.32.22.01.91.81.61.31.01.11.31.51.61.71.81.61.61.91.91.81.81.71.51.31.01.31.31.31.51.61.71.71.61.71.71.71.61.51.41.21.01.41.61.82.12.62.93.23.83.33.73.22.72.93.43.32.93.23.02.72.31.91.71.51.21.31.61.82.02.52.83.13.63.33.63.32.62.43.03.33.12.82.43.02.82.52.11.81.61.41.21.41.61.82.12.52.83.13.53.33.53.33.12.73.03.23.02.82.53.02.82.42.01.81.61.41.21.51.71.92.12.42.73.13.53.23.33.23.23.01.31.21.11.21.31.31.10.90.80.91.01.11.21.22.62.82.93.02.92.82.72.62.92.72.32.01.81.71.51.31.61.81.92.02.22.63.13.53.23.23.23.33.21.91.51.41.31.51.51.31.01.01.11.21.41.42.42.72.93.03.02.92.72.62.62.92.52.11.91.81.71.61.41.71.81.92.02.22.53.23.63.23.13.33.43.43.21.81.71.61.81.91.51.21.21.31.51.82.42.62.83.03.13.02.82.62.52.72.92.52.01.91.81.81.71.51.71.92.02.02.22.53.23.63.13.13.33.53.53.43.12.01.82.12.21.71.41.41.52.22.42.62.72.93.13.12.92.72.52.42.62.92.42.01.91.91.91.81.61.81.91.92.02.22.53.13.53.13.13.33.43.53.43.22.92.22.32.52.01.61.62.02.32.62.72.93.03.13.02.82.52.42.32.52.92.42.01.91.81.81.81.71.81.91.92.02.22.43.03.43.13.13.23.33.43.43.23.12.92.72.92.32.02.12.12.32.72.82.93.03.02.82.52.32.22.22.42.82.32.01.91.81.81.81.71.81.91.92.02.22.53.23.63.23.23.33.43.43.43.43.33.23.33.42.82.32.22.22.42.72.93.03.02.92.72.42.32.22.22.53.02.52.11.91.91.81.81.81.91.92.02.12.32.83.64.03.63.53.63.63.63.63.63.63.53.84.03.22.62.42.32.52.83.03.13.13.02.82.52.32.42.52.93.32.82.32.11.91.91.91.81.92.02.02.32.63.04.04.54.03.83.83.73.73.73.83.93.84.34.53.72.92.72.52.62.93.13.23.23.02.82.62.52.62.83.43.93.22.62.42.12.01.91.91.91.92.12.42.83.24.44.84.34.04.03.93.73.83.94.14.04.74.94.23.22.92.72.72.93.13.23.23.02.82.72.72.93.03.94.33.62.82.52.22.01.91.91.81.92.12.32.73.13.64.04.44.04.13.93.83.94.04.24.15.02.44.03.13.02.72.82.93.13.33.23.12.92.82.83.03.14.22.43.82.82.62.32.11.91.91.81.92.12.32.83.24.44.84.34.04.03.93.83.84.04.14.14.85.04.33.33.12.92.93.13.33.43.43.23.02.82.83.03.14.04.33.72.82.62.22.02.01.91.81.92.02.22.53.04.04.44.03.83.93.83.73.83.94.03.94.44.74.03.23.02.92.93.23.43.53.53.33.12.82.82.93.03.64.03.32.62.42.12.02.01.91.81.81.92.02.22.73.53.93.63.53.53.53.63.63.63.73.73.94.23.53.02.82.83.03.23.43.53.53.43.22.92.62.62.73.13.42.82.42.22.01.91.91.81.71.71.71.81.92.22.93.43.13.13.23.33.33.43.43.33.23.53.73.12.62.62.72.93.23.33.43.43.33.12.82.62.42.32.73.02.42.01.91.81.81.81.71.51.51.51.61.71.92.42.92.62.72.82.93.13.13.03.02.93.03.32.72.42.42.52.83.13.23.23.23.23.02.72.42.22.12.32.52.01.81.71.61.61.61.51.41.41.41.41.51.62.12.52.32.32.52.62.82.82.72.62.52.72.92.52.22.32.42.72.93.03.03.03.02.82.52.22.01.92.02.31.81.51.51.51.51.51.41.21.31.21.21.21.31.92.22.01.92.22.42.52.52.42.32.22.42.72.31.92.12.22.52.72.82.82.82.82.72.42.11.91.71.92.11.61.31.31.41.41.41.21.01.11.11.01.01.21.61.91.71.61.82.02.22.22.11.91.92.22.42.11.81.82.02.32.52.62.62.62.62.42.21.91.61.51.71.81.51.11.11.21.21.21.10.90.90.90.80.81.01.31.51.41.41.51.71.81.81.71.61.71.92.01.81.61.61.82.12.32.52.52.52.42.22.01.71.51.41.51.50.70.70.70.70.70.91.11.31.31.21.31.41.51.51.51.41.51.61.71.71.51.51.61.92.12.32.42.42.32.11.81.51.31.31.41.30.60.60.60.50.60.80.91.11.11.01.01.11.21.21.21.21.31.41.51.41.31.31.51.71.92.12.22.22.11.91.61.41.21.21.21.20.40.50.40.40.50.60.70.80.90.80.80.91.01.01.01.01.11.21.31.31.21.21.31.61.82.02.12.12.01.81.51.21.11.11.11.01.41.10.91.01.01.01.01.21.00.80.80.80.80.81.00.90.70.70.70.70.70.90.80.60.60.60.60.5PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLANSCALE: N.T.S.NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE CALLE JOAQUIN NEAR LOS OSOS VALLEY RD.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAN21.353.0107/27/2021MCG ARCHITECTURE 2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0SITE PLANScheme AScale : 1" = 30'15 30' 60'SLO CD COMMENTS11/03/2021 ScheduleSymbol Label Quantity Manufacturer Catalog Number Description LampNumber LampsFilenameLumens Per LampLight Loss Factor WattageB5 Lithonia Lighting DSX1 LED P3 40K T5W MVOLT HSDSX1 LED P3 40K T5W MVOLT with houseside shieldLED 1 DSX1_LED_P3_40K_T5W_MVOLT_HS.ies8570 0.9 102C6 Lithonia Lighting DSX1 LED P3 40K T5W MVOLT HSDSX1 LED P3 40K T5W MVOLT with houseside shieldLED 1 DSX1_LED_P3_40K_T5W_MVOLT_HS.ies8570 0.9 102F4 Lithonia Lighting DSX1 LED P4 40K TFTM MVOLT HSDSX1 LED P4 40K TFTM MVOLT with houseside shieldLED 1 DSX1_LED_P4_40K_TFTM_MVOLT_HS.ies11311 0.9 250G2 Lithonia Lighting DSX1 LED P4 40K TFTM MVOLT HSDSX1 LED P4 40K TFTM MVOLT with houseside shieldLED 1 DSX1_LED_P4_40K_TFTM_MVOLT_HS.ies11311 0.9 250H4 Lithonia Lighting DSX1 LED P1 40K T5VS MVOLT HSDSX1 LED P1 40K T5VS MVOLT with houseside shieldLED 1 DSX1_LED_P1_40K_T5VS_MVOLT_HS.ies6223 0.9 54I4 Lithonia Lighting LDN6 40/15 LO6AR LS 6IN LDN, 4000K, 1500LM, CLEAR, SPECULAR REFLECTOR, CRI801 LDN6_40_15_LO6AR_LS.ies1596 0.9 17.52StatisticsDescription Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/MinCalc Zone #1 2.2 fc 7.9 fc 0.5 fc 15.8:1 4.4:1Calc Zone #2 5.2 fc 7.3 fc 2.7 fc 2.7:1 1.9:1BBCCCCCCCHHHFFFGGBFIIIIFHEP -1.0Page 42 of 332 "H" WHERE CONCRETEPAVING OCCURS ATABOVE BASEHEIGHT OF POLEPAVING OR PLANTINGOCCURS AT BASE"H" WHERE A.C.BASE40' - 44' 9'-0" 7'-6"14' - 15'10' - 13'25' - 30'16' - 19'20' - 24'5'-0"4'-6"4'-0"4'-0"6'-0"5'-6"5'-6"5'-0"4'-0"4'-6"31' - 35'36' - 40'5'-6"6'-0"6'-6"7'-0"LIGHT POLE DETAIL AND LIGHTING CUT SHEETSCALE: N.T.S.NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE CALLE JOAQUIN NEAR LOS OSOS VALLEY RD.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAN21.353.0107/27/2021MCG ARCHITECTURE 2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC0SITE PLANScheme AScale : 1" = 30'15 30' 60'SLO CD COMMENTS11/03/2021 EP -1.1Page 43 of 332 Page 44 of 332 Page 45 of 332 L-2FEBRUARY 1, 2022CDPC PROJECT NO. 210972 OF 2conceptual design & planning companyCorporate Office:3195-C Airport Loop DriveStudio OneCosta Mesa, CA 92626T: 949.399.0870www.cdpcinc.comCOSTA MESA ATASCADERO SAN JOSE LAS VEGASTREESArbutus 'Marina' Std.Marina Strawberry TreeCercis canadensisEastern RedbudHymenosporum flavumSweetshadeKoelreuteria bipinnataChinese Flame TreeUlmus parvifolia 'Drake'Drake Evergreen Chinese ElmSHRUBSAgave americanaCentury PlantAgave attenuataFox Tail AgaveAgave d. 'Variegata'Variegated Smooth AgaveAgave 'Blue Glow'Blue Glow AgaveAnigozanthos flavidusKangoroo PawCallistemon v. 'Little John'Dwarf BottlebrushCoprosma 'Marble Queen'Variegata Mirror PlantDianella t. 'Variegata'Variegated Flax LilyLantana 'New Gold'New Gold LantanaLavandula 'Meerlo'Meerlo LavenderMuhlenbergia rigensDeer GrassMyoporum parvifolium 'Pink'MyoporumRhamnus c. 'Eve Case'Dwarf CoffeeberryRosmarinus o. 'Huntington Beach'Creeping RosemaryRosa 'Flower Carpet'Flower Carpet RoseSalvia greggii 'Flame'Furman's Red SageSalvia leucanthaMexican Bush SageWestringia 'Mundi'Mundi Coast RosemaryLomandra 'Breeze'Dwarf Mat RushHesperaloe parvifloraRed YuccaZauschneria californicaCalifornia FuschsiaLophostemon confertusBrisbane BoxRhaphiolepis indicaIndia HawthornRosmarinus 'Tuscan Blue'Creeping RosemaryWestringia 'Blue Gem'Blue Gem Coast RosemaryLOW SCREEN SHRUBSACCENT PLANTSCarex o. 'Evergold'Evergold Japanese SedgeCordyline 'Design-A-Line'Festival Grass CordylinePLANT IMAGE GALLERYCONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANSLO AUTO DEALERSHIP1381 CALLE SAN JOAQUINSAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIAPage 46 of 332 112113113 113113114114114114114114114115115115115115 115115115115 117118 118 119 116 11611611611611611611611611611611611911711711711711711711711711706079C1068G - ZONE A06079C1331G - ZONE ACALLE JOAQUIN(PUBLIC R.O.W.)SIGNAGECONTAINERCONTAINERCONTAINERTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCEVACANT LANDAG LANDHOTEL SITEVACANT LANDDRAIN INLETNE/SW INV= 113.91INV= 112.77DRAIN INLETSE INV 1/3/5= 113.78SE INV 2/4= 114.03SW/NE INV= 114.25INV= 112.91SEWER MHINV= 112.64SEWER MHINV= 113.9910.00'BUILDINGSETBACK0.00'BUILDINGSETBACKACTIVE CONSTRUCTIONACTIVE CONSTRUCTIONFIRE HYD.FIRE HYD.CABRILLO HWY101EX. SHARED DRAINAGE CHANNELEX. SHARED DRAINAGE CHANNEL0.00'BUILDINGSETBACK0.00'BUILDINGSETBACKN28°09'15"E 215.86'S27°46'24"W 216.06'N27°46'24"E 764.69'S54°24'10"E 577.47'N54°24'09"W 578.92'TOP OF BANKELEV = 116'TOP OF BANKELEV = 116'TOP OF BANKELEV = 116'TOP OF BANKELEV = 116'EX. 8" SEWEREX. 8" SEWERFORCE MAINEX. 8" RECLAIMEDWATER LINEEX. 12" DOMESTICWATER LINEEX. GAS MAINPRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT PLANSSAN LUIS OBISPO AUTO DEALERSHIPCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIAAPN: 053-152-002PROJECT STATISTICSBASIS OF BEARINGSBASIS OF ELEVATIONBYREVISIONSDATE1381 CALLE JOAQUINSAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIASHEETOF4Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCABRILLO HWYCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOPROJECT SITELOS O S O S V AL L E Y R D CALLE JOAQUIN MADONNA RDPEREI R A D R VICE NT E D R HUAS N A D R LIMA D R PINE C O V E D R OCEANAIRE DRTONINI D R S HIGUERA STHIND LNMEISSNER LN ZACA LN PRADO RD MARGARITA AVE11011VICINITY MAPSCALE: NOT TO SCALETO SLOTO PISMO BEACHFLOOD DESIGNATIONC1FORTITLE SHEETDEMOLITION NOTESSHEET INDEXPRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIESUnderground Service Alert ofSouthern CaliforniaABBREVIATIONSCLR.O.W.PLINVPBXGICSCOMM X 519.06335APNOH ELECDBFPICVELECFDCNOTE: ALL SYMBOLS OR LINETYPES SHOWN BELOW MAY NOTBE INCORPORATED ON THIS DRAWING.PIVCOMMTX=BHLFCWLFNEASEMENT NOTESTOPOGRAPHY LEGENDCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWPROJECT DESCRIPTIONSTATEMENTPROJECT CONTACTSDRAINS TOPREFUMO CREEKSUBJECT PARCEL2.841 AC (GROSS/NET)CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOAPN: 053-152-006SAN LUIS OBISPO HOSPITALITY LLCAPN: 053-152-003BASIS OF BEARINGSALFANO PROPERTIES LLCAPN: 053-152-001Page 47 of 332 112113113 113113113 114114114114114114114115115115115115 115115115115 117 118 118 119 116 116116116116116116116116116116116119117117117117117117117117117CALLE JOAQUIN(PUBLIC R.O.W.)TVACANT LANDAG LANDHOTEL SITECABRILLO HWY101N28°09'15"E 215.86'S27°46'24"W 216.06'N27°46'24"E 764.69'S54°24'10"E 577.47'N54°24'09"W 578.92'PROPOSED 30,986 SFBUILDINGFFE = 119.75(1.25` ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION)116117120116118118118118118118118 119119119119118118119117115117115119117.5TG117.5TG117.6TG118.2TG118.2TG117.5TG117.5TG118.1TG118.1TG117.6TGCURB CUTCURB CUTCURB CUTCURB CUTINFILTRATIONCHAMBER118GB GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB118120119335LEGENDHOR SCALE: 1''=30'VERT SCALE: 1''=10'SECTION 'A'PLR/WB.F.E. = 118.50'B.F.E. = 118.50'PROPOSED 30,986 SFBUILDINGFFE = 119.75(1.25` ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION)AGRICULTURECALLE JOAQUIN(PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)R/WCLPROPOSED 30,986 SFBUILDINGFFE = 119.75(1.25` ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION)B.F.E. = 118.50'B.F.E. = 118.50'PLPLVACANT LOTHOTEL SITEHOR SCALE: 1''=30'VERT SCALE: 1''=10'SECTION 'B'BYREVISIONSDATE1381 CALLE JOAQUINSAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIASHEETOF4Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC2UNDERGROUND STORM WATERDETENTION FACILITY (TYP)PRELIMINARY DETENTION CALC'SAC2BC2ADA COMPLIANT RECYCLING& REFUSE ENCLOSUREADA PATH OF TRAVELCATCH BASIN (TYP)METERED OUTLETPROPOSED 12' x 5' FREESTANDING SITE SIGNPROPOSED 30'DRIVEWAYPROPOSED 30'DRIVEWAY100 YR FLOOD NOTE:SECURITY FENCING & GATESSITE LIGHTING (TYP)VEHICLE ENTRANCE / EXITVEHICLE ENTRANCE / EXITVEHICLE ENTRANCE / EXITMAIN LOBBY ENTRANCEMAIN SHOWROOM ENTRANCEVEHICLE ENTRANCE / EXITVEHICLE ENTRANCE / EXITEXTERIOR BUILDINGLIGHTING (TYP)PLNO SCALESECTION 'C'PERMEABLE PAVERS AND DRY CREEK FOR STORM WATER QUALITY LIDCC2SECURITY FENCING & GATESBIKE RACKPage 48 of 332 112113113 113113113 114114114114114114114115115115115115 115115115115 117 118 118 119 116 116116116116116116116116116116116119117117117117117117117117117CALLE JOAQUIN(PUBLIC R.O.W.)VACANT LANDAG LANDHOTEL SITECABRILLO HWY101PROPOSED 30,986 SFBUILDINGFFE = 119.75(1.25` ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION)BYREVISIONSDATE1381 CALLE JOAQUINSAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIASHEETOF4Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC3ESTIMATED CUT/FILLVALUEPRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIESPage 49 of 332 335LEGENDCALLE JOAQUIN(PUBLIC R.O.W.)TVACANT LANDAG LANDHOTEL SITECABRILLO HWY101N28°09'15"E 215.86'S27°46'24"W 216.06'N27°46'24"E 764.69'S54°24'10"E 577.47'N54°24'09"W 578.92'PROPOSED 30,986 SFBUILDINGFFE = 119.75(1.25` ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION)UNDERGROUNDDETENTION FACILITY (TYP)EX. FIRE HYDRANTEX. FIRE HYDRANTEX. 8" SEWEREX. 8" SEWERFORCE MAINEX. 8" RECLAIMEDWATER LINEEX. 12" DOMESTICWATER LINEEX. GAS MAINTRANSFORMER PADBYREVISIONSDATE1381 CALLE JOAQUINSAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIASHEETOF4Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC4PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANUTILITY GENERAL NOTESFIRE GENERAL NOTESWATER CONSTRUCTION NOTESSEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTESFIRE CONSTRUCTION NOTESPage 50 of 332 Sign Program 1381 Calle Joaquin Landlord Rich Development Enterprises, LLC 1000 N. Western Avenue, Suite 200 San Pedro, CA 90732 Page 51 of 332 1 Table of Contents A. Introduction B. General Criteria and Sign Design C. Prohibited Signs D. Sign Construction E. Sign Types and Specifications 1. Major Building Tenant Signage 2. Service / Charging station Signage F. Temporary Signage G. General City codes and standards for signs Page 52 of 332 2 A. Introduction The purpose of this sign program is to ensure coordination and compatibility between all signs with the Project. Signs will be high-quality and will be consistent with the established City Sign codes except as modified by this sign program. Criteria shall establish the sign standards necessary to provide coordinated, imaginative, and proportional exposure for all signs to be located within the project. Performance shall be strictly enforced and any non-conforming sign that is installed shall be removed immediately by a professional sign contractor. B. General Criteria and Sign Design: 1. All signs and their installation shall also obtain all necessary permits and approvals. 2. Proposed signs shall fulfillment all requirements of this Planned Sign Program. 3. Location and spacing of the signs on all buildings shall generally conform at a location as shown on Exhibit A. 4. Sign contractor(s) shall carry Workmen’s Compensation and Public Liability Insurance against all damage by any and all persons and /or property while engaged in the construction or erection of signs in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence. An insurance endorsement must be provided to the Landlord prior to installation naming: Landlord and Rich Development Enterprises, LLC as Additional Insured. C. Prohibited Signs The following types of signs are prohibited including any sign not allowed by local code standards: 1. Outdoor advertising or advertising structure including, but not limited to, “sandwich boards”, banners, flags, inflatables, “lawn” signs, vehicles and mobile billboards displaying Tenant name outside demised premises. 2. Exposed junction boxes, transformers, lamps, tubing, conduits, exposed raceways or neo crossovers of any type, except as noted otherwise in the Planned Sign Program. 3. Signs visible through the windows of the premises are subject to city code. These include painted, hanging, or neon signs. Decorations attached to windows are prohibited. Page 53 of 332 3 4. Temporary wall signs are not permitted with the exception of Banners in accordance with Section F of this Sign Program. 5. Pre-manufactured signs, such as franchise signs, that have not been modified to fit these criteria, except as noted otherwise in the Planned Sign Program. 6. Paper, cardboard, placed around, on, or behind storefronts. 7. Exposed fastenings unless fastenings make an intentional statement. 8. Freestanding signs, except as provided in the Planned Sign Program. 9. Signs which move, swing, rotate, flash, except as provided in the Planned Sign Program. 10. No person shall install or maintain, or cause to be installed or maintained, any sign which simulates or imitates in size, color, lettering or design any traffic sign or signal, or any other symbol or characters in such manner to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. 11. Signs, banners, flags or similar advertising devises that are exhibited, posted or displayed by any person, including anything of an obscure, indecent, or immoral or unlawful activity are strictly prohibited. Landlord reserves the right in its sole discretion to immediately remove items that it believes violate this clause. 12. No sign shall be installed, relocated or maintained so as to prevent free ingress of egress from any door. No sign shall be attached to a standpipe, post, or any other item in the common area, except those signs as required by code or ordinance. 13. Signs or parking lot flyers on or affixed to trucks, automobiles, trailers, or other vehicles which advertise, or identify a store of its merchandise is prohibited. 14. Any sign located on the roof or projected above the roofline of a building, except as noted otherwise in the Planned Sign Program. D. Sign Construction 1. All signs and installation shall comply with all applicable City building and electrical codes, and shall bear a U.L. label. 2. All penetration of exterior fascia to be sealed watertight, and finished to match adjacent material, subject to Landlord’s approval. 3. All signs shall be kept in good condition, be legible adequately repaired and maintained by the Tenant at all times. The standards for maintenance and repair Page 54 of 332 4 of signs shall maintain the highest visual quality. 4. All exterior signs shall be secured by concealed fasteners, stainless steel, nickel or cadmium plated. E. Signage Sign Types and Specifications E.1 Major Building Tenant Signage Number of Signs Allowed: Three (3) signs each elevation facing the parking lot or nonresidential street. Sign Types Allowed: Signage shall be as shown on Exhibit A Maximum Sign Area: The sign area shall not exceed two (2) square foot per every one (1) lineal foot of the building’s frontage. Maximum Letter and Logo Height: The letter height shall not exceed forty two inches (42”). The logo height, which may include signature letters that are part of a registered trademark shall not exceed Sixty eight inches (60”). Lines of Copy: Maximum two (2) lines of copy. Maximum Length of the Sign: The maximum length of the sign shall not exceed 75% of the tenant leasehold space. Sign Location: Tenant wall signs shall be located horizontally and vertically in the sign band area or within the wall plane defined by architectural features as shown on Exhibit A. E.2 FREESTANDING SERVICE OR CHARGING SIGNS: Exterior Service / Charging Station Signage: Any exterior charging station is allowed one (1) sign within the unit. The sign copy shall be limited to the logo and/or name of the provider. The sign shall not exceed a total of six square feet (6 sf.). The maximum letter and logo height shall not exceed eighteen inches (18”). E.3 Center Free Standing Signage Free Standing Sign Locations: All Free Standing signs shall be located as shown on Site Plan exhibit “A”. Free Standing Signs Inventory: The Free Standing Sign shall consist of the following per exhibit “A”. Page 55 of 332 5 Sign S301: Proposed freestanding sign on Calle Joaquin as shown on Exhibit A E.4 Address and Regulatory Signage a. Building Address Sign: Building Address Sign shall be located on each building and shall meet minimum city code requirements. b. Rear Tenant Address Sign: Tenants are allowed a Tenant address sign that may be 3 inches (3”) high and made of dark brown vinyl located outside of Tenant’s exit door on the rear elevation of the tenant space. c. Regulatory Signage: All Regulatory Signage, such as “No Skateboarding”, “No Loitering”, Handicapped Parking Signs and “No Overnight Parking” shall comply with the City code. F. Temporary Signage a. Banners are only permitted with issuance of City permit and Landlord approval. b. Temporary window signs are allowed subjects to the following conditions. 1) Landlord approval in writing. 2) Shall not exceed 25 percent of window area of each window; total area of all signs shall not exceed 50 square feet (50 sf.). G. General City codes and standards for signs Section 15.40.460 and 15.40.470 Minimum Standards shall apply accept as noted in this sign program. Page 56 of 332 Page 57 of 332 Page 58 of 332 01 | FONTS/ COLORS 03 | WORDMARK + CABINET 04 | FLAT CUT OUT05 | ROOM PLAQUES06 | SITE WAYFINDING00 | INDEX07 |DOOR VINYLS08 | NONPROTO.TESLA NA SPECIFICATIONS 02 | MONUMENT + CABINETSIGNAGE - V 21.12.17 X Y SQ. FT.A B C D MONUMENT S301 EXTERIOR MONUMENT: SALES, SERVICE, DELIVERY D A CXY B ACSEAMS IN ACRYLIC ONLY WHEN LOGO IS OVER 6’-0” NOTE: SEAMS IN ALUMINUM REQUIRED. LOCATION WILL VARY- AVOID COPY & LOGO, IF POSSIBLE NOTE: FOOTING TO BE DETERMINED BY SIGNAGE ENGINEER CLEAR PLEX, WITH 1ST SURFACE TRANSLUCENT 3635-60 DIFFUSER VINYL, ILLUMINATED:7600K LED POWER REQUIREMENT: VERIFIED BY GC NEON RED 1” PUSH THRU, 3/4” PROUD, *NOTE: PUSH-THRU DEPTH MAY BE DECREASED FOR THE SMALLER MONUMENT 1/4”3/4” 4” CONCRETE PAD PT1 BM 2087-10 NEON RED PMS 19-1664 SATIN FINISH CLEAR PLEX TRANSLUC. 3635-60 DIFFUSER VINYL 4 SANDBLAST SIDES Page 59 of 332 01 | FONTS/ COLORS 03 | WORDMARK + CABINET 04 | FLAT CUT OUT05 | ROOM PLAQUES06 | SITE WAYFINDING00 | INDEX07 |DOOR VINYLS08 | NONPROTO.TESLA NA SPECIFICATIONS 02 | MONUMENT + CABINETSIGNAGE - V 21.12.17 3” ± S201 EXTERIOR CABINET: T 4’-0” 5’-0” 6’-0”4’-2 1/4” X Y 2-9 1/2” 3’-5 7/8” A B 3’-0 3/4” 2’-0 3/8 2’-6 1/2” 2’-0 1/2” 2’-6 3/4” 3’-0 7/8” SQ. FT. 11.17 17.45 25.13 EXTERIOR CABINET: T PT1 BM 2087-10 NEON RED PMS 19-1664 SATIN FINISH CLEAR PLEX TRANSLUC. 3635-60 DIFFUSER VINYL 4” 2 5/8” PIANO HINGE 1” PUSH THRU 3/4” PROUD WEEP HOLES WITH SHIELDS 7600K WHITE LEDS .125” ALUMINUM FACE POWER REQUIREMENT: VERIFIED BY GC CABINET TO 1/4” 3/4” 7 SEAMS IN ACRYLIC ONLY WHEN LOGO IS OVER 6’-0” SLOPE AWAY FROM FACE NOTE: AVOID SEAMS IN ALUMINUM IF POSSIBLE. IF REQUIRED,AVOID COPY & LOGO, IF POSSIBLE TBD 3” ± SANDBLAST SIDES Page 60 of 332 01 | FONTS/ COLORS 03 | WORDMARK + CABINET04 | FLAT CUT OUT05 | ROOM PLAQUES06 | SITE WAYFINDING00 | INDEX07 |DOOR VINYLS08 | NONPROTO.TESLA NA SPECIFICATIONS 02 | MONUMENT + CABINET SIGNAGE - V 21.12.17 S112 EXTERIOR FACE LIT WORDMARK: 10% SPACING VENDOR TO INDICATE SCOPE OF WORK REQUIRED BY GC 1. SHOW LOCATION OF EACH PASS THRU FOR EACH “SECTION” OF THE WORDMARK, TYP. 2. LOCATION AND SIZE OF WIREWAY ON BACKSIDE OF WORDMARK. 3. SHOW DETAILS FOR EXTERIOR WORKWAY AND INTERIOR WIREWAY INSTALLATIONS 4. SHOW LOCATION OF 14 AND 16, POWER SUPPLY, DISCONNECT SWITCH AND PRIMARY 10% SPACING X Y SQ. FT. 3/16” CLEAR PLEX FACE ALUMINUM BACK 7600K LEDS WIRING PASSTHRU. POWER REQUIREMENT: VERIFIED BY GC WEEP HOLE WITH SHIELD 2”-3”LETTERS 14” H & SMALLER GET 2” DEEP RETURNS ALUMINUM TRIM AND RETURN ATTACHMENT METHOD BY SIGNAGE VENDOR (DEPENDENT ON EXISTING CONDITIONS). TROUT GREY PERFORATED FILM FILM ON PLEX. PT5 BM2124-20 TROUT GREY SATIN FINISH PAINT ON ALUM. TRIM/ RETURNS CLEAR PLEX FOR LIGHT BACKGROUND 16 Page 61 of 332 01 | FONTS/ COLORS 03 | WORDMARK + CABINET 04 | FLAT CUT OUT05 | ROOM PLAQUES06 | SITE WAYFINDING00 | INDEX07 |DOOR VINYLS08 | MISC./ NONPROTO.TESLA NA SPECIFICATIONS 02 | MONUMENT + CABINETSIGNAGE - V 21.12.17 S500 EXTERIOR SERVICE SIGN FLAT CUT OUT SERVICE X Y SQ. FT. Y XY: (WILL VARY FROM TABLE, TYP. LINE UP WITH OUTSIDE ENDS OF BAY DOORS X: (MEASURED OFF HEIGHT OF “E”) STUD AND SILICONE ADHESIVE EXISTING WALL 1” THICK ACRYLIC LETTERS PAINTED PT3 TROUT GREY OR PT2 CHANTILLY LACE 1/4” DIAMETER SPACERS PAINTED PT3 TROUT GREY OR PT2 CHANTILLY LACE 1”1/2” PT2 BMOC-65 CHANTILLY LACE SATIN FINISH PX TO MATCH WALL VERIFY FOR DARK BACK GROUNDR 23 Page 62 of 332 Page 63 of 332 Page 64 of 332 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL OF TWO, NEW PRE-MANUFACTURED SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENCES AND A PRE- MANUFACTURED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS BY / FROM: Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner Phone Number: 805-781-7574 Email: rcohen@slocity.org APPELLANT: Joe & Barbara Boud et al. 1.0 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) entitled, “A resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission denying the appeal of the minor development review approval of two, new pre-manufactured single-unit residences and a pre-manufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots with shared driveway access with a determination that the project is exempt from the California Enviro nmental Quality Act (CEQA) as represented in the Planning Commission Agenda Report and attachments dated May 25, 2022 (2406 & 2414 Johnson, File # APPL-0182-2022).” 2.0 SITE DATA Location 2406 & 2414 Johnson Avenue Site Area Parcel 1 - 0.4 acre; Parcel 3 - 0.25 acre Site Condition Vacant Zoning R-1 (Low density residential) General Plan Low density residential Surrounding Uses East: Single family residential development West: Johnson Ave. North: Single family residential development South: Single family residential development 3.0 SUMMARY On February 7, 2022, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed application No. ARCH-0383-2021 that proposes two, new, pre-manufactured, single story, single-unit residences on two separate lots that share driveway access (Attachment B, ARC Staff Report) for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and recommended Meeting Date: 5/25/2022 Item Number: 4b Time Estimate: 60 minutes Figure 1: Subject Properties 2406 (Parcel 3) 2414 (Parcel 1) Page 65 of 332 Item 4b APPL-0182-2022 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 that the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the CDG. Parcel 1 would contain a 3-bedroom unit with a separate 2-bedroom ADU structure. Parcel 3 would also contain a 3-bedroom residential unit that matches the structure on Parcel 1. The development project also proposes tree removals and replacements. Project plans are provided as Attachment C. On March 17, 2022, the Community Development Director reviewed the application and considered ARC’s recommendation and approved the minor development project based on findings and conditions included in the approval letter (see Attachment D). On March 28, 2022, Joe and Barbara Boud et al. submitted an appeal of the Director’s approval (Attachment E) based on three main areas: 1. Non-compliance and violation of the conditions of the subdivision; 2. Non-compliance and inconsistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines; and 3. That the ADU is inconsistent with objective subdivision conditions and the California State Subdivision Map Act. 4.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and applicable City development standards. Planning Commission (PC) review is required for an appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision. 5.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW September 18, 2009: The Hearing Officer approved a tentative parcel map creating three lots from one lot. October 28, 2009: The Planning Commission reviewed an appeal of the of the subdivision and denied the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision (PC Minutes, Attachment F). January 5, 2010: The City Council reviewed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and denied the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer ’s and Planning Commission’s decisions (Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series), Attachment G). February 7, 2022: The ARC reviewed the project for consistency with the CDG. The ARC recommended that the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the CDG (Attachment B). March 17, 2022: The Community Development Director reviewed the application and ARC’s recommendation and approved the minor development project based on findings and conditions included in the approval letter (Attachment D). Page 66 of 332 Item 4b APPL-0182-2022 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Table 1: Site Details for Parcel 1 Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Setbacks Front Side Side Northwest side Rear > 20 feet (flag lot) 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 20 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet** 5 feet Maximum Height of Structures 14.5 feet (does not exceed 406-foot elevation) Not to exceed 406- foot elevation** F.A.R. 0.11 0.4 Number of Vehicle Spaces 3 3** *2019 Zoning Regulations **Reso No. 10140 (2010 Series)) Table 2: Site Details for Parcel 3 Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Setbacks Front Side Side Rear 20 feet 8.5 inches 20 feet 27 feet 8 inches 16 feet 1 inch 20 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Maximum Height of Structures 15.5 feet 25 feet F.A.R. 0.18 0.4 Number of Vehicle Spaces 3 3** *2019 Zoning Regulations **Reso No. 10140 (2010 Series)) 7.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The appellants have identified several items in their Appeal Letter (Attachment E). These items are summarized and listed below with staff’s response provided in italics . Comment #1: The project proposes cutting into the slope to establish a site for prefabricated residential unit on Parcel 1. Response: The Engineering Division reviewed the proposed grading for the prefabricated residential unit on Parcel 1 and, as conditioned, found that proposed grading activities comply with City’s Engineering Standards. Comment #2: The project does not consider site layout/design based on the existing trees located on the site. Page 67 of 332 Item 4b APPL-0182-2022 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 Response: The project application includes a Report from a Certified Arborist dated August 11, 2021, that identifies the proposed tree removals for the project with descriptions of the species, sizes, locations, and health of each of the trees on Parcels 1 and 3 within the proposed construction areas. The City Arborist reviewed the proposed tree removals and landscape plans per Municipal Code Chapter 12.24, Tree Regulations, and determined that, as conditioned, the proposed tree removals and landscape plan is consistent with the Tree Regulations. Comment #3: The prefabricated residential units have no character or identity with the neighborhood. Response: As noted in Findings of Approval #6 & 7, the Director, with a recommendation from the ARC, found the project consistent with Community Design Guidelines (CDG), in particular, Chapter 2, General Design Principles, Section 2.2, Building Design and Chapter 5, Residential Project Design, Section 5.3 Infill Development. The CDGs and Zoning Regulations contain no guidelines or other prohibitions on prefabricated residential buildings, which have been successfully installed in other locations of the City. Figure 1 includes images of the residential structures that are located adjacent and across the street from the project site along Johnson Avenue. Figure 1: Images of residential structures located adjacent and across the street from the proposed site. Page 68 of 332 Item 4b APPL-0182-2022 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 Comment #4: There are no height restrictions on Parcel 3. Development of a two -story structure would require less landscape removal and less site disturbance. Fit the Site. Response: Parcel 3 is located within the R-1 zone that has a height restriction of 25 feet and maximum lot coverage of 40 percent (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16). A residential unit for the site could be constructed to the maximum height of 25 feet but may or may not require less landscape removal or site disturbance depending on the overall size of the unit. As proposed, the project is a single level, residential unit that has a maximum height of 15 feet, 3 inches and occupies 17 percent of the total site and complies with the standards required of an R-1 zoned property. Comment #5: The subdivision map clearly delineates a building envelope on the Tentative Map on both Parcels 1 & 3. The building envelope was modified by the Planning Commission, requiring the rear yard envelope to be reduced to 10-feet (shrinking the building envelope an additional five feet) (see Attachment E, Exhibits A, B & C that show the Tentative Map delineating these envelopes). Recognition of this building envelope is an essential component of the Tentative Parcel Map approval. It is not unusual for the term "building envelope" and "building footprint" to be comingled, however, the 3/17/22 approval with Findings #2c seem to ignore this interplay of terminology. There was no building footprint identified during the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, however there was a delineated building envelope. Response: The Planning Commission’s denial of the appeal for the subdivision proposed in October 2009 was appealed to the City Council and the Council Agenda Report (Attachment H) provided a response to appellant’s concern about slope and how that would be managed by reducing the building envelope. Staff wrote in the report, “The Planning Commission has required that the final map indicate a precise building “footprint” that is setback at least ten feet from the northeast property line to mitigate privacy impacts to surrounding neighbors” (Attachment H, Page 3, Response #1). The report italicizes the word “footprint,” when the word envelope had been earlier used to refer to appellant’s concern about slope. This is not a typo, but rather the word change and the use of italics conveys that the Planning Commission was not convinced by the appellant’s argument to reduce the building envelope, and instead eliminated the envelope idea and required that the final map only indicate a building footprint with a 10 foot setback. Therefore, in this case, the terms “footprint” and “envelope” are not interch angeable or comingled. Further, the Community Development Director found the Final Map (Attachment I) to be in conformance with the tentative map and approved the Final Map in June 2017. The Final Map does not show a building envelope but does list the conditions and code requirements from Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series). In reviewing the development plans, the Director found that the proposed single-family residence located on Parcel 1 is consistent with Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series) Condition of Approval, No. 3 and the Final Map because it is setback at least 10 feet from the northeast property line. Page 69 of 332 Item 4b APPL-0182-2022 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 Comment #6: The proposed site plan for the project shows three spaces on Parcel 1 and two tandem spaces on Parcel 3, with a guest space along the northern boundary. Presently, Parcel 2 uses the fire turn pocket between Parcels 2 & 3 that, per conditions of approval, is a fire access driveway and restricted from parking. Parcel 2 has no other parking identified, garage or surface, on-site. City Council Resolution 10140, Condition of Approval #4 requires parking to be identified on Parcel #1 and Condition #26 requires parking access and maneuverability. The fire turn-around area between Parcels 2 & 3 will become a parking area and Parcels 1, 2 & 3 will load up the driveway with vehicles. In the event of a structural or wildland fire, how are neighboring properties protected. Response: Per City Council Resolution 10140, Condition of Approval #4, Parcel 1 provides one additional on-site guest parking space adjacent to the two required parking spaces and Parcel 2 provides two required parking spaces and one additional on-site guest parking space in tandem to one of the required parking spaces. Condition #11 states that “The improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed parking spaces to serve the existing developed Parcel 2 in accordance w ith the zoning regulations and the Parking and Driveway Standards.” Although the proposed project does not include review of the improvement plans for Parcel 2, staff has confirmed that Parcel 2 has space available outside of the Emergency Access Easement for parking. Additionally, all vehicles accessing parcels 1, 2, & 3 along the common driveway must adhere to the “Fire lane, no parking” signs that are currently installed on the site. A person may report a vehicle parked in a fire lane to the Fire Department or the Police Department. Comment #7: In reviewing the CDG Chapters 2, 5 & 6, the appellant has identified several inconsistencies with the ARC staff report and the Director’s Findings of Approval. These inconsistencies are outlined the Appellant’s Letter, Attachment F, pages 5-9. Response: The proposed project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and the Community Development Director and found to be consistent with the CDG Chapter 2, General Design Principles, Section 2.2 and Chapter 5 as detailed in the findings of the Director’s Approval Letter (Attachment D). In addition, the appellant notes inconsistencies with open space and natural features, retaining walls, landscape design guidelines, and grading as discussed in Chapter 6 of the CDG. These design guidelines must be considered along with specific City standards and requirements. As noted in comments #1 and #2, the Engineering Division and the City Arborist reviewed the project and, as conditioned, found that the proposed grading activities, including the use of retaining walls, and tree removals are consistent with the City’s Engineering Standards and Tree Regulations. Comment #8: The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) does not comply with objective development standards that were established in the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map (specifically, the ADU does not comply with the building envelope as discussed in Comment #5), in accordance with the CA Subdivision Map Act 66410. Page 70 of 332 Item 4b APPL-0182-2022 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 Response: An ADU is not subject to discretionary review per Government Code Section 65852.2, which expressly states that ADUs that comply with applicable development standards are subject to ministerial review and cannot be required to go through discretionary reviews. Per state law, the proposed ADU can only be evaluated against the City’s ADU ordinance that complies with Section 65852.2, and no other “local ordinance, policy, or regulation” (i.e., conditions of approval). In addition, if the ADU could be evaluated against Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series) Conditions of Approval, the comment is meritless because the ADU complies with all development standards, including those set forth in the Municipal Code and the 10-foot setback required by Condition of Approval, No. 3. Comment #9: Testimony at the ARC hearing indicated that this project would provide much needed affordable housing opportunities. The City staff responded by noting that "this project is not providing deed restricted affordable housing development. Comments were made at the ARC that the City has a major city goal to support housing development, including affordable housing." The proposed project will be rented. There are no proposed deed restrictions regarding sale value, nor is there any proposal related to affordable future rent and/or lease. Response: The staff report and presentation by staff did not identify that any of the units were affordable or required to be affordable. Although the project does not and is not required to provide deed restricted affordable units, it does provide housing and is consistent with the City’s Major City Goal regarding Housing and Homelessness1and Housing Element policies 2.4, 4.4, 6.1, and 6.8 which focus on facilitating the production of all types of housing in compliance with the City’s Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City codes and standards. The City does not evaluate housing based on the type, ownership or rental, or affordability unless the project is required to include affordable units. 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 32, Infill Exemption) because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property within city limits, of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses, with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Based on compliance with existing regulations, approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise, air quality, or water quality, and is served by required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the size and location of the project. 1 In order to expand housing options for all, continue to facilitate the production of housing, including the necessary supporting infrastructure, with an emphasis on affordable and workforce housing. Collaborate with local non-profit partners and the county, the state, and federal governments to discover and implement comprehensive and effective strategies to reduce chronic homelessness Page 71 of 332 Item 4b APPL-0182-2022 Planning Commission Report – May 25, 2022 9.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including Planning, Engineering, Transportation, Building, Utilities, and Fire. Staff has not identified any unusual site conditions or circumstances that would require special conditions. Other comments have been incorporated into the draft resolution as conditions of approval. 10.0 ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Continue the action. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required to make a decision. 10.2 Uphold the appeal and deny the project. An action denying the project should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. 11.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Draft Resolution denying the appeal of the Director’s approval of the project (APPL- 0182-2022) B - ARC Staff Report (APPL-0182-2022) C - Project Plans (APPL-0182-2022) D - Director Approval Letter (APPL-0182-2022) E - Appeal Letter (APPL-0182-2022) F - Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 2009 G - Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series) H - Council Agenda Report of January 5, 2010 I - Final Map SLO 09-0074 Page 72 of 332 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL OF TWO, NEW PRE-MANUFACTURED SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENCES AND A PRE-MANUFACTURED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS WITH A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 25, 2022 (2406 & 2414 JOHNSON, FILE #APPL-0182-2022 ) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based public hearing on February 7, 2022 for the purpose of reviewing development review application ARCH-0383-2021, Jeffrey Spevack, applicant, for two, new pre- manufactured single-unit residences and a pre-manufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots with shared driveway access and recommended the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo on March 17, 2022 reviewed and approved the development review application ARCH-0383-2021, Jeffrey Spevack, applicant, for two, new pre-manufactured single-unit residences and a pre- manufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots with shared driveway access; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on May 25, 2022 for the purpose of reviewing the appeal of the development review application APPL-0182-2022, Joe & Barbara Boud et al., appellant, for two, new pre-manufactured single- unit residences and a pre-manufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots with shared driveway access; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, recommendation by Architectural Review Commission, the Director’s decision, and the evaluation 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 hereby deny the appeal and approves the minor development of a two, new pre-manufactured single-unit residences and a premanufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots with shared driveway access (“Project”), application APPL-0182-2022, based on the following findings: Page 73 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 APPL-0182-2022ARCH (2406 & 2414 Johnson) Page 2 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code, Zoning Regulations, and Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series). 2. The design of the project is consistent with Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series) because: a. The proposed project was submitted for architectural review and reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on February 7, 2022 for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) (COA No.1); b. The single-family residence located on Parcel One preserves pleasant views towards the property and is consistent in character with the neighborhood because it is designed to not exceed a 406-foot elevation at the highest point of the roof (COA No.2); with a total height of approximately 14.5 feet the residence is set lower than the neighboring parcels to the rear, thus preserving viewsheds; c. The Planning Commission noted in their review that the delineated building envelope for Parcel One was overly large and encompassed steep areas less suitable for development and required a building footprint that is setback at least ten feet from the northeast property line to mitigate privacy impacts to surrounding neighbors. The propose single family residence located on Parcel One is consistent with COA No. 3 because it is setback more than 10 feet from the northeast property line; d. The driveway and required parking for Parcel One is not located within the 10-foot setback from the northeast property line (COA No. 3); e. Parcel One provides one (1) additional on-site guest parking space adjacent to the two required parking spaces (COA No. 4); f. Parcel Two provides two required parking spaces and one (1) additional on-site guest parking space in tandem to one of the required parking spaces (COA No. 4); g. The proposed grading associated to the development of the new structures is limited to the area of development (COA No. 6); h. As conditioned, the existing overhead utility lines shall be undergrounded (COA No. 7); and i. As conditioned, the new curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed per City Engineering Standards (COA No. 8). 3. 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 6.10). While homes along the neighboring Corona Court overlook the project site, the proposed development will have no overlook or other privacy impacts on neighboring properties. 4. The project is consistent with the Low-Density Residential land use designation because the project provides single family residences with private outdoor space. 5. The project is consistent with the property development standards of the Zoning Regulations specific to the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone and Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series) including height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, and density. Page 74 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 APPL-0182-2022ARCH (2406 & 2414 Johnson) Page 3 6. The project is consistent with Community Design Guidelines (CDG) Chapter 2, General Design Principles, Section 2.2, Building Design, because the project provides single story, residential units that are proportional to the site by minimizing grading and setting the units into the existing topography, provide architectural interest with articulated wall planes through the use of horizontal and vertical siding, window trim, peaked roofs, and a porch, uses durable materials such as fiber cement siding and trim and composite decking and the two units are compatible with the existing single-family unit adjacent to the site (Parcel 2) in regards to form, massing and design. 7. The project is consistent with the CDG for residential project design and infill development because the architectural style is complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and provides a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest and articulation to the building design. The designs of the proposed buildings are compatible with the design and scale of the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.3). In addition, the CDGs and Zoning Regulations contain no guidelines or other prohibitions on prefabricated residential buildings, which have been successfully installed in other locations of the City. Specifically, the project is consistent with CDG Chapter 5, Residential Project Design, Section 5.3 Infill Development because: a. The proposed single level residential units, with a maximum height of 14.5 feet, are in-scale with adjacent single or two-story residential units in the neighborhood (CDG 5.3.A(1)). b. The project design is consistent with other residential structures in the neighborhood because the residential units utilize a rectangular form with horizontal and vertical siding, window trim, similarly peaked roofs, and asphalt shingling (CDG 5.3.B & E). 8. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on February 7, 2022 and recommended the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the City’s CDG applicable to a project located in the R-1 zone. 9. The project application includes an Arborist Report from a certified arborist dated August 11, 2021 that identifies the proposed tree removals for the project with descriptions of the species, sizes, locations, and health of each of the trees on Parcels 1 and 3 within the proposed construction areas. The City Arborist reviewed the proposed tree removals and landscape plans per Municipal Code Chapter 12.24, Tree Regulations. As conditioned, the proposed tree removals and landscape plan (that shows the location of new tree plantings) is consistent with the Tree Regulations. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 32, Infill Exemption) because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property within city limits, of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses, with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Based on compliance with existing regulations, approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise, air quality, or Page 75 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 APPL-0182-2022ARCH (2406 & 2414 Johnson) Page 4 water quality, and is served by required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the size and location of the project. 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 Planning Commission does hereby deny the appeal (APPL-0182-2022) and grant final approval of the Project located at 2406 & 2414 Johnson Street, subject to the following conditions: Planning Division – Community Development Department 1. The project shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval included in Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series). 2. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as approved through this architectural review process. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval as Sheet No. 2. 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, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director or reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission with a recommendation to the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate. 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 the Development Review application. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window trim details. Plans shall indicate 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. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The locations of all lighting, including landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter §17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. Page 76 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 APPL-0182-2022ARCH (2406 & 2414 Johnson) Page 5 6. Plans submitted for construction permits shall 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 (§17.70.070 - Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 7. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with submittal of working drawings for a building permit. 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 surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development 8. The building plan submittals shall show and note compliance with all pertinent conditions of approval related to Parcel Map SLO 09-0074 and public Improvement plans for Tract-1272 (both plans are available from the City upon request). The submittal shall show, label, and honor all existing easements unless otherwise modified. 9. Projects involving the construction of new structures, the addition of dwelling units, or the substantial remodel of existing structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 10. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements per Tract 1272 and the parcel map. The building plan submittal shall show and label all property line monumentation and the preservation of the same. 11. The plans shall show, label, and honor the existing public sewer main and public storm drain extending from Tract 1272 and crossing Parcel 1. The plans shall show and label the existing upstream and downstream improvements for reference. The plan shall include the storm drain catch basin, overflow weir, and berm/basin located on Parcel 1. 12. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternative paving materials are recommended for water quality and/or quality control purposes and in the dripline of any existing trees to remain. Alternate paving materials shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 13. 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 wire services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. Page 77 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 APPL-0182-2022ARCH (2406 & 2414 Johnson) Page 6 14. The building plan submittal shall clarify the limits and proposed disposition of the observed electrical circuits and landscape irrigation systems that cross parcel boundaries from Parcel 2 to parcels 1 and 3. Private utilities and services shall be relocated or transitioned to the related parcel(s) in conjunction with the building permits or easement(s) shall be reserved/recorded. 15. In accordance with the subdivision conditions and previous improvement plans, new and existing wire utilities including electrical service, phone, and cable TV shall be placed underground. The undergrounding of utilities shall be completed without a net increase in the number of required wood utility poles. It appears that the residence on Parcel has underground electrical service but that tele-com cables still exist overhead. The overhead wiring may also conflict with the new construction. It appears that vacant conduits have been provided from joint pole #2374 on Johnson Ave to serve all parcels in the subdivision. 16. The building plan submittal shall show the water meter and service to be sized or upgraded in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show all existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The grading and drainage plan and summary drainage report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer for this development requiring engineered grading. 18. The summary drainage report and plan shall evaluate the existing public storm drain system, capacity, and safe overflow path. The plan and report shall clarify whether the existing berm and basin related to the weir provides a continuance of a safe overflow within the existing public storm drain easement. Otherwise, the development of the ADU on Parcel 1 may require improvements to collect and convey the potential overflow to an approved point of discharge. 19. This development shall comply with the Waterways Management Plan. The building plans and report shall consider any run-on or run-off from the proposed parcel development. The parcel map did not include blanket easements for cross-lot drainage. An easement or understanding of acceptance of historic run-on would be acceptable if the improved drainage from Parcel 1 would not be conveyed to the existing common easements. The plans shall clarify whether the existing improved drainage from Parcel 2 crosses Parcel 3. 20. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board per the Board Resolution No. 2013-0032. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The compliance documentation should be on a lot-by-lot basis as the tentative parcel map had an approved drainage design that pre-dates the effective date of the resolution. The development on parcels 1 and 3 is not considered to be a common plan with the previous subdivision improvements. Page 78 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 APPL-0182-2022ARCH (2406 & 2414 Johnson) Page 7 21. The building plan submittal shall include complete details of any required retaining walls to accommodate the site design and existing grades. All retaining walls shall be included in the design that is analyzed in the drainage report. The final drainage and retaining wall plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division and Planning Division. Combination wall/fences shall comply with the fence height requirements of the Zoning Regulations to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 22. The building plan submittal shall show how the existing excavation/slope bank along the driveway and between Parcel 1 and the adjoining property known as 2374 Johnson will be retained. A short landscape wall may be required to limit the continued erosion along the property line. The improvement is required to limit sediment and debris from migrating into the trench drain and public storm drain system. 23. The building plan submittal shall show and note that the existing trench drain at the driveway apron shall cleaned and maintained during construction and at the completion of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 24. The building plan submittal shall show five (5) new 15-gallon street trees to be planted along Johnson Avenue per condition of approval #21 of Parcel Map SLO 09-0074. This item was previously deferred with a covenant agreement. Street trees and planting requirements shall be per City Engineering Standards. The landscape irrigation plan shall show and note irrigation requirements for the street trees. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. The plan shall include the location, diameter, species, and proposed disposition of all trees and compensatory tree plantings in accordance with the project submittals and Certified Arborist Report dated August 11, 2021. 26. A tree preservation report prepared by a certified arborist may be required. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any existing on- site or off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed grading and/or vertical construction. 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 any tree. A City-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. Fire Department 27. All new dwelling units (single family residences, manufactured homes and ADUs) shall have fire sprinklers conforming to NFPA 13D. The manufactured home shall come pre -plumbed from the manufacturer with a sprinkler system. Page 79 of 332 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2022 APPL-0182-2022ARCH (2406 & 2414 Johnson) Page 8 28. All new buildings shall be constructed with exterior construction materials that comply with R337 of the California Residential Code for exposure to wildfire. Specify WUI specs when ordering from manufacturer. Utilities Department 29. If a shared sewer lateral is proposed to serve development on multiple parcels, the City shall require a private easement setting forth responsibilities for each parcel served (including responsibility for maintenance, inspection, and improvement of the shared sewer lateral). Code Requirement: 30. Existing private sewer laterals on the property must meet the requirements of Municipal Code section 13.08.395. Indemnification 31. 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______________, seconded by ______________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of May 25, 2022. _____________________________ Rachel Cohen, Secretary Planning Commission Page 80 of 332 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: 2406 & 2414 JOHNSON (ARCH-0383-2021) REVIEW OF TWO, NEW , PRE- MANUFACTURED SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENCES AND A PRE-MANUFACTURED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS BY: Rachel Cohen FROM: Shawna Scott Phone Number: 805-781-7574 Phone Number: 805-781-7176 Email: rcohen@slocity.org Email: sscott@slocity.org APPLICANT: Jeffrey Spevack REPRESENTATIVE: Tim Becher RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed project in terms of consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The applicant is proposing two, new, pre-manufactured single-unit residences on two separate lots that share driveway access. Parcel 1 would contain a 3-bedroom unit with a separate 2-bedroom ADU structure subject to state standards) (see Attachment A, Project Plans). Parcel 3 would also contain a 3-bedroom residential unit that matches the structure on Parcel 1. Both housing sites are proposing tree removals and replacements as shown in the associated landscape plans. Location: 2406 & 2414 Johnson Avenue. Parcel Sizes: Parcel 1 - 0.4 acre; Parcel 3 - 0.25 acre Access: Both parcels are accessed from Johnson Avenue by a common driveway Site Condition: Vacant Zoning: R-1 (Low density residential) General Plan: Low density residential Surrounding Uses: East: Single family residential development West: Johnson Ave. North: Single family residential development South: Single family residential development Meeting Date: 2/7/2022 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 30 minutes Figure 1: Subject Properties 2406 Parcel 3) 2414 Parcel 1) Page 9 of 34Page 81 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0383-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – February 7, 2022 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: Single story structures with craftsman elements. Design Details: Vertical and horizontal siding, gable roofs, porches, craftsman style door, column features, and window trim. Materials: Hardipanel siding, Harditrim, and Hardiplank lap siding (see Attachment B) Colors: Pale green, whites, and grays (see Attachment B) 3.0 BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS REVIEW September 18, 2009: the Hearing Officer approved a tentative parcel map creating three lots from one lot. October 28, 2009: the Planning Commission reviewed an appeal of the of the subdivision and denied the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision. January 5, 2010: the City Council reviewed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and denied the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer ’s decision. The City Council included additional development standards in the conditions of approval as a part of upholding the approval (Resolution No. 10140 (2010 Series), PDF page 140). 4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The ARC’s role is to: 1. Review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and 2. Provide comments and recommendations to the Community Development Director. Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104 5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES / DISCUSSION ITEMS The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the CDG. Staff has not identified any discussion items or concerns related to consistency with the CDG Chapter 2 (General Design Principles), Chapter 5 (Residential Project Design), and Chapter 6 (Site Planning and Other Design Details) (see Attachment A, Project Plans). Page 10 of 34Page 82 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0383-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – February 7, 2022 6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Table 1: Site Details for Parcel 1 Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Setbacks Front Side Side Northwest side Rear 20 feet (flag lot) 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 20 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet** 5 feet Maximum Height of Structures 14.5 feet (does not exceed 406-foot elevation) Not to exceed 406- foot elevation** F.A.R. 0.11 0.4 Number of Vehicle Spaces 3 3** 2019 Zoning Regulations Reso No. 10140 (2010 Series)) Table 2: Site Details for Parcel 3 Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Setbacks Front Side Side Rear 20 feet 8.5 inches 20 feet 27 feet 8 inches 16 feet 1 inch 20 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Maximum Height of Structures 15.5 feet 25 feet F.A.R. 0.18 0.4 Number of Vehicle Spaces 3 3** 2019 Zoning Regulations Reso No. 10140 (2010 Series)) Figure 2: West Elevation Page 11 of 34Page 83 of 332 Item 4a ARCH-0383-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – February 7, 2022 Environmental Status: The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 32, 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). 7.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Recommend findings of consistency with the CDG. An action recommending approval of the application based on consistency with the CDG will be forwarded to the Community Development Director for final action. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the CDG. 7.2 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 7.3 Recommend findings of inconsistency with the CDG. An action recommending findings of inconsistency should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, or other policy documents. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Project Plans (ARCH-0383-2021) B - Project Materials and Colors (ARCH-0383-2021) Page 12 of 34Page 84 of 332 Page 85 of 332 Page 86 of 332 Page 87 of 332 Page 88 of 332 Page 89 of 332 Page 90 of 332 Page 91 of 332 Page 20 of 34Page 92 of 332 Page 21 of 34Page 93 of 332 Page 22 of 34Page 94 of 332 Page 95 of 332 EUCPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE3-4"ACACIAC( E) 18" RCP SD(E) 8"PVC SSPARCEL 1 - 240617,382 SFOAKOAKDECK(E) RR TIE RET. WALLDIBuilding Envelope(P) UG P PT 'B'LOT 3, TRACTLOT 2, TRACT 1272LOT 12, TRACT 1272POINT 'A'BEGIN Page 96 of 332 EUCPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE(E) 18"RCP SD(E) 8"PVC SDILOT 2, TRACT 1272POINT 'A'BEGIN WALL 1POINT ' B' Page 97 of 332 PINEPARCEL 1 - 240617,382 SFOAK(E) RR TIE RET. WALLBuilding EnvelopeB'LOT 3, TRACT 1272POINT 'D' Page 98 of 332 6" SS 6" C.I. W JOHNSON AVENUECONCACACPORCH SHEDPEPPERPALM6"JUNIP. JUNIP.18" PVC SD PARCEL 3 - 241410, 914 Page 99 of 332 ACACSHPEPPEPALM6"JUNIP.JUNIP. 18" PVC SD PARCEL 3 - 241410, 914 Page 100 of 332 Page 101 of 332 Page 102 of 332 EUCPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE3- 4" ACACIAPALMPEPPERPALM6" JUNIP.JUNIP. PARCEL 1 - 240617,382 Page 103 of 332 EUCPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE3- 4" ACACIAPALMPEPPERPALM6" JUNIP.JUNIP. GAZEBOPARCEL 1 - 240617,382 Page 104 of 332 Page 33 of 34Page 105 of 332 Page 34 of 34Page 106 of 332 T-1PROJECT DESCRIPTION; PROJECTAREAS; CONDITIONSA-1UNITS A, B: PLAN & ELEVATIONSA-2A.D.U. PLAN & ELEVATIONSA-3EXISTING S.F.R. ELEVATIONSL-1PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANL-2C-1.1ATLAS CIVIL DESIGN SHEETS:IRRIGATION PLANT-2PROPOSED SITE PLAN; SITESECTIONSGRADING & IMPROVEMENT PLANPARCEL 1-STORM DRAIN &CROSS SECTIONSC-2.1PRECISE GRADING PLAN-ADUC-2.2C-3.3PRECISE GRADING PLAN-SFR UNIT APARCEL 3-STORM DRAIN &CROSS SECTIONSC-4.1C-4.2PRECISE GRADING PLAN-SFR UNIT BRETAINING WALL PROFILEC-5.1DETAILSC-6.1C-7.1COMPOSITE UTILITY PLANC-8.1EROSION CONTROL PLANJIM HOMER LANDSCAPE DESIGN SHEETS:1. NEW 3-BR. S.F.R. MANUFACTURED HOME AND 2-BR. A.D.U.MANUFACTURED HOME ON EXISTING VACANT PARCEL WITH DRIVEWAY,PARKING, PATIOS, WALKWAYS & LANDSCAPING AT PARCEL 12. NEW 3-BR. S.F.R. MANUFACTURED HOME ON EXISTING VACANT PARCEL,WITH PATIO, WALKWAY & LANDSCAPING AT PARCEL 33. TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT; STREET TREES; GRADING ASREQUIRED; FENCING, LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION SYSTEMSPARCEL 1: 2406 JOHNSON AVE.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAAPN 003-703-072PARCEL 3: 2414 JOHNSON AVE.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAAPN 003-703-074ZONING: R1OCCUPANCY CLASS: R-3BUILDING TYPE: V-B,SPRINKLEREDUNITS A & B: MODEL #3845 CTB; A.D.U.: MODEL #K610CTBSKYLINE HOMES, 499 W. ESPLANADE AVE., SAN JACINTO, CA 92583DESIGNATIONPARCEL 1UNIT ACOVERED PORCHPORCH & STEPS (<30")A.D.U.COVERED PORCH (<30")PORCH & STEPS (<30")DECKLOT 1EASEMENTSPARCEL 3UNIT BCOVERED PORCHPORCH & STEPS (<30")HARDSCAPE, PARCEL 1, UNIT AHARDSCAPE, PARCEL 1, A.D.U.HARDSCAPE, PARCEL 3, UNIT BDRIVEWAY, PARKING & ACCESS, PARCEL 1DRIVEWAY, PARKING & ACCESS, PARCEL 3STEPS & SECONDARY PORCHES, TOTALLANDSCAPE, PARCEL 1LANDSCAPE, PARCEL 3FLOOR AREA RATIO, PARCEL 1FLOOR AREA RATIO, PARCEL 3AREA (SQ. FT.) (.4 Acre) 1738219234141971804780120(5170)(.25 Acre) 10914192341417553051194193362487290623900.110.18JEFFREY SPEVACK2410 JOHNSON AVE.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401tel. 805.423.2335PARCEL 1 (17% slope): 4 D.U. x .4 (Ac.) = 1.75; 2 D.U. ALLOWED FOR LOT 1PARCEL 3 (13.5% slope): 7 D.U. x .25 (Ac.) = 1.6; 2 D.U. ALLOWED FOR LOT 3PARCEL 1, UNIT A, UNCOVEREDPARCEL 1, A.D.U., UNCOVEREDPARCEL 3, UNIT B, UNCOVERED2+102+1SPACES1) PROJECT STREET FRONTAGE, JOHNSON AVE.2) WEST CORNER OF SMITH ST. & JOHNSON AVE. INTERSECTIONCIVIL ENGINEERSHANNON DAVIS, PE, MSATLAS CIVIL DESIGN872 HIGUERA ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401619.307.2749SOILS ENGINEERCRAIG CROZIER C61361GEOSOLUTIONS, INC.220 HIGH ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401tel. 805.543.8539REPORT #SLO-6905-2LANDSCAPE DESIGNJIM HOMER LANDSCAPE DESIGNP.O.B. 180SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406tel. 805.431.9403CHRIS STIERCERTIFIED ARBORIST #WE9262-AGREENVALE TREE COMPANYPO BOX 13234SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406tel. 805.544.1124REPORT DATED AUGUST 11, 2021TREE REPORT(1) The Community Development Director has designated Parcels One, Two and Three as "sensitivesites". This status ensures that future infill development will respect existing site constraints, privacy foroccupants and neighbors of the project, provide for adequate parking, and be compatible with the scaleand character of the existing neighborhood. An application for architectural review will be required forall three parcels in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.48.050. Development applications forParcel One must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission.(2) Applications submitted for architectural review on Parcel One shall include housing designed not toexceed a 406-foot elevation at the highest point of the roof, to preserve pleasant views from and towardsthe property (LUE 2.2.12), and remain consistent in character with the neighborhood.(3) The building footprint shown on Parcel One shall be reduced in size so that eventual housingdevelopment of the parcel will be setback at least 10 feet from the northeast property line. The drivewayshall not be allowed within this required 10 foot setback.(4) Future development of Parcels One & Three shall provide one (l) additional on-site guest parkingspace per lot, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.(6) Grading associated with development of new structures shall be minimized to the smallest practicalarea of land for development on each parcel.(10) The subdivision improvement plans and map shall show and honor the existing sump and berm arealocated at the northeast corner of proposed Parcel 2 that serves the upslope lots of Tract 1272. The finalmap shall include an additional drainage easement if the existing containment area and safe overflow forthe storm drain system are not located within the existing easement area. Otherwise, the applicant shalldemonstrate that the existing grading improvements are not necessary and shall propose a revisedsolution for the safe overflow.(14) A CCTV inspection of the existing sewer lateral proposed to serve Parcel 3 shall be submitted to theBuilding Division during the building permit process.(1) Planting of five (5) street trees along the Johnson Avenue frontage (Covenant# 2017030230 datedJune 22, 2017) as well as all associated and/or required work within the 10 ft. street tree easementT-1Page 107 of 332 T-2Page 108 of 332 A-1Page 109 of 332 A-2Page 110 of 332 A-3Page 111 of 332 Page 112 of 332 Page 113 of 332 ENGINEER OF RECORD:DATEAPPROVAL BY THE CITY DOES NOT GUARANTEE ACCURACY NORCOMPLETENESS OF THESE PLANS. IT DOES AUTHORIZE THE OWNER TOBUILD THE PROJECT HEREON. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEOWNER AND ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCIESTHAT APPEAR DURING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION. CITY SPECIFICATIONSAND ENGINEERING STANDARDS SHALL BE FOLLOWED UNLESS THEY ARESPECIFICALLY WAIVED OR MODIFIED BY NOTES ON THESE PLANS. THEENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE SUBMITTALS AS REQUIRED INTHE ENGINEERING STANDARDS.NOTICEPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONCITY FILE NO. SHEETOFDRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB NO.DATEAPPROVALENGR CITYCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCITY UTILITIES ENGINEERRECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BYOTHERELECTRIC CO.GAS CO.TELEPHONE CO.TELEVISION CO.OTHER UTILITYDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEC1 10DATEDATEDATEDATEDATESAN LUIS OBISPOPUBLIC WORKS BY:1. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ORPERMITTEE TO CONTACT "UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OFNORTHERN CALIFORNIA" BY PHONE AT 8-1-1 FORTY-EIGHT (48)HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OFPOWER, TELEPHONE, OIL AND NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUNDFACILITIES. CONTRACTOR OR PERMITEE SHALL ALSO CONTACTTHE APPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR THE LOCATION OF CABLE T.V.,WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.Reference Documents:City Standard Specifications: August 2020 EditionCity Engineering Standards: August 2020 EditionOTHERDATEHORIZONTAL CONTROL FOR POINTS 8060 & 8059 AS PUBLISHED IN THECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2007 HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK.CITY NETWORK IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983(NAD83) EPOCH DATE 1991.35, ZONE 5 CALIFORNIA.VERTICAL CONTROL BENCHMARK NO. 108 WITH AN ELEVATION OF311.94 AS PUBLISHED IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2020BENCHMARK SYSTEM. CITY'S BENCHMARK SYSTEM IS BASED ON THENORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).index to plansgeneral notes datumGRADING & IMPROVEMENT PLANSPEVACK RESIDENCES2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUEUnderground Service AlertCall 811ABBREVIATIONSEARTHWORK QUANTITIESUNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTENOTE TO CONTRACTORENGINEER OF RECORD NOTEFLOOD DESIGNATIONPROJECT CONSULTANTSPROPOSED LEGENDEXISTING LEGENDVICINITY MAPSCALE: NOT TO SCALE SITETel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo Monterey21-088TITLE SHEETPage 114 of 332 EUCPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE3-4"ACACIAC(E) 18"RCP SD(E) 8"PVC SSPARCEL 1 - 240617,382 SFOAKOAKDECK(E) RR TIE RET. WALLDIBuilding Envelope(P) UG P PT 'B'LOT 3, TRACTLOT 2, TRACT 1272LOT 12, TRACT 1272POINT 'A'BEGIN WALL 1POINT 'B'POINT 'C'POINT 'D'POINT 'E'END WALL 1WALL 1 (SEE PR O FI L E, S H E E T C 5. 1 )F.F. ELEV. 391.25'FIN. GRADE 389.75'PAD ELEV. 388.00'PROPOSED2-BR A.D.U.971 S.F.PROPOSED 3-BR. S.F.R.UNIT A, 1923 S.F.F.F.E. 391.75'FIN. GRADE 390.25'PAD ELEV. 387.50'PORCHPATIO WALL 1 (SEE PR O F I L E, S H E E T C 5 . 1 )ASECTION VIEWBSECTION VIEWF.F.E. 391.25'PROPOSED 2-BR A.D.U.971 S.F.PER ARCHITECTURALPLANSPAD ELEV. 388.00'DSECTION VIEWPROPOSED 3-BR. S.F.R.UNIT A, 1923 S.F.PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPAD ELEV. 387.50'F.F.E. 391.75'CSECTION VIEWPROPOSED 3-BR. S.F.R.UNIT A, 1923 S.F.PER ARCHITECTURALPLANSPAD ELEV. 387.50'F.F.E. 391.75'DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTESBYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBC3.1DC3.1AC3.1CC3.1PARCEL 1 - STORM DRAIN & CROSS SECTIONSC2Page 115 of 332 EUCPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE(E) 18"RCP SD(E) 8"PVC SDILOT 2, TRACT 1272POINT 'A'BEGIN WALL 1POINT 'B'POINT 'C'WALL 1 (SEE PR O FI L E, S H E E T C 5. 1 )F.F. ELEV. 391.25'FIN. GRADE 389.75'PAD ELEV. 388.00'PROPOSED2-BR A.D.U.971 S.F.PORCHPATIO PINEBuilding EnvelopeDRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTESCONSTRUCTION NOTESCONSTRUCTION NOTESHORIZONTAL CONTROL & PAVING NOTESBYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPARCEL 1 - PRECISE GRADING PLAN - A.D.U.C3Page 116 of 332 PINEPARCEL 1 - 240617,382 SFOAK(E) RR TIE RET. WALLBuilding EnvelopeB'LOT 3, TRACT 1272POINT 'D'POINT 'E'END WALL 1PROPOSED 3-BR. S.F.R.UNIT A, 1923 S.F.F.F.E. 391.75'FIN. GRADE 390.25'PAD ELEV. 387.50'WALL 1 (SEE PR O FI L E, S H E E T C 5. 1 )DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTESCONSTRUCTION NOTESCONSTRUCTION NOTESHORIZONTAL CONTROL & PAVING NOTESBYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPARCEL 1 - PRECISE GRADING PLAN - S.F.R.C4Page 117 of 332 6" SS 6" C.I. W JOHNSON AVENUECONCACACPORCH SHEDPEPPERPALM6"JUNIP.JUNIP.18" PVC SD PARCEL 3 - 241410,914 SFBuilding EnvelopeEXISTING HOUSE(P)4" SS (P) WS(E) FH(E) G(E) SS(P) G(P) SDMH(P) 8"SD(P) 6"SD(PSSS 18" SW UNDERDRAIN DET. 3420 SHT 8363.00 FL OUT, 363.18 FL INCB 7 12X12 - 365.1 TG18 LF CONCRETE SWALE @ BWL, DET SHT 9PLNEW DWPERFORATEDDRAIN TO C.B.PERFORATEDDRAIN TO TRENCHDRAINNEW STORMDRAINWALL PERF.DRAINNDS DURO-SLOPETRENCH DRAINW/ DUCTILE IRONH-20 GRATE &4" OUTLET TO CBCB1S PROPOSED 3-BR S.F.R. UNIT B, 1923 S.F.F.F.E. 375.92'FIN. GRADE 374.42'PAD ELEV. 373.59'ASECTION VIEWBSECTION VIEWPROPOSED 3-BR S.F.R. UNIT B, 1923 S.F.PER ARCHITECTURALPLANSF.F.E. 375.92'PAD ELEV. 373.59'DSECTION VIEWPROPOSED 3-BR S.F.R. UNIT B, 1923 S.F.PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANSF.F.E. 375.92'PAD ELEV. 373.59'CSECTION VIEWPROPOSED 3-BR S.F.R. UNIT B, 1923 S.F.PER ARCHITECTURALPLANSF.F.E. 375.92'PAD ELEV. 373.59'DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTESCONSTRUCTION NOTESCONSTRUCTION NOTESHORIZONTAL CONTROL & PAVING NOTESBYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDC4.1CC4.1BC4.1AC4.1PARCEL 3 - STORM DRAIN & CROSS SECTIONSC5Page 118 of 332 ACACSHPEPPEPALM6"JUNIP.JUNIP.18" PVC SD PARCEL 3 - 241410,914 SFBuilding Envelope(P)4" SS (P) 8SD(P) 6"SD PERFORATEDDRAIN TO C.B.S PROPOSED 3-BR S.F.R. UNIT B, 1923 S.F.F.F.E. 375.92'FIN. GRADE 374.42'PAD ELEV. 373.59'DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTESCONSTRUCTION NOTESCONSTRUCTION NOTESHORIZONTAL CONTROL & PAVING NOTESBYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPARCEL 3 - PRECISE GRADING PLAN - S.F.R.C6Page 119 of 332 HOR SCALE: 1''=20'VERT SCALE: 1''=10'PROFILE: WALL13803904004103803904004101+00 2+00 3+00 3+50BYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONRETAINING WALL PROFILEC7Page 120 of 332 BYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1DRAIN WITH GRATE DETAIL 4OUTFALL26" CURB5BROW DITCH3TRAFFIC RATED PAVER TYPICAL SECTIONSTANDARD 6" CURBFLUSH 6" CURBPAVED AREASLANDSCAPE AREAS6TYPE "J" RETAINING WALLDETAILSC87TYPICAL TRENCH SECTIONPage 121 of 332 EUCPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE3-4"ACACIAPALMPEPPERPALM6"JUNIP.JUNIP.PARCEL 1 - 240617,382 SFPARCEL 2 - 241013,665 SFPARCEL 3 - 241410,914 SFJUNIP.JUNIP.OAKOAKOAKPT 'B'SSSS S PLNEW DWS JOHNSON AVENUE(PUBLIC R.O.W.)UTILITY GENERAL NOTEWATER CONSTRUCTION NOTESSEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTESBYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCOMPOSITE UTILITY PLANC9Page 122 of 332 EUCPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINEPINE3-4"ACACIAPALMPEPPERPALM6"JUNIP.JUNIP.GAZEBOPARCEL 1 - 240617,382 SFPARCEL 2 - 241013,665 SFPARCEL 3 - 241410,914 SFJUNIP.JUNIP.OAKOAKOAKPT 'B'SSSS S PLNEW DWS JOHNSON AVENUE(PUBLIC R.O.W.)EROSION CONTROL NOTESBYREVISIONSDATE2406, 2410 & 2414 JOHNSON AVENUECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEETOF10IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR P.M. SLO 09-0074Tel: 1-760-718-8010www.AtlasCivilDesign.comCivil Engineering Site OptimizationDesignCivilCivil DesignSan Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo MontereyNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLEGENDEROSION CONTROL PLANC10Page 123 of 332 Page 124 of 332 Page 125 of 332 Page 126 of 332 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org March 17, 2022 Jeffrey Spevack 2410 Johnson Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARCH-0383-2021 (2406 & 2414 Johnson) Architectural review of two, new pre-manufactured single-unit residences and a premanufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots with shared driveway access. Dear Jeffrey Spevack: On March 17, 2022, I reviewed your proposed project that includes two, new pre- manufactured single-unit residences and a premanufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots with shared driveway access at 2406 and 2414 Johnson Road. The accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is not subject to discretionary review per California Government Code Section 65852.2 and is included within the project description to provide context for the proposed single-unit residences. The project design was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on February 7, 2022, and the ARC recommended that the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (vote 5-0-1). After careful consideration, I have approved your project, based on findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code, Zoning Regulations, and Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series). 2. The design of the project is consistent with Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series) because: a. The proposed project was submitted for architectural review and reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on February 7, 2022 for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) (COA No.1); b. The single-family residence located on Parcel One preserves pleasant views towards the property and is consistent in character with the neighborhood because it is designed to not exceed a 406-foot elevation at the highest point of the roof (COA No.2); with a total height of approximately 14.5 feet the residence is set lower than the neighboring parcels to the rear, thus preserving viewsheds; c. The Planning Commission noted in their review that the delineated building envelope for Parcel One was overly large and encompassed steep areas less suitable for development and required a building footprint that is setback at least ten feet from the northeast property line to mitigate privacy impacts to Page 127 of 332 ARCH-0383-2021 2406 & 2414 Johnson Page 2 surrounding neighbors. The propose single family residence located on Parcel One is consistent with COA No. 3 because it is setback more than 10 feet from the northeast property line; d. The driveway and required parking for Parcel One is not located within the 10- foot setback from the northeast property line (COA No. 3); e. Parcel One provides one (1) additional on-site guest parking space adjacent to the two required parking spaces (COA No. 4); f. Parcel Two provides two required parking spaces and one (1) additional on-site guest parking space in tandem to one of the required parking spaces (COA No. 4); g. The proposed grading associated to the development of the new structures is limited to the area of development (COA No. 6); h. As conditioned, the existing overhead utility lines shall be undergrounded (COA No. 7); and i. As conditioned, the new curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed per City Engineering Standards (COA No. 8). 3. 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 6.10). While homes along the neighboring Corona Court overlook the project site, the proposed development will have no overlook or other privacy impacts on neighboring properties. 4. The project is consistent with the Low-Density Residential land use designation because the project provides single family residences with private outdoor space. 5. The project is consistent with the property development standards of the Zoning Regulations specific to the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone and Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series) including height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, and density. 6. The project is consistent with Community Design Guidelines (CDG) Chapter 2, General Design Principles, Section 2.2, Building Design, because the project provides single story, residential units that are proportional to the site by minimizing grading and setting the units into the existing topography, provide architectural interest with articulated wall planes through the use of horizontal and vertical siding, window trim, peaked roofs, and a porch, uses durable materials such as fiber cement siding and trim and composite decking and the two units are compatible with the existing single-family unit adjacent to the site (Parcel 2) in regards to form, massing and design. 7. The project is consistent with the CDG for residential project design and infill development because the architectural style is complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and provides a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest and articulation to the building design. The designs of the proposed buildings are compatible with the design and scale of the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.3). In addition, the CDGs and Zoning Regulations contain no guidelines or other prohibitions on prefabricated residential buildings, which have been successfully installed in other locations of the City. Specifically, the project is consistent with CDG Chapter 5, Residential Project Design, Section 5.3 Infill Development because: Page 128 of 332 ARCH-0383-2021 2406 & 2414 Johnson Page 3 a. The proposed single level residential units, with a maximum height of 14.5 feet, are in-scale with adjacent single or two-story residential units in the neighborhood (CDG 5.3.A(1)). b. The project design is consistent with other residential structures in the neighborhood because the residential units utilize a rectangular form with horizontal and vertical siding, window trim, similarly peaked roofs, and asphalt shingling (CDG 5.3.B & E). 8. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on February 7, 2022 and recommended the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the City’s CDG applicable to a project located in the R-1 zone. 9. The project application includes an Arborist Report from a certified arborist dated August 11, 2021 that identifies the proposed tree removals for the project with descriptions of the species, sizes, locations, and health of each of the trees on Parcels 1 and 3 within the proposed construction areas. The City Arborist reviewed the proposed tree removals and landscape plans per Municipal Code Chapter 12.24, Tree Regulations. As conditioned, the proposed tree removals and landscape plan (that shows the location of new tree plantings) is consistent with the Tree Regulations. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding 10. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 32, Infill Exemption) because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property within city limits, of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses, with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Based on compliance with existing regulations, approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise, air quality, or water quality, and is served by required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the size and location of the project. Conditions: Please note 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 your project. Planning 1. The project shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval included in Council Resolution 10140 (2010 Series). 2. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as approved through this architectural review process. A separate, full- size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the Page 129 of 332 ARCH-0383-2021 2406 & 2414 Johnson Page 4 margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director or reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission with a recommendation to the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate. 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 the Development Review application. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window trim details. Plans shall indicate 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. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high- quality materials for all design features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The locations of all lighting, including landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter §17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. 6. Plans submitted for construction permits shall 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 (§17.70.070 - Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 7. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with submittal of working drawings for a building permit. 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 surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. Public Works - Engineering 8. The building plan submittals shall show and note compliance with all pertinent conditions of approval related to Parcel Map SLO 09-0074 and public Improvement plans for Tract-1272 (both plans are available from the City upon request). The submittal shall show, label, and honor all existing easements unless otherwise modified. 9. Projects involving the construction of new structures, the addition of dwelling units, or the substantial remodel of existing structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. Page 130 of 332 ARCH-0383-2021 2406 & 2414 Johnson Page 5 Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 10. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements per Tract 1272 and the parcel map. The building plan submittal shall show and label all property line monumentation and the preservation of the same. 11. The plans shall show, label, and honor the existing public sewer main and public storm drain extending from Tract 1272 and crossing Parcel 1. The plans shall show and label the existing upstream and downstream improvements for reference. The plan shall include the storm drain catch basin, overflow weir, and berm/basin located on Parcel 1. 12. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternative paving materials are recommended for water quality and/or quality control purposes and in the dripline of any existing trees to remain. Alternate paving materials shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 13. 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 wire services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 14. The building plan submittal shall clarify the limits and proposed disposition of the observed electrical circuits and landscape irrigation systems that cross parcel boundaries from Parcel 2 to parcels 1 and 3. Private utilities and services shall be relocated or transitioned to the related parcel(s) in conjunction with the building permits or easement(s) shall be reserved/recorded. 15. In accordance with the subdivision conditions and previous improvement plans, new and existing wire utilities including electrical service, phone, and cable TV shall be placed underground. The undergrounding of utilities shall be completed without a net increase in the number of required wood utility poles. It appears that the residence on Parcel has underground electrical service but that tele-com cables still exist overhead. The overhead wiring may also conflict with the new construction. It appears that vacant conduits have been provided from joint pole #2374 on Johnson Ave to serve all parcels in the subdivision. 16. The building plan submittal shall show the water meter and service to be sized or upgraded in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show all existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The grading and drainage plan and summary drainage report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer for this development requiring engineered grading. 18. The summary drainage report and plan shall evaluate the existing public storm drain system, capacity, and safe overflow path. The plan and report shall clarify whether the Page 131 of 332 ARCH-0383-2021 2406 & 2414 Johnson Page 6 existing berm and basin related to the weir provides a continuance of a safe overflow within the existing public storm drain easement. Otherwise, the development of the ADU on Parcel 1 may require improvements to collect and convey the potential overflow to an approved point of discharge. 19. This development shall comply with the Waterways Management Plan. The building plans and report shall consider any run-on or run-off from the proposed parcel development. The parcel map did not include blanket easements for cross-lot drainage. An easement or understanding of acceptance of historic run-on would be acceptable if the improved drainage from Parcel 1 would not be conveyed to the existing common easements. The plans shall clarify whether the existing improved drainage from Parcel 2 crosses Parcel 3. 20. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board per the Board Resolution No. 2013-0032. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The compliance documentation should be on a lot-by-lot basis as the tentative parcel map had an approved drainage design that pre-dates the effective date of the resolution. The development on parcels 1 and 3 is not considered to be a common plan with the previous subdivision improvements. 21. The building plan submittal shall include complete details of any required retaining walls to accommodate the site design and existing grades. All retaining walls shall be included in the design that is analyzed in the drainage report. The final drainage and retaining wall plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division and Planning Division. Combination wall/fences shall comply with the fence height requirements of the Zoning Regulations to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 22. The building plan submittal shall show how the existing excavation/slope bank along the driveway and between Parcel 1 and the adjoining property known as 2374 Johnson will be retained. A short landscape wall may be required to limit the continued erosion along the property line. The improvement is required to limit sediment and debris from migrating into the trench drain and public storm drain system. 23. The building plan submittal shall show and note that the existing trench drain at the driveway apron shall cleaned and maintained during construction and at the completion of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 24. The building plan submittal shall show five (5) new 15-gallon street trees to be planted along Johnson Avenue per condition of approval #21 of Parcel Map SLO 09-0074. This item was previously deferred with a covenant agreement. Street trees and planting requirements shall be per City Engineering Standards. The landscape irrigation plan shall show and note irrigation requirements for the street trees. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. The plan shall include the location, diameter, species, and proposed disposition of all trees and compensatory tree plantings in accordance with the project Page 132 of 332 ARCH-0383-2021 2406 & 2414 Johnson Page 7 submittals and Certified Arborist Report dated August 11, 2021. 26. A tree preservation report prepared by a certified arborist may be required. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any existing on-site or off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed grading and/or vertical construction. 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 any tree. A City-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. Fire Department 27. All new dwelling units (single family residences, manufactured homes and ADUs) shall have fire sprinklers conforming to NFPA 13D. The manufactured home shall come pre- plumbed from the manufacturer with a sprinkler system. 28. All new buildings shall be constructed with exterior construction materials that comply with R337 of the California Residential Code for exposure to wildfire. Specify WUI specs when ordering from manufacturer. 29. Water meters serving the sprinklered buildings shall be 1” meters. Utilities Department 30. If a shared sewer lateral is proposed to serve development on multiple parcels, the City shall require a private easement setting forth responsibilities for each parcel served (including responsibility for maintenance, inspection, and improvement of the shared sewer lateral). Code Requirement: 31. Existing private sewer laterals on the property must meet the requirements of Municipal Code section 13.08.395. Indemnification 32. 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. My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of the decision. Anyone may appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department Page 133 of 332 ARCH-0383-2021 2406 & 2414 Johnson Page 8 within the time specified. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal documentation. Appeals will be scheduled for the first available Planning Commission meeting date. If an appeal is filed, you will be notified by mail of the date and time of the hearing. The Community Development Director’s approval expires after one year if building permits are not issued for site development, the permit shall expire with the building permit application, unless otherwise extended by Council Resolution. On request, the Community Development Director may grant renewals for successive periods, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.104.070, or as otherwise determined to be consistent with State Law. Included with this letter is an invoice for the Completion Fee associated with this planning application, which is now due. Completion Fees are to be paid within six months of the final action taken on planning services provided or prior to the acceptance of a building permit to construct the project. Please note that building permit applications will not be accepted prior to payment of the Completion Fee. Payment of this fee may be made in person, online, by mail or by phone. Payment Online: The online payment portal has launched. Please visit the link: https://infoslo.slocity.org/EnerGov_Prod/selfservice#/home to pay the invoice online. Payment by Mail: By mail payments must be in the form of a check and sent to: CDD Planning Fees City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Checks to be made out to: City of San Luis Obispo Please include on the check the application number and address (see subject line, above). Payment by Phone: Call our main line 805-781-7170, please press option #6 to speak with a staff member to process credit card payment. If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, please contact Rachel Cohen at (805) 781-7574 or by email at rcohen@slocity.org. Sincerely, Tyler Corey Deputy Director Community Development Page 134 of 332 CITYOF S.fIIl LUIS OBISPO Fee must accompany original signed appeal form Received by: __ APPEAL FORM Department of Community Development Planning Division Date Received SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION V"~ f 8.A ,£.8,#,.f 13011 D ef q/ I Mailing Address Name Phone Fax eMA Ii, vC 13otAO 'fJ .S ~C(j, W~L •t't/-B T In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17, Chapter 17.126 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: Zoning Hearing Officer-Administrative Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) Minor and Moderate Architectural Review (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier2 D Applicant Appeal: $988.35 ·fl Non-Applicant Appeal: $395.35 Community Development Director (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier3 D Applicant Appeal: $346.22 D Non-Applicant Appeal: $346.22 Community Development Director-Minor (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier4 0 Applicant Appeal: $148.55 0 Non-Applicant Appeal: $148.55 :~-. ----~--------------------. ~-----~-------------~---. ---------------------------------·--------~ ~ ·-----~ .. ··--·-·--· j If an aetion ay the Architectural Review commission, Cultural Heritage Committee or Planning Commission is j! ! being al!)pealed, an "Appeal to the City Council" form is needed and can be obtained from the City Clerk's I Offi~. I 1 -: ~-----.. ·-----~---· ""··-··------------------------.......,...,.,__ . ..._ .. ~ __ ., ....... --... .... ----·•·------·-----·.r%--,; ............. ___ I Page 135 of 332 SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL: The date the decision being appealed was rendered: _:J.._/-17;._./,__~_1-___________ _ I Project address: '?4ob r 'Ml1 r.)tJ;.,,/N$0/\I :4:lf.,:Application number: AJtcJ./ ~ 0313$·Z.o"ZI, <;,/1=1?4 ' I I Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: ~ ~~ _.3_ .. z_8_· -:v_z-____ _ Signature of Appellant Date Revised 7-1-21 Page 136 of 332 1 APPEAL TO SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Date: March 28, 2022 To: City of San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission Project: ARCH-0383-2021 (2406 & 2414 Johnson Avenue, Spevack) Appellants: Stephen & Paula Dooley (Lot 13, Tr 1272) Joe & Barbara Boud(Lot 12, Tr 1272) Maureen Eyerman/James Callahan (Lot 2, Tr 1272) John Hayes, esq and Carolyn Hayes (Lot 3, Tr 1272) William Herreras, esq and Barbara Herreras (Lot 4, Tr 1272) Tracey Martinelli & Gene Francis (abut project to south , Johnson Ave) Jason Pauysch (abut project to north, Johnson Ave) I.Appeal Overview: This project was approved by the Community Development Department on March 17, 2022. The Appellants believe the Findings that were cited in the approval document incorrectly addressed the Conditions of Development of the Parcel Map, the City’s Design Guidelines and the California Government Code Section 65852.2, Accessary Dwelling Units and Subdivision Map Act 66410 et al. Background: MS-78-09, Spevack; A three-lot subdivision of Parcel 1 of Tract 1272, was approved with Conditions by the SLO City Council on 1/5/2010. Time extensions were also granted and the Final Parcel Map was recorded on 7/11/17 in Book 079, Page 075 of SLO County Clerk-Recorder office. Definitions: Building Envelope of a lot: building envelope means the buildable area on a lot , defined by the minimum front yard depth, rear yard depth, side yard width requirements and the maximum height requirements, within such buildings can be erected. Building Footprint: building footprint means the horizontal area as seen in plan, measured from outside of all exterior walls and supporting columns. It includes dwellings and any area of attached garage that exceeds 200 square feet. Building Structures: structures are defined as "anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground. Among other things, structures include buildings, mobile homes ('manufactured homes'), retaining walls, fences, billboards, and poster panels. Page 137 of 332 II.Conditions of Approval for MS-78-09 (CC approved 1/5/10) SUBDIVISION CONDITION #1: "The Community Development Director has designated Parcels One, Two and Three as ''sensitive sites. This status ensures that future infill development will respect existing site constraints, privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, provide for adequate parking, and be compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood. An application for architectural review will be required for all three parcels in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.48. 050. Development applications for Parcel One must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission." Comment: ( 1) Parcel 1 has topography with an average cross-slope of 17 .2%, with the westerly portions exceeding 28% and less severe slopes on the eastern portion of the building envelope. Rather than design a structure that steps down this gradient, the development proposes an 8' cut with 6' high retaining walls for over 200' linear feet. The retaining wall structure is located within the required 1 O' rear setback and outside of the required building envelope, to enable the proposed pre-fab boxes to be placed on this pad. We did the rough math: Estimate 933 cubic yards of excavation is required. This massive grading shows no respect for the topographical constraints. (2) To accommodate the development proposed, the Applicant's Arborist report identified tree removal and justifications. Arborist reports typically assess the project presented without recommendations of alternate project designs, tree and vegetative avoidance and/or alternatives (building footprints, drainage structures, etc.). As above, this project shows little regard for the site constraint challenges regarding the existing landscape environment. (3) These pre-tab boxes, dropped onto a massively over graded pad, have no character identity with the neighborhood. The comment in Findings #6 ''the project provides single story, residential units that are proportional to the site by minimizing grading and setting the units into the existing topography, provide architectural interest with articulated wall planes through the use of horizontal and vertical siding, window trim, peaked roofs, and a porch ... " and Finding #7 ''the architectural style is complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and provides a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest and articulation to the building design. 11 These Finding statements are quite a stretch. Conclusion: These horizontal boxes have no exterior elevation articulation of significance. A peaked roof ridge, horizontal hardiboard siding, minimum fenestration perimeter trim, and a porch with a wooden door hardly qualifies as in scale and of character with the neighborhood. FYI, all Tract 1272 roof material was required to be concrete or Mission tile, no composition roof materials were permitted. This proposal defies compliance with the designation of "sensitive site" development. It has no respect 2 Page 138 of 332 for the topographical constraints, the mature vegetation, or attention to design detail and character of neighboring homes. SUBDIVISION CONDITION #2: "Applications submitted for review on Parcel One shall include housing designed not to exceed a 406-foot elevation at the highest point of the roof, to preserve pleasant views from and towards the property (LUE 2.2. 12), and remain consistent in character with the neighborhood." Comment: There are no height restrictions on Parcel #3. Development of a two-story structure would require less landscape removal and less site disturbance. Fit the Site. SUBDIVISION CONDITION #3: "The building footprintshown on Parcel One shall be reduced in size so that eventual housing development of the parcel will be setback at least 1 O feet from the north west property line. The driveway shall not be allowed within this required 1 O -foot setback." Comment: The building envelope that was submitted by the Applicant and his engineer from EDA clearly delineates a building envelope on the Tentative Map on both Parcels #1 & #3. This was indeed modified by the Planning Commission, requiring the rear yard envelope to be reduced to 10-feet (shrinking the building envelope an additional five feet). Please refer to attached Exhibit of the Tentative Map delineating these envelopes (Exhibits A, B & C). Public Records review of the resolution and the Minutes from the 2009-201 O Administrative Review, Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council make it abundantly clear that a building envelope was established through the approval of the Parcel Map. The Applicant, EDA engineer, City staff, Commissioners, City Council, neighborhood attendees were on the same page with the building envelopes proposed on the Tentative Map. Recognition of this building envelope is an essential component of the Tentative Parcel Map approval. The discussion of 'Envelope" and "Footprint" is similar to the references of "Parcel Map" and "Subdivision" in discussions of land development and it's irrelevant to make a semantic distinction with these terms. It is not unusual for the term "building envelope" and "building footprint" to be co- mingled, however, the 3/17/22 approval with Findings #2c seem to ignore this interplay of terminology. There was no building footprint identified during the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, however there was a delineated building envelope. 3 Page 139 of 332 To be even more redundant: The EDA Tentative Map and testimony by the Applicant's representative, Jeff Wagner, throughout the hearings in 2009-1 O referred to a "building envelope". More recently, in a message received on March 15, 2022 from Bill Dyer, Dyer Engineering, who processed and recorded the Final Map seven years later, with whom we asked the question "why wasn't the building envelope shown in the Final Map?" Dyer acknowledged the envelope on the Tentative Map and responded "Bw1ding envelopes are not necessarily shown on final parcel maps. But the city keeps a file on them and will require them to be honored or modified thru proper procedure. Bill. ' To further emphasize this fact of record, in the Applicant's letter in September, 2009, he made the statement ''we are planning no Jot sale, no building, just a plan to give us some options for our financial future." Here again, in the Applicant's admission, no "building" was proposed, but an "envelope" for future was clearly contemplated. In a 10/12/09 letter, the Spevack's recognized the difficulties associated with any future development on Parcel #1 and offered this, yet to be approved Parcel #1 , for sale to the abutting upslope lots (Lots 2 & 3 of Tract 1272) via a Lot Line Adjustment with the statement that ''you could extend and improve your yards, to enhance the value of your homes, and own and preserve your own viewshed. ". However, this present proposal by Mr. Spevack is contradicting this recognition of real estate value, viewshed and privacy. Conclusion: Nowhere in the minutes of any of the recorded public hearing throughout the planning process and subsequent time extensions of the parcel map was this building envelope (footprint) eliminated, replaced or compromised by the modified condition of reducing it in size by increasing the rear setback from five-feet to ten-feet. The Parcel Map, MS-78-09, condition is crystal clear: future residential development, structures, guest parking spaces, driveways, structural retaining walls, etc. are not permitted outside of the prescribed building envelope (footprint). SUBDIVISION CONDITION #4: "Future development of Parcels One & Three shall provide one (1) additional on-site guest parking space per lot, subject to approval of the Community Development Director." Comment: The proposed Site Plan shows three spaces on Parcel 1 and two tandem spaces on Parcel 3, with a guest space along the northern boundary. Presently, Parcel 2 uses the fire turn pocket between Parcels #2 & #3 that, per conditions of approval, is a fire access driveway and restricted from parking. Parcel 2 has no other parking identified, garage or surface, on-site. The City Council Resolution 10140, Conditions of Approval, included Code Compliance condition #4 that required parking to be identified on Parcel #2 as well as Flag Lot Subdivision Condition #26 regarding parking access and maneuvers. 4 Page 140 of 332 Where is Parcel #2 parking to be relocated when Parcel #3 is developed? How does the guest space on Parcel #3 comply with the maneuver standards? The answer is obvious. The fire turn-around area between Parcel 2 & 3 will become a parking area and the under-parked Parcels 1, 2 & 3 will load up the driveway with vehicles. In the event of a structural or wildland fire, how can the neighboring properties be adequately protected if the driveways are plugged with parked vehicles? City staff provided us with this response: "All vehicles accessing parcels 1, 2, & 3 along the common driveway must adhere to the "Fire lane, no parking" signs that are currently installed on the site. A person may report a vehicle parked in a fire lane to the Fire Department or the Police Department. During business hours, contact a Fire Inspector at 805-781-7383. After business hours and on weekends, call the City Police Department non-emergency line at 805-781-7312'. This provides little comfort if the neighboring homes and properties are threatened with a wildland and/or structural fire. Ill.Community Design Guidelines: The City of San Luis Obispo adopted Community Design Guidelines in 2002 that have been thoughtfully amended multiple times over the years. The Findings preface statement and ARC staff report comment includes the following statements: "The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the COG. Staff has not identified any discussion items or concerns related to consistency with the COG Chapter 2 (General Design Principles), Chapter 5 (Residential Project Design), and Chapter 6 (Site Planning and Other Design Details) (see Attachment A, Project Plans)." (ARC staff report, 2/7/2022). The Administrative approval comments in the preamble and in Findings #6 & #7 include the following: "The project provides single story, residential units that are proportional to the site by minimizing grading and setting the units into the existing topography, provide architectural interest with articulated wall planes through the use of horizontal and vertical siding. window trim, peaked roofs, and a porch, uses durable materials such as fiber cement siding and trim and composite decking." Comment: Our review of the COG, Chapters 2, 5 & 6 identifies several inconsistencies with this ARC staff report statement and the Findings of approval of this project. With no disrespect, they are patently absurd with the COG standards. Following are direct excerpts from the City's CDC (bold/italic), with additional comments. E. Sensitive sites. The Community Development Director, Planning Commission or City Council may require design review on certain "sensitive sites". A project 5 Page 141 of 332 site is considered sensitive when: 1. It has been de$ignated through an "S", Special Consideration, overlay zone, use permit, or a condition of a tentative parcel or subdivision map as a site with special development concerns; Comment: These three parcels were designated "Sensitive Sites" through the approval of the PM by the City Council Resolution 10140 on 1/5/2010. Chapter 2 -General Design Principles The following general principles should be considered in the design of all development. Certain guidelines may only apply to non-residential projects, and/or apply depending on whether a proposed project includes specific features. 2. 1 -Site Design A. Fit the site. Each project should be designed with careful consideration of site character and constraints, and minimize changes to natural features, rather than altering a site to accommodate a stock building plan. Existing topography should be preserved where possible and excessive cuts or fills should be avoided. B. Consider the context. Review existing development near the site and consider how the project can be designed to fit in with the best examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of the site. Comment: Fit the site, consider topography and minimize changes to natural features is worth repeating, as well as "altering a site to accommodate a stock building plan". The comment in the plan package submitted by the Applicant's design team that "additional grading at Parcel 1 was required to comply with height restrictions (not to exceed 406' elevation) is faulty justification and certainly violates the above Site Design criteria. Excavation of over 933 cubic yards of excavation is a bit more than "additional grading". This is not an impossible task as any competent design professional will attest. Evaluate the site constraints, review the conditions that have been historically placed on the site and design a structure that fits into the site, its topography and the mature landscape environment. This application proposes a pre-tab box that attempts to fit onto this site. It won't fit. A custom designed structure with stepped down foundation and architectural interest might fit. This "Fit the Site" statement is made throughout the COG document. B. Strive for interest, not clutter. The City encourages well-articulated, but not cluttered building elevations. Large roof and wall planes unrelieved by shadow or texture interest are generally not acceptable. However, too many elevation details can overwhelm, and appear awkward, gaudy, and/or chaotic. 6 Page 142 of 332 Comment: We again quote the Finding statement: ''the project provides single story, residential units that are proportional to the site by minimizing grading and setting the units into the existing topography, provide architectural interest with articulated wall planes through the use of horizontal and vertical siding, window trim, peaked roofs, and a porch ... " and Finding #7 "the architectural style is complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and provides a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest and articulation to the building design." A peaked roof with no roof plane relief, a porch(!), exterior elevations with no linear articulation, asphalt roofing, etc. hardly meets this standard. Compatibility takes on many forms. It is not limited to architectural elements, or intimate or distant views, but also includes the view of a proposed project, its proximity to neighboring homes and yards, the noise, smells and lights, the car doors closing and the sounds of habitation. 2. Open space and natural features. Providing open space and integrating natural features into a residential project can significantly increase the appreciation of residents in their neighborhoods, provide safe places for children and families to play, and maintain a strong sense of connection with the surrounding natural environment in the city as a whole. a. Natural amenities (such as views, mature trees, creeks, riparian corridors, rock outcrops, and similar features) should be preserved and incorporated into proposed development to the greatest extent feasible. Reduced density and the clustering of units in hillside areas is encouraged as a means of achieving this goal. b. Development adjacent to parks or other public open spaces should be designed to provide maximum visibility of these areas. c. Development on hillsides should generally follow the natural terrain contour. Stepped building pads, larger lot sizes, and setbacks should be used to preserve the general shape of natural land forms and to minimize grade differentials with adjacent streets and with adjoining properties. Comment: This is especially pertinent on Parcel #1. Natural features should be preserved utilizing stepped back building pads, minimize grade differentials, retention of mature vegetation, etc., that can significantly increase the appreciation of residents in the neighborhood. Massive grading, clear cutting of all mature vegetation, structural development outside of the required building envelope, even removal of a 17" healthy Aleppo Pine to enable a cross drainage structure (which could be avoided as noted in the Approval Condition #19 with a Letter of Understanding or Easement), violates the subdivision conditions 7 Page 143 of 332 and community design standards. It ignores all expectations of compatible development that was assured through the Parcel Map approval process. Parcel #3, if developed with a two-story house, would also enable the retention of a significant number of mature trees and cause far less site disturbance. 2. The color of fence and wall materials should complement the other structures on the site. The use of chain-link fencing and "crib 11 retaining wall designs are discouraged. Tall retaining walls (five feet and higher) should be divided up into two or more shorter walls (depending on height}, with the upper portion of the wall set back from the lower wall at least two feet, with the slope between the walls not exceeding 4:1. Landscaping (with an irrigation system) should be installed in the space between walls. 3. Long, monotonous fences or walls should be avoided. Fences and walls should be offset at least every 10 feet. Landscaping should be installed in offset areas where appropriate. Landscaping along fences and walls should be coordinated with the street tree planting scheme. Comment: The proposed 200+ foot long, six-foot high retaining wall along nearly the entire length of Parcel #1 , and the massive grading required in Parcel 1, completely violates this COG standard. Not only is such a wall in violation of the COG standard, but also in violation of the parcel map conditions requiring structural development to occur within the delineated building envelope. When this project is redesigned, the Applicant should be reminded of these standards related to retaining wall heights, setbacks, offsets and finished slope standards. As the COG and subdivision conditions state: Employ stepped building footings following the topography, no development (including retaining walls) within the 1 O' rear setback and adhere to the 406' height elevation. This is not an impossible task. Design a structure that fits the site, don't change the site to fit a pre-tab box. The COG standards and conditions of the subdivision make this abundantly clear. 8. Landscape design guidelines. 9. Tree/landscaping removals. Proposals to remove trees over three inches in trunk diameter must be shown on plans. The type, trunk and canopy diameter, and status (e.g. to be removed, saved, relocated) needs to be noted. Landscaping should not be considered for removal as part of a demolition plan without an accompanying development plan that demonstrates why the plantings cannot be saved and provides for an adequate replacement. Comment: The Arborist Report dated 10/11/2021 evaluated and assessed the landscape features of this property. This project proposes to remove nearly every mature tree with the 8 Page 144 of 332 principal justification that the vegetation removal was necessary to accommodate the proposed development. A different design that "Fits the Site" and the topographical and existing site constraint landscape would certainly result in an alternate conclusion regarding the existing landscape destruction. When this project is redesigned to fit the site constraints, we would expect a different conclusion of vegetative destruction. Likewise, if a two-story residence was proposed in the redesign of this project, the Parcel #3 landscape removal would result in a different analysis. 4. Grading. Hillside grading to provide a building site and driveway access should be minimized. Large, single-elevation graded pads should be avoided in favor of more careful site preparation that provides for stepped foundations and/or smaller-scale graded areas. 5. Retaining walls. Large retaining walls in a uniform plane must be avoided. No visible portion of a retaining wall should be higher than six feet, and a maximum height of three feet is preferred. Where a retaining wall would otherwise exceed six feet in height, the wall shall be divided into terraces with variations in plane and include landscaping to break up the length of walls and to screen them from view. All retaining walls should also comply with the guidelines for exterior structure colors in 8.4, below. Comment: How this COG standard was overlooked by City staff is astounding. This proposal development, as much as it has attempted to pretend to adhere to the site constraints, subdivision conditions and most of the COG standards, has failed. All of the Tract 1272 parcels were developed with similar site design constraint challenges with outstanding results, as are many, many other homes in San Luis Obispo neighborhoods with site challenges. The ARC staff report statement and the Administrative Review approval findings that "staff has not identified any discussion items or concerns related to consistency with the COG", under closer examination, is incorrect and very concerning, as the above COG standards and our comments have pointed out. Please don't overlook the obvious. IV.Accessory Dwelling Units: In our Public Records request of 2/09/22, the City Clerk provided us with this citation that was also cited in comments made by staff at the ARC hearing on 2rt /22 and in the preamble comments of the 3/17 /22 Administrative Approval of this project: ''An ADU is not subject to discretionary review per Government Code Section 65852.2 which expressly states that ADUs that comply with applicable development standards are subject to ministerial review and cannot be required to go through discretionary reviews. As proposed, the ADU complies with all objective development standards, 9 Page 145 of 332 including the building footprint's 10-foot setback requirement (per conditions of approval) and is subject to ministerial review under state law." Comment: The justification that the proposed ADU complies with the development standards is incorrect. The proposed ADU does not comply with objective development standards that were established in the approval of this Parcel Map in 2010, in accordance with the CA Subdivision Map Act 66410. ADU Sec 65852.2 was approved on September 16, 2021, amending previous ADU legislation. Language was included to enable this type of development without burdensome process, including exemption to parking requirements, fire sprinklers, impact fees, HOA rules, etc. However, this recent legislation does not override or eliminate CA Subdivision Map Act 66410 conditions of approval for historical subdivisions. In this case, the Spevack Parcel Map was approved by City Resolution 10140 on January 5, 2010, long before any ADU legislation was enacted and/or even considered. The Conditions of Approval for this parcel map explicitly require that all future development is to be contained within the adopted building envelopes (footprints). The ADU is proposed outside of this envelope and cannot be approved. There are no legislative acts, legal citations or case law references that enable a proposed ADU to override a condition of a subdivision that was historically approved with conditions. V. Affordable Housing/Affordable Rental Testimony at the ARC hearing indicated that this project will provide much needed affordable housing opportunities. The City staff responded by noting that "this project is not providing deed restricted affordable housing development. Comments were made at the ARC that the City has a major city goal to .support housing development, including affordable housing." Comment: As testified by the Applicant, these proposed houses are to be rented. There no proposed deed restrictions regarding sale value, nor is there any proposal related to affordable future rent and/or lease. The Applicant has chosen an inexpensive house product that will, most assuredly, become a maximum profit student housing complex, and yet another peaceful San Luis Obispo residential neighborhood will be forever destroyed. 10 Page 146 of 332 VI.Recommendation to the Planning Commission: There is no justification to approve this project. Because the Applicant made a bad development decision and proceeded to have his design team prepare a bad design proposal attempting to fit a pre-fab horizontal box onto a very constrained site is no justification for approval. We, and all of our neighboring property owners, most of whom attended all of the exhausting hearings through the parcel map hearings in the 2009- 2010 approval of this Spevack parcel map, remember very well the assurances and commitments of future development on the lots of this parcel map. We expect the City to enforce the conditions of the Parcel Map that was approved in 2010 and enforce the thoughtful design and development documents that have been adopted and embraced by our community over the past many years. As the neighbors have stated multiple times in correspondence with the City, the conditions of approval for MS-78-09 provided Mr. Spevack with reasonable and g~nerous development opportunities and gave the neighborhood assurance that the qualify and character of their homes, their views, private yards, decks, patios and the value of their real estate would be respected and not adversely impacted. Please advise the applicant to resubmit with a project that more closely adheres to the development expectations and conditions that he has historically agreed to in the development of his property. Thank you for considering these comments in your review of this application . Sincerely, Appellants, as listed above 11 Page 147 of 332 ,,' " 1·1l \)·· EXHIBIT A .;. , , ,,,," I , ' , , , / 12 / / » ,. ,, ('\ .. . " ., .. __ J VICINITY MAP LEGEND ------~•™mi.:,-_______ ,....,.. -----,....,.., ....... , ------~~ ___ , ____ .... ~ ·---~-1t1,•--·-Ea'tMIAJllAIM ---------ilMIIIIIIC'll't ---M--/ ...... Olnl'UILATIIW. ,~lllM'ftdlit,oll. __ M_..,, __ """""""'"" ----~----"""'"""" ·----------· M6'111~ ---------~~ ___ .., __ ~KMftLNI ABBRE\IJATlONS z ::"' .. "" .. .. YI TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP . PM-SL0-09-007 4 IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION Of' LOT 1 Of' TRACT 1272 PER THE MAP I\ECOROED IN BOOK 13 OF MAPS AT PAGE a5 IN THE OFFIC~ OF THI COUNTY RECORDER 0 ~ SAN LUIS 081SPO COUITTY PfltPMtQ PP!t 9::AA/'5*ts ilt/fJNVM:K l11M)l4\o\U4 2A1DJOt1H"SOJ1AV!HUE IWf l\ttBO~IPO, CA. n&OI COHTACT PEMON:: JV'l"WMl'f!ft.PROJlCf~~ Page 148 of 332 EXHIBIT B / 13 I F I / I I I (·1 •• . , ) ·v Page 149 of 332 EXHIBIT c /' ';_., , ENT FORntE ' .. ~ BENEFIT OF ;, / ./ / (;:t,,) \ EASEM AND UTILITY \ \. PARC~ 2& X / / '"'~ .... \. l t\ '!:,, ~ ,,. // PROPOSED PRIVATI: ACC~ ANDUTIUTY FOR lli~~ENT OF PARCELS~ 14 .~ \ ,./ i£....L PAL~, ~. / Page 150 of 332 (', C RESOLUTION NO. 10140 (2010 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION, UPHOLDING APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION CREATING THREE LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2410 JOHNSON, MS 78-09 WHEREAS, the applicant, on August 5, 2009, submitted an application for a minor subdivision of a one-acre parcel into three conforming parcels in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer, at an administrative hearing held in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 18, 2009, approved the tentative parcel map creating three lots from one lot; and WHEREAS, Nancy Shokohi, Joseph & Barbara Boud, Maureen Eyermann, Kevin & Julie Elder, Steven & Paula Dooley, William & Barbara Herrerras, James & Marlene Killian, Chris & Alyssa Holland [appellants], filed a joint appeal of the Hearing Officer's action on September 28, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo at a public hearing held in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2009, denied the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision approving the tentative parcel map creating three lots from one lot; and WHEREAS, Appellants filed a joint appeal of the Planning Commission's action on November 9, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 5, 2010, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Planning Commission's action upholding the Hearing Officer's decision to allow a subdivision creating three lots on property located at 2410 Johnson (MS 78-09); and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, the records of the administrative hearing, the records of the Planning Commission hearing, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Denial of Appeal. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action denying an appeal and upholding the Hearing Officer's decision to allow a subdivision creating three lots on property located at 2410 Johnson is hereby denied based on the following findings: · 1. The design of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the area for low-density residential development and promotes infill development. R 10140 Page 151 of 332 :'1 Resolution No. 10140 (20IlrSeries) Page2 C· 2. The sites are physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone because the proposed parcels meet the minimum area, width and depth standards for lots with an average cross-slope of 16-20%. 3. The project is compatible with the neighborhood (LUE 2.2.10) because it intensifies development of a one-acre parcel in an area that has residential lots averaging 7,000 to 13,000 square feet, which were created by previous subdivisions. Furthermore, proposed Parcel One is bounded by houses on all sides that are built at the same or higher elevation contours. 4. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the sites do not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife, are surrounded by urban development and have already been developed with :one single-family dwelling and landscaping improvements. 5. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision since required easements will remain in place following the subdivision and will be applicable to the newly created parcels, and code requirements require the recordation of new easements and the relocation of utilities wherever necessary to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Department Director. 6. The tentative map is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions, Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines) because: no variances or exceptions are required; all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available; the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years; and the parcel does not have an average cross slope of greater than 20%. SECTION 2. Conditions and Code Requirements. The denial of the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, Application No. MS 78-09, is· subject to the following conditions and code requirements applicable to the subdivision approval: 1. The Community Development Director has designated Parcels One, Two and Three as "sensitive sites". This status ensures that future infill development will respect existing site constraints, privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, provide for adequate parking, and be compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood. An application for architectural review will be required for all three parcels in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.48.050. Development applications for Parcel One must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. 2. Applications submitted for architectural review on Parcel One shall include housing designed not to exceed a 406-foot elevation at the highest point of the roof, to preserve Page 152 of 332 i) Resolution No. 10140 (20HrSeries) Page3 pleasant views from and towards the property (LUE 2.2.12), and remain consistent in character with the neighborhood. 3. The building footprint shown on Parcel One shall be reduced in size so that eventual housing development of the parcel will be setback at least IO feet from the northeast property line. The driveway shall not be allowed within this required IO foot setback. 4. Future development of Parcels One & Three shall provide one (I) additional on-site guest parking space per lot, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. Grading and site disturbance on all parcels shall be limited to that required for providing access, utilities, and drainage improvements to these parcels until complete development plans are submitted for review. 6. Grading associated with development of new structures shall be minimized to the smallest practical area of land for development on each parcel. 7. Existing overhead utility lines serving the house on Parcel 2 shall be undergrounded. Undergrounding of all wire utilities serving this subdivision shall be achieved without a net increase in the number of utility poles unless specifically approved by the city and serving utility companies. 8. The existing driveway approaches shall be abandoned. New curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed per City Engineering Standards.· 9. The proposed northerly approach shall be installed per City Engineering Standard #2111. The subdivision improvement plan submittal shall include a line-of-sight analysis of pedestrians located on the public sidewalk and/or ADA sidewalk for exiting vehicles. I 0. The subdivision improvement plans and map shall show and honor the existing sump and berm area located at the northeast corner of proposed Parcel 2 that serves the upslope lots of Tract 1272. The final map shall include an additional drainage easement if the existing containment area and safe overflow for the storm drain system are not located within the existing easement area. Otherwise, the applicant shall demonstrate that the existing grading improvements are not necessary and shall propose a revised solution for the safe overflow. 11. It is highly recommended that a common driveway be provided to serve this development and the underdeveloped parcel to the north (2374 Johnson). The applicant shall exhaust all opportunity to provide and develop a common driveway with 2374 Johnson for the mutual benefit of both properties. Development costs shall not be considered as a reason to not pursue a common driveway unless it can be shown that the common improvements would be excessive in comparison to a driveway dedicated to serve the parcels within this subdivision. Page 153 of 332 (', Resolution No. 10140 (2010-Series) Page4 0 12. Within the City right-of-way sewer laterals proposed to serve Parcels 1 and Parcel 2 must be no less than 16" on center. 13. A CCTV inspection of the existing sewer lateral proposed to serve Parcel 3 shall be submitted to the Building Division during the building permit process. Code Requirements The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. I. Any required building permits for utility installations, relocations, or building alterations shall have all work completed and receive final inspection approvals to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 2. The Shared driveway and the fire truck tum-around shall be conspicuously posted ''NO PARKING -FIRE LANE eve 22500". 3. A separate exhibit showing all existing public and private utilities shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director prior to recordation of the map. The utility plan shall include water, sewer, storm drains, site drainage, gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV, water wells/springs, , and any utility company meters for each parcel if applicable. The relocation of any utility shall be completed with proper permits prior to recordation of the map. Utilities shall not cross proposed property lines unless located within suitable easements. Easements, ifproposed, shall be shown on the final map or shall be recorded concurrently to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director and serving utility companies. 4. Final lot line locations and building setbacks shall consider building allowable area analysis, exterior wall protection, projections, and the location of building service equipment in accordance with the uniform codes and to the satisfaction of the Building Division and Planning Division. Any necessary analysis and/or exhibits shall be submitted for review and shall be approved prior to recordation of the map. 5. Any building permits issued for work required to satisfy the conditions of the subdivision shall receive final inspection approvals or shall have substantially completed all work to the satisfaction ofthe Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 6. A separate building permit shall be obtained for the upgrade, alteration, and/or relocation of any on-site utilities or structures. Any required improvements shall have all work completed and final inspections approved to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. Page 154 of 332 ('·. Resolution No. 10140 (20Iu ::ieries) Page 5 0 7. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable. A private waterline easement shall be provided for the water services crossing Parcel 3 to serve Parcels I and 2. Public Right-of-Way 8. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to recordation of the map. 9. Additional public right-of-way or public pedestrian easements may be necessary to accommodate improvements required for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Site, Water, Sewer & Utilities 10. The proposed driveway shall be shown to comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for sloping driveways. I I. The improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed parking spaces to serve the existing developed Parcel 2 in accordance with the zoning regulations and the Parking and Driveway Standards. 12. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. A private sewer main may be proposed to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Utilities Engineer, and Public Works Director. 13. If proposed, an on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's/Property Owner's Association and shall be covered in the CC&R's or comparable maintenance agreement. 14. The existing water service shown to serve the proposed Parcel 3 shall be shown to comply with current city standards and be capable of providing adequate fire service to a new residence. Otherwise, the service shall be abandoned at the public main in favor of a new meter manifold designed to serve all three parcels. Grading & Drainage 15. The preliminary soils report prepared by Geosolutions, Inc with Report No SL06905-1, dated May 19, 2009 shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations. I 6. All elevations must be based on a City Bench Mark and noted per City datum elevations. The plans shall note the benchmark number, location and elevation. Include a clear Page 155 of 332 Resolution No. 10140 (2olJeries) Page6 0 description of the benchmark referenced on the plans. Clarify whether the NGVD 29 or NA VD 88 datum is being used. 17. The subdivision improvements and/or building plans shall include provisions to minimize the amount of any collected groundwater seepage that would be directed to the gutter at the public street in accordance with City Engineering Standard 1010.B. 18. Development of the proposed parcels shall comply with the erosion control provisions of the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. 19. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements/blanket easements, and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. 20. The subdivision improvement plans shall clarify where the existing drainage facilities are located and where they are discharged. Trees and Landscape Requirements 21. Street trees are required as a condition of subdivision. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage. 22. The subdivision improvement plans shall correctly show the size and location of all existing trees. Tree species, diameter, and accurate canopy depictions shall be shown and noted for reference. 23. 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. 24. The subdivision improvement plans shall provide clarification on the existing and proposed landscape and landscape irrigation improvements on the proposed undeveloped Parcel 3. Landscape irrigation shall be provided to the existing landscape if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. The landscape irrigation shall be separate from the remaining parcels. A new landscape irrigation meter may be required for this purpose. Water Impact fees will be required for any additional water meters. Flag lot Subdivision 25. The final map shall include any required easements required for the reasonable development of the affected properties. Easements may include but are not limited to grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle tum-around, and utilities. Page 156 of 332 Resolution No. 10140 (2010--Series) Page 7 0 Any maintenance agreements shall be completed and recorded before or concurrent with final map approval. 26. The proposed access easement for Parcel I, 2, and 3 shall comply with the City's parking and driveway standards for slopes and maneuverability. These standards require adequate area to allow vehicles to exit from all legal parking spaces and garages in a forward direction in not more than two maneuvers. Miscellaneous Requirements 27. The subdivision improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to final inspection approvals and/or recordation of the map. A completion guarantee shall be provided per city standards if the map is approved for recordation prior to completion of all required subdivision improvements. 28. The required public and private subdivision improvements may be completed with a separate subdivision/public improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works Department. As an alternate, the building plan submittal may be used to show all required improvements. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees. 29. A separate plan review fee payable to the Public Works Department may be required for the Public Works Department review of subdivision improvements associated with the building plan submittal. Said review fee shall be in accordance with the subdivision improvement plan review fee resolution in effect at the time of the building permit application submittal. 30. Subdivision improvement plans shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. The plans shall be approved prior to map recordation. Public improvements shall comply with the City Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications in effect at the time of submittal of the improvement plans. The current standards are dated January 2009. Mapping and Miscellaneous Requirements 31. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A computer disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 32. The parcel map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map shall use English Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards. All Page 157 of 332 ('. Resolution No. 10140 (201lrSeries) Page 8 C) record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis if applicable. Upon motion of Vice Mayor Carter, seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council Members Ashbaugh, Marx and Settle, Vice Mayor Carter and Mayor Romero None None The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of January 20 I 0. ~~ Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: EainaCano I City Clerk Page 158 of 332 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 2009 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Michael Draze, Eric Meyer, Aid in Singewald, Mary Whittlesey, Vice -Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: None Staff: Deputy Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry, Housing Programs Manager Michael Codron, Assistant Planner James David, Public Works Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Janet Miller ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as amended. 3. STAFF`. a. Agenda Forecast — Staff provided an agenda forecast for the November 12th Commission meeting and requested Commission direction on a date for the December meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they would be available on December 10th for a regularly -scheduled meeting rather than December 9th which conflicts with a City -sponsored function. MINUTES: Minutes of October 14, 2009, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 241.0 Johnson Avenue. AP -PC 78-09: Appeal of hearing officer's decision to allow a three -lot subdivision; R-1 zone; Joe Boud & Nancy Shokohi, appellants. James David) James David, project planner, provided a summary of the proposed three -lot subdivision project and the Hearing Officer's action. Mr. David summarized the appellants' points and provided staffs responses and recommended denial of the appeal. The Planning Commission had questions related to proposed building envelope, height, CC&Rs, designation of sensitive sites, and subsequent architectural review process, grading, and soils report information. James David, Tim Bochum, and Doug Davidson, the Hearing Officer, responded.. Page 159 of 332 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2009 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Abraham Laird, San Luis Obispo, was not present but provided the Commission with a letter supporting the project. Joe Boud, an appellant, provided testimony related to slope, building envelopes, setbacks, driveway and fire access, usability of proposed lot 1, neighborhood controversy, and grading issues. Jeff Wagner, representative for Spevak, spoke to the conformity of the proposed lots with ordinance standards and the additional conditions that were agreed to in an effort to address neighborhood concerns. Barbara Boud, Maureen Eyermann, Nancy Shokohi, and Scott Killian spoke against the project and urged the Commission to eliminate Parcel 1 or deny the project based on concerns of increased traffic, safety, views, decline in property values, and changes to neighborhood character. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Draze stated that he opposed the appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision. Mr. Draze felt the project was a legitimate division of land. Vice -Chair Multari requested clarification on the 25 -foot setback mentioned by the appellant. Staff replied that the setback applied to lot 10 of the original subdivision which has different terrain and views. Vice -Chair Multari clarified with staff that the applicant could develop two single-family homes on the site in addition to the existing house without discretionary review based on the lot size. Commr. Singewald requested clarification on the City's policy regarding private views and noted that privacy concerns are really for downhill neighbor (applicant's property), and he is in opposition to the appeal. Commr. Whittlesey requested clarification on slope and the building envelope reduction. Staff replied that the building envelope would be reduced and reviewed at the architectural review stage of the project. Chairperson Stevenson noted that the language in condition #3 is vague. Mr. Stevenson suggested the Commission provide a modification to the language. Commr. Whittlesey requested clarification on fire access. Commr. Whittlesey supported denying the appeal. Page 160 of 332 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2009 Page 3 Vice -Chair Multari suggested that more direction be provided for future development of the buildings. Mr. Multari suggested the garage on Parcel 1 be situated to minimize driveway length adjacent to the uphill neighbor. He also suggested establishing a specific height limit instead of restricting development on parcel 1 to "single -story." Commr. Multari felt an increased set back of 12 feet rather than 5 feet was reasonable. Vice -Chair Multari made a motion to deny the appeal but modify the conditions as follows: a setback of 12 feet would apply to the footprint of Parcel 1, the driveway shall be located outside the 12 -foot setback on Parcel 1, and the height of future housing on Parcel 1 should be no higher than an elevation of 406 feet at the highest point of the roof peak. There was not a move to second the motion. Mr. Wagner, EDA, provided further clarification on elevations for Parcel 1 for the Commission. Mr. Wagner noted that future architectural review would take care of concerns rather than having the Commission determine site design. Commr. Draze noted that he does not support an increased setback. Commr. Meyer noted that the project was a delicate balance as both sides had valid points. Commr. Meyer did not support Vice -Chair Multari's motion with conditions. He suggested a 10 -foot setback instead of 12 feet. Commr. Singewald noted privacy concerns of Parcel 1 where adjacent residents could overlook the yard. Mr. Singewald did not support the setback proposed. Commr. Boswell supported the condition modifications as they clarified the intent of the project approval. Vice -Chair Multari supported a 10 -foot setback on Parcel 1; prohibiting the driveway in the 10 -foot setback area; and a specified height for the building. Chairperson Stevenson noted the constrained area of the site with an irregular shape for building. Mr. Stevenson. suggested a condition requiring Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review and noted he supported a 12 -foot setback. Vice -Chair Multari did not support a condition for ARC review. Staff re -read the motion language as it was being proposed. There were no further comments made from the Commission. as follows: Page 161 of 332 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2009 Page 4 1. Applications submitted for architectural review on Parcel 1 shall include housing designed not to exceed a 406 -foot elevation at the highest point of the roof, to preserve pleasant views from and toward the property (LUE 2.2.12), and remain consistent in character with the neighborhood. 2. The building footprint shown on Parcel 1 shall be reduced in size so that eventual housing development of the parcel will be setback at least 10 feet from the northeast property line. The driveway shall not be allowed within this required 10 -foot setback. AYES: Commrs. Singewald, Boswell, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Draze and Whittlesey RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 5`.2 vote. The Commission took a 10 -minute break from 8:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 2. Orcutt Area. GP/SP/ER 209-98: Review of Chapter 8, Public Facilities Financing, of the Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan; Barbara Parsons, applicant (Michael Codron) Commr. Singewald recused himself from item #2 due to a potential conflict of interest. Commr. Boswell recused himself from item #2 due to a potential conflict of interest. Michael Codron, Housing Programs Manager, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission direct staff to take the following actions: 1. Incorporate the Public Facilities Financing into Chapter 8 of the Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan, including any changes directed by the Commission; and 2. Prepare a resolution recommending City Council approval of the Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project; and 3. Prepare a resolution recommending City Council approval of pre -zoning and annexation of the Orcutt Area, consistent with the land uses identified in the Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Mr. Codron also noted that additional information was being developed regarding park land costs and park improvement costs, which would be forwarded to the Commission to consider during their next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mike Cannon, applicant representative, noted that every dollar included in an impact fee deters the property owner's ability to develop and add needed housing to the City's housing inventory. Mr. Cannon also noted that the proposed bicycle bridge was Page 162 of 332 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2009 Page 5 unwanted because it was visually unappealing and unsafe. Mr. Cannon also requested the Commission reduce the. Orcutt Area's share of the Orcutt Road widening project. Jim Smith, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Smith opposed the bridge and supported its elimination from the project. Phil Gray, San Luis Obispo, .spoke in support of the project. Mr. Gray opposed the bridge because of cost and potential safety issues. Patti Taylor, San Luis Obispo, said that she does not support the project as it is currently proposed and has concerns about costs. Ms. Taylor discussed home site designation for her property and submitted a letter to the Commission for the record. Jeanne Helphenstine, San Luis Obispo, disagrees with the approved minutes of the June 25, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Helphenstine did not feel the project was able to proceed as presented at that time. She said that she does not support the bicycle bridge. Ms. Helphenstine noted that if the overpass was to move forward, the percentage of the cost allocated to the Orcutt Area should be reduced. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice -Chair Multari requested clarification on the costs for the participants and those that would opt out of the process. Staff provided clarification on non -applicant and applicant costs and clarified City policy, which is that property owners will not be subject to any fees or development costs until they move forward with a development project on their property. Staff discussed how the fee program distributes infrastructure costs to future development on a per-unit basis.. Commr. Draze requested clarification on the timeline for the Commission to revisit the Rem. Staff noted that the item could return at the December meeting. Commr. Meyer requested clarification on the progress if owners pull out as mentioned in Ms. Taylor's letter. Chairperson Stevenson questioned the funding allocation for the bridge and the Orcutt Road widening project. Staff replied that the traffic study prepared ,for the EIR for the Tumbling Waters project determined the fair -share allocation for the cost of the Orcutt Road widening project, which is based on vehicle trips from the various projects that are contributing to the cost of the facility. Vice -Chair Multari supported the project moving forward and meeting in December. Mr. Multari questioned if the EIR had been approved and noted concern for the bicycle bridge. Staff noted that the EIR was still in the approval process.. Commr. Meyer noted concern for the bridge and its connectivity to the areas, especially since the school site will.not be where it was previously proposed. Page 163 of 332 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2069 Page 6 Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works, discussed the need for the bridge in the context of connectivity to other bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the City, such as in the Margarita Area. Mr. Bochum noted the Bicycle Committee's input into the project. He also noted that the Orcutt Area is responsible for 100% of the cost because the bridge would not be needed if it were not for proposed Orcutt Area development. Orcutt Area development, however, is not responsible for paying for bicycle facilities located in other parts of town that they will use. Commr. Meyer questioned if the financing for the project could come through assessments rather than up front: Staff replied that any type of assessment would have to be approved by the property owners. The property owners are strongly opposed to the concept of using land -secured financing prior to such time that they decide to pursue a development project, which will be different for everyone. Commr. Whittlesey asked a question regarding the potential for escalating costs and timetable to build. Staff replied that the fee program normally includes an annual adjustment based on the Consumer. Price Index. Commr. Whittlesey requested clarification on pre -annexation agreements. Staff noted that the pre -annexation agreement is a tool to acknowledge existing conditions on a property and clarify how City standards and policies will apply to that property after annexation. Commr. Draze questioned bridge location alternatives and asked if there may be another location where an underpass would be feasible. Staff responded that the required approval from Union Pacific Railroad for an underpass would be difficult to achieve. Mr. Codron read and referenced information provided in Ms. Taylors letter. There were no further comments made from the Commission. improvements. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Meyer, Whittlesey, Multari and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: Commrs. Singewald and Boswell ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Commission: There were no Commission comments and discussion. Page 164 of 332 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2009 Page 7 ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, - Janet Miller Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on _November 12, 2009 P"t', Ryan qBetz Supe i ing Administrativ A istant U Page 165 of 332 Page 166 of 332 council i iv agenda RepoRt N CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: James David, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION UPHOLDING THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION TO ALLOW A SUBDIVISION CREATING THREE CONFORMING LOTS FROM ONE (MS 78-09). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action to allow a subdivision creating three conforming lots from one in the Low-density residential zone (R-1), subject to conditions. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The property owners of 2410 Johnson Avenue received approval from the Subdivision Hearing Officer of a tentative parcel map to subdivide their 42,850 square foot R-1 lot into three conforming lots. The approval was appealed to the Planning Commission by neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission denied the appeal and approved the project, based on findings of consistency with the General Plan and Subdivision Regulations. The neighbors appealed this decision again, motivated by concerns over viewshed, property values, slope and potential fire hazards. Staff recommends the Council support the subdivision, subject to conditions governing future development that require height limits, architectural review and an increased building setback to ensure neighborhood compatibility. DISCUSSION Site Description The subject property is located on the north side of Johnson Avenue between Ella Street and Sydney Street (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). The lot contains one residential dwelling, situated in the center of the lot. The subject lot is part of Tract 1272 which created 14 lots, three fronting Johnson Avenue and 11 clustered around Corona Court to the north, in 1985 (Attachment 2, Tract 1272 Map). The project site is just shy of an acre with one residential dwelling and landscape improvements. The dwelling has no covered parking spaces. The existing crescent-shaped driveway is steep coming off Johnson Avenue and then levels out as it climbs to the house. There are two curb cuts on Johnson Avenue. The subject property's average cross-slope is 15 to 17 percent and is surrounded by low-density residential (R-1) development. There are many ornamental shrubs and trees throughout the site. The property owner has an above-ground pool adjacent to the home, as well as a gazebo, pond, and play equipment in the rear yard. Page 167 of 332 1 Council Agenda Report—MS 78-09 January 5,2010 Page 2 Project Description The flag lot subdivision creates one lot between the existing house and Johnson Avenue, one lot containing the house, and a third lot behind the house (Attachment 3, Tentative Parcel Map). The applicant is not proposing any new site development with the subdivision entitlement at this time. The existing driveway will be removed and curb cuts abandoned. A new driveway is proposed along the northern edge to serve all three parcels. The access way I will be owned in fee by the parcel j furthest from the street, Parcel One, with an access easement over Parcels Two mffni L and Three. Guest parking spaces will be j provided for all three proposed parcels p, in accordance with deep lot subdivision requirements. A fire truck turnaround is included on Parcel Three to serve all three parcels. As proposed, the subdivision meets all standards of the n t City's Subdivision and Zoning Regulations and does not require any exceptions. View of proposed building envelope on Parcel On- e Previous Review The property owners of 2410 Johnson applied for a minor subdivision (creation of three lots) on August 5, 2009. According to the City's Subdivision Regulations, a subdivision map proposal creating four or fewer lots is reviewed by the Hearing Officer at a public hearing. On September 18, 2009, the Hearing Officer conducted a hearing and approved the tentative map based on findings of consistency with the Subdivision Regulations and the General Plan. The Hearing Officer heard testimony from the applicant's representative and concerned neighbors. Primary opposition was from northern neighbors concerned about eventual development of Parcel One at the rear of the subject property. Neighbors raised issues about impacts to views and property values, fire hazards and development of a sloping site. The Hearing Officer acknowledged these concerns and included conditions of approval to mitigate aesthetic impacts of eventual site development. These conditions included limiting future development to single-story structures, reducing the size of the building envelope on Parcel One, and designating sites "sensitive" thereby requiring architectural review. An appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision was heard at the Planning Commission on October 28, 2009. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to deny the appeal based on findings that the proposed subdivision complied with the Subdivision Regulations and the General Plan, and is subject to more restrictive conditions. Two "No"votes were cast because two Commissioners did not agree that imposing conditions on the new lots that were more restrictive than the surrounding lots was necessary. These two Commissioners otherwise did not support the appeal. PK t-a Page 168 of 332 Council Agenda Report—MS 78-09 January 5,2010 Page 3 Based on Planning Commission deliberations, the desire to deny the appeal and thereby allow the subdivision was unanimous. The majority vote of the Planning Commission modified the conditions of approval in response to appellant concerns. The condition limiting future development on Parcel One to single-story was clarified by setting the 406-foot elevation contour as the absolute height limit. This would allow a roof peak height from grade of approximately 16 feet. Given the grade is higher on neighboring parcels to the rear, the Planning Commission felt this height limit would adequately address appellant concerns about viewshed preservation. The Planning Commission also strengthened the condition about reducing the size of the building envelope by requiring any future building footprint to be setback ten feet from the rear property line of Parcel One, which is five feet more than what is shown on plans. A ten-foot setback is twice what is normally required for a single-story residence. Staffs Response to Appeal Issues The following is an abbreviated list of the appellants' concerns followed by staff's evaluation: 1. The proposed building envelope for Parcel I contains significant areas of steep slope. Response: The average cross-slope of Parcel One is 17.2 percent. The area of Parcel One 12,895 sq. ft.) is sufficiently large to support a single-family residence, per Zoning Regulations density standards (minimum 10,890 sq. ft. based on slope category). As conditioned, the slope of the driveway meets City engineering standards. There is adequate area for development of an average-sized house (2700 square feet) on the eastern portion of Parcel One where average slope is less severe (about 13 percent). The delineated building envelope is overly large and encompasses steep areas less suitable for development. The Planning Commission has required that the final map indicate a precise building footprint that is setback at least ten feet from the northeast property line to mitigate privacy impacts to surrounding neighbors. Parcel One has been designated a "sensitive site" making the parcel subject to architectural review, and future development will be limited to single-story. Architectural review will ensure that grading is minimized and development of the land generally follows the natural terrain contour(Community Design Guidelines 5.2). 2. The setback should be 25 feet to respect neighborhood privacy and views Response: In the R-1 zone, the minimum required other (side/rear) yard is five feet for a point that is 12 feet high on the roof of a building (MC 17.16.020). The Planning Commission has doubled this required setback to ten feet to mitigate potential privacy impacts. Requiring a 25-foot setback from the rear property line would push the building footprint of a single-family house down the slope resulting in more severe grading, cut slopes, and would force removal of the existing oak tree. This is inconsistent with Community Design Guidelines(CDG 2.1) and Subdivision Regulations (MC 16.18.130). P/4 1,5 Page 169 of 332 Council Agenda Report—MS 78-09 January 5,2010 Page 4 The appellant relies on correspondence from the Community Development Director, dated 1986, to substantiate need for a 25-foot setback. These letters discuss setback requirements for 1650 Corona Court, which is subject to specific Tract 1272 conditions governing lots 5 through 10. 2410 Johnson is lot 1, and on the opposite side of the Tract. There is no nexus for requiring a 25-foot setback based on this information. 3. Once a parcel is legally created it has the ability and perception to be developed Response: The applicant could build two additional single-family residences on his one-acre lot without a subdivision entitlement. The zoning for the site is R-1, and according to the Zoning Regulations, multiple dwellings are allowed in the R-1 zone subject to administrative use permit approval and density standards (MC 17.22). 4. The Planning Commission's height limit not to exceed a 406foot elevation at the highest point of the roof was based on arbitrary assumptions and pure guesswork. Response: The Planning Commission duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at the hearing, in making its decision. The primary purpose of the hearing was to decide whether a subdivision of a one-acre parcel into three lots complies with City policies. Based on Planning Commission deliberations, the Commissioners were unanimous in affirming that the proposed subdivision is acceptable. The Commission also agreed with the Hearing Officer's decision to condition the height of future development, in order to preserve views from and towards the property and remain consistent in character with the neighborhood. The Commissioners felt "single-story" was vague, and decided to assign a quantifiable limit to allowable building height on Parcel One only. It can be ascertained from the applicant's proposed map and the appellant's survey work that the 390-foot contour bisects a feasible one-story building envelope for a structure on Parcel One. The Commission therefore set a roof peak of 16 feet from grade, and resolved to limit height on Parcel One to the 406-foot elevation contour. It is important to note that this application is for a subdivision entitlement, and recommended conditions require architectural review to ensure that potential compatibility concerns such as privacy, overlook, visual impacts and neighborhood character are addressed at the time of property development. Architectural review is a public process that requires noticing the neighbors, posting a sign at the subject property and advertising in the local newspaper. Plans for any project submitted to the City are always available for review at the Community Development Department. Neighborhood input is a welcome influence on architectural approvals. 5. A Preliminary Grading & Vegetation Removal Plan should be prepared now that will likely require CEQA. Response: A preliminary soils report prepared by Geosolutions, Inc., dated May 19, 2009, was submitted with the original subdivision application. The parcel map includes proposed Page 170 of 332 Council Agenda Report—MS 78-09 January 5,2010 Page 5 grading activities. The Public Works Department reviewed the map and supports the application as conditioned, finding that proposed grading activities comply with City Engineering Standards. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed parcel map is categorically exempt (CEQA Guidelines Class 15; Section 15315) because: no variances or exceptions are required; all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available the parcel was not involved is a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years the parcel does not have an average cross slope of greater than 20%; and no rare, threatened or endangered species are affected. 6. A fire truck turnaround in the middle of this subdivision is an inappropriate fire protection solution. Response: The Fire Marshal has visited the site, reviewed the tentative map and supports the project. The applicant has proposed a 20-foot wide driveway leading up to a fire truck turnaround, which is an improvement over existing fire prevention access. According to the Fire Marshal, this 20-foot unobstructed access is adequate for fire apparatus maneuverability on the private driveway. With the provision of a fire truck turnaround at rear of Parcel Three, fire trucks will be able to pull a 300-foot hose to the farthest back corner of Parcel One. When Parcel One (sensitive site) is developed it will require architectural review and the Fire Marshal will require sprinklers for new construction. Code requirements have been included in the draft resolution that require the shared driveway and fire truck turnaround is conspicuously posted "NO PARKING—FIRE LANE CVC 22500". If at anytime these areas are blocked, the offending party will receive a City-issued citation. The Public Works Department has reviewed the tentative map and supports the project. Conditions and code requirements are included in the draft resolution to ensure that driveway improvements, grading and drainage comply with City standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Fire Marshal and Building Official. 7. The character of this project and this site is different from other flag lots in the vicinity. Response: The subject property is the last remaining one-acre parcel in the neighborhood. Flag lot subdivisions have occurred on adjacent properties at 2330 Johnson and 2417 Flora. 2330 Johnson is improved with a single-family residence constructed at a slightly higher elevation contour with a ten-foot setback from the rear property line. 2417 Flora is a 50,000 square-foot parcel that was divided into four lots, creating more intense infill development than what has been proposed at the subject property. The average lot size in the neighborhood is 7,000 to 13,000 square feet including the lots in adjacent Tract 1272. The subdivision request is for three lots over 12,000 square feet each, which is compatible with the neighborhood. P/4 (-5 Page 171 of 332 Council Agenda Report—MS 78-09 January 5,2010 Page 6 8. Development of Parcel One is not supported by eight neighbors, motivated by concerns about privacy, views and neighboring property values. Response: While many of the City's policies and standards that regulate property development are based in part on preserving land values, guaranteeing one private property owner's views over another person's does not trump the other property owner's right to equal use and enjoyment of his/her property. The City's development policies and regulations seek to preserve and maximize both property owners' enjoyment of their properties.. Conservation and Open Space Element (LOSE) Policy 9.2.2 states that private development designs should cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to be met. Conditions included from the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission in the draft resolution designating all parcels sensitive sites, restricting building height, and increasing the setback for Parcel One's building footprint, successfully respond to neighborhood concerns while allowing the applicants to subdivide their property for infill development. The General Plan contains numerous policies encouraging infill development, including: 1. HE 3.12.9 — Balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as much on infill development and densification within City limits as on annexation of new residential land.. 2. LUE Community Goal #31 — Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. 3. COSE 4.4.3 —Compact, high-density housing to achieve more efficient use of public facilities, services, and land resources. 4. COSE 1.6.2 — Community size should be designed that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 5. COSE 1.6.13 —The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. Staffs Response to Additional Letter of Appeal (Bond) Letters were submitted to the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission from neighbors in support and opposition to the project. These letters were addressed in previous staff reports Attachment 6, Planning Commission Staff Report) and hearings. A new appeal letter was submitted to the Council (Attachment 5, Boud Appeal Letter) that relies on historical reasons and City policy interpretations to argue that the subdivision should be denied. The following is staff's response that demonstrates project compliance with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and Subdivision Regulations: 1. General Plan Conformance The project site is designated as Low Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and located within an existing subdivision. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to residential project objectives LUE 2.2.12) and infill development. Each parcel provides security and safety, adequate usable outdoor area, adequate parking and storage space. Furthermore, proposed Parcel One is.bounded by houses on all sides that are built at the same or higher elevation contours. plql_b Page 172 of 332 Council Agenda Report—MS 78-09 January 5,2010 Page 7 Conditions of approval limit the height of eventual housing development to keep pleasant views from and toward the project (LUE 2.2.12). The project is compatible with the neighborhood (LUE 2.2.10) because it intensifies development of a one-acre parcel in an area that has residential lots averaging 7,000 to 13,000 square feet, which were created by previous subdivisions, some dating back to 1978. The subdivision of Tract 1272 created a deep flag lot immediately adjacent to proposed Parcel One, and a recent four-lot subdivision was approved in the vicinity at 2417 Flora. General Plan policies noted in the opposition letter (Attachment 5) govern compatible development in existing neighborhoods. All proposed parcels are subject to architectural review, which will ensure that any future development is in scale, respects privacy, and provides neighborhood cohesion. 2. Consistency with Community Design Guidelines Section 1.4 of the Guidelines state, "The primary goals of the City's design review process are to: maintain the community's quality of life for residents, maintain property values, attract growth in the local economy, and preserve the natural beauty and visual character." The City Guidelines are implemented in a way to serve both property owners in a manner consistent with other polices and standards. In this case, design standards are implemented in the context of density and subdivision standards. As conditioned, all proposed parcels are subject to architectural review, thereby ensuring future development will respect these stated goals. Design review also implements infill development guidelines that are "intended to provide for infill projects of high architectural quality that are compatible with existing development" CDG 5.3). Building design, visual impacts from building height, outdoor living areas, exterior finish materials and exterior colors will all be evaluated upon development of the proposed parcels. The appeal letter calls attention to Community Design Guidelines governing hillside development (Attachment 5). This section of the Guidelines is intended to implement hillside development policies in Land Use Element Section 6.2.2" (CDG 7.2A). The General Plan identifies specific hillside planning areas in Land Use Element Figure 6. The LUE policies strive to preserve the steep, open hillsides that "function as landscape backdrops for the community." The subject property is not an open and visible hillside, but instead is developed with a single-family residence and completely surrounded by urban development. Furthermore, Section 7.2 of the Community Design Guidelines states, "no parcel shall be created with an overall average slope of 30 percent or more, and without at least one building site of at least 5,000 square feet that has no natural slope of 10 percent or more". The proposed subdivision is consistent with this guideline since the largest average cross-slope on a parcel is no more than 17.2 percent, which is well below the 30 percent threshold. 3. Compliance with Subdivision Regulations Flag lots may be approved for subdividing deep lots where development would not be P/q - 7- Page 173 of 332 Council Agenda Report—MS 78-09 January 5,2010 Page 8 feasible with the installation of a standard street. The proposed subdivision conforms to the following subdivision regulations: Figure 1: Comparison of proposed lots and R-1 zoning district standards Minimum Parcell Parcel Parcel Lot Dimension Avg. slope= Avg. slope= Avg. slope=Requirements 17.2% 4.9% 15.7% Net area(square feet) Avg. cross-slope 0-15% 6,000 n/a 12,370 n/a Net area (square feet) Avg. cross-sloe 16-20%* 1 10,890 12,895 1 n/a 12,185 Width feet 50 64 101 124 Depth feet 90 200 128 98 Frontage(feet)20 26 124 26 Residential lots sloped 16% or greater must be increased in size to meet minimum density requirements to allow at least one density unit per lot in accordance with Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16.010. Parcels One and Three slope an average of approximately 15 to 17 percent, but both parcels are sufficiently large to satisfy Zoning Regulations density requirements. Conditions included in the draft resolution (Attachment 7, Draft Council Resolution) require that grading is minimized to the smallest practical area of land for development on each parcel. The project abandons two existing curb cuts to create one accessway to serve all three parcels. This brings the site further into conformance with Parking and Driveway Standards. CONCLUSION The Hearing Officer and Planning Commission supported the project because it complies with the Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Regulations, General Plan and Community Design Guidelines. Conditions imposed by the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission require height limits, architectural review and increased setbacks for future development abutting Corona Court neighbors to recognize the expressed concerns about neighborhood compatibility. The entitlement follows the traditional neighborhood pattern of subdivisions creating larger than average R-1 parcels. The tentative map has been supported by all relevant departments and conditions and code requirements included in the draft resolution will ensure that the final map meets all applicable City ordinances and codes. CONCURRENCES The application has been reviewed by multiple City departments, including Public Works, Fire, Community Development, Transportation and Utilities. As conditioned, the project does not require any exceptions from City policies or codes. Page 174 of 332 Council Agenda Report—MS 78-09 January 5,2010 Page 9 FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. This project will have no fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may uphold the appeal and deny the tentative parcel map, provided that the Council can make the required findings. 2. The Council may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellant. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Tract 1272 Map Attachment 3: Tentative Map Attachment 4: Appeal documentation Attachment 5: Boud Appeal Letter Attachment 6: Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 7: Draft Council Resolution T:\Council Aaenda Reports\Community Development CAR\2009\MS 78-09 rpt(appeal)doc Page 175 of 332 kOdR, S t'; y A A "+.."Y 1p lv l'-;,FrN d 1-J: fH r” a:.. ,r (9v1--.,_•tid G.;S y*/f'"' l F' y. r r.iti ' . r ng, c y a Rd A f t y ' d r '"'rj l V . File No. 78-0.0 1r Page 176 of 332 Attachme dFOr r.' . tom! _ 1 y} r...,=.«=1 n• `yi O I'I W r p b ppa vj k Q R T O t• A ti Oh I I 7,y © I dN'°. 0315.•••' v. 18 \ t VI o~ o I pRt1/6 ^c lir ,T<y Y ••_ 7i i I:". 4rCrr VfY'l i CO_N 'G99t'. !f• ,! C!' L O yI I , tV I V v lj. tom j4 A h,R Y C O` i , 1 I 111 G 14 I 4 10° IN4 L 1y5uy N. j4' fII IA.Wd7Y Ygr.T2V//w'GK,•.N x Q 3 p : g ooco J0,110 214 vi OIJOWOF 1w 7v C1!/r///){Y!A'rrl.'OIVO/G a3311iG•--'/i! Ir I 1 14, 3 t i 4' Y, 3o V 2 Q W a ry b n - Page 177 of 332 i R,rt JLUL) gAIRRseIIIIII I i LuQ 9 °P-1I " cliljl ' I QJ 00 Lu zN of 1 r ti i C' W Y',%,±,,•,,gY4y3fp; L i V_ moi. , c•. ( i a 9€ 16 E g __.._! td Y i Cr e Page 178 of 332 Attachment 4 Filing Fee: $260. 002 Paid I OF SAR)IL29 i og-1 0 NIA NOV 0 9 2009 face san lues oBispo REFERT05ECT10N4 MUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION MANCN Sf/flf oy/ e al s gfrA A59 COAaW 0; 51.0 931`el Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Phone Fax fA Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: PI WAIUVO C&W le5ioH Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 101*0g 3. a application or projecf was entitled: M_5 1 -09 SLp. 04.OPjf-- 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: N— on Staff Member's Name and Department) Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of'a^previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: ES• /D 9 r PL7 W Nb(/U/IM/U7Y SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. .Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 NOV 0 91009 SLO CITY CLARK Page 179 of 332 Attachment 4 Reason for Appeal continued 5 A?t9cHDD . SECTION 4 APPELLANTS RESPONSIBIUTY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local govemment'and encourages all.fa ms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated.with City Council,consideration.of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a, planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of S256%which must accompany the appeal-form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes,with certain responsibilities..,,if you fife an appeal, please.undeTstand:that it must be heard within 45.days from filirag'this form. You will be,. notified in-writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your, representative will be exsected to attend the public hearing, and,to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request.in:writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that-if your request forcontinuance is received after the-appeal is noticed to the public, the Council-may not be able to grant the.request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted,.that action is.at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said ap I is schedul d for a public hearing before the City Council, Signa9fte ol Appellant) ate) Exceptions to a fee: 1)Appeals of Tme.Committee decisions are-$100. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$250 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This Rem is hereby calendared foi" 1 fA.( Jay AAAJ i OZ O i 0 cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head MAW.peVI Advisory Body Chairperson CRUC.tc_5Tii/cliso.0 Advisory Body Liaison KIM (titu.njLq Dgmiso Dp(vi DSc,) City Clerk(orl iinal) ZTLVri1 FS 1 spiv 1D Page 2 of 3 a/09 PN1 -14Page 180 of 332 Attachment 4 TIAL -Is Page 181 of 332 A ,a1 o C"v CpUntll APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL a Date: November 9, 2009 C01 To:To: City Council City of San Luis Obispo Appellants: Nancy Shokohi, Owner- Lot 3, Tract 1272 Maureen Eyermann, Owner- Lot 2, Tract 1272 Kevin & Julie Elder, Residents - Lot 2, Tract1272 Joseph & Barbara Boud,.Owners- Lot 12, Tract 1272 Steven & Paula Dooley, Owners- Lot 13, Tract 1272 William & Barbara Herrerras, Owners- Lot 4, Tract 1272 James & Marlene Killian, Owners - Lot 5, Tract 1272 Chris &Alyssa Holland, Owners 2448 Johnson Applicant: Jeff& Susan Spevack 2410 Johnson Avenue Subject: MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 On 9/18/09 the above referenced three-lot subdivision was approved by the Community Development Department at an Administrative Hearing. It was appealed to the City's Planning Commission who, on 10/28/09, also approved the project with modified conditions. The Appellants continue to believe that this project is inappropriate and will result in--significant-_and--unavoidable-negative--impacts--to-their--properties-and-their--- neighborhood. andtheir--- neighborhood. The Appellants do not believe that the modified conditions imposed by the Planning Commission provide adequate protections and mitigation of impacts that fully address their concerns. The grounds for Appeal are enumerated in Attachment 1, the Planning Commission Appeal package, and should be considered in concert with the minutes and testimony at the Planning Commission meeting along with the following comments. Principal concerns continue to center around Slope and Useable Building Envelope, Grading & Vegetation Removal, Building Height & Setbacks, Visual Impacts, Driveway Access & Grades, Fire Access and Neighborhood Compatibility. These subjects are discussed in greater detail below and illustrated in the accompanying Exhibits A and B. SLOPE / BUILDING ENVELOPE Slope calculations and site sections are described in Attachment 1 and its related Exhibits. Expanded comments are as follows: P Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 1 Page 182 of 332 Attachment 4 The Appellants do 'not dispute that Parcel 1 may have an average cross slope within the gross lot area of 17.2%, however an examination of the delineated building envelope results in a more accurate depiction of the useable building area. Building Envelope w/10' rear setback = 6,213 sf Building Envelope less drive, guest parking & garage = 5,213 sf Building Envelope less areas of>25%slope = 2,863 sf useable area The building envelope includes the building footprint, patios, walks, retaining walls and circulation elements. In Parcel 1, the steep slope areas (at least 2,350 sf) occupy most of the center area of the envelope, forcing a future building onto the least slope impacted area of the envelope, the easterly area, which coincidently, is the most intrusive and impacting to the neighboring lots. Using the Appellant preferred 25' setback, which was required by the City elsewhere in the underlying subdivision (see Attachment 1, Exhibit 3) results in the following: Building Envelope w/25' rear setback = 4,348 sf Building Envelope less drive, guest parking & garage = 3,348 sf Building Envelope less areas of >25% slope = 998 sf useable area The above scenario illustrates the severely constrained useable site area, essentially rendering Parcel 1 as a non-building site, if reasonable and historically consistent 25' setback restrictions are imposed to protect the integrity of the existing neighborhood.. A 25' setback reflects the setback applied to the abutting Flora Street lots for Tract 1272 lot development and this same requirement should be applied here. It is the Appellant's position that pushing a futurestrut ure onto an area of a parcel-th—af-creat-e-s--Ihe greatestimpact to neighboring parcels produces an unavoidable, unmitigatable negative impact. Contrary to the Applicant's representative testimony at the Planning Commission,this is not a case of a "Not In My Backyard" attitude by the neighbors. The grounds for Appeal are factual, not emotional. This Parcel 1 area has never been a candidate for development because: (1) Dr. & Mrs. Gelinas (original and previous owners) wanted maximum privacy for their backyard area. They emphasized this fact in participating in the development of Tract 1272 and requiring that the Lots 2 & 3 houses were sited as close as possible to Corona Court; and, (2) it has always been widely recognized by all as being far too constrained to support any development. Once a parcel is legally created it has the ability and perception to be developed, whether by the present owner or a subsequent owner. City approval of a parcel that has no and/or marginal future development opportunity could potentially expose the City to be found liable for a denial of.property rights. The City should Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 2 I Page 183 of 332 i Attachment 4 i certainly exercise an abundance of caution in approving such a severely constrained properties. HEIGHT I VISUAL IMPACTS The Planning Commission established a maximum building height not to exceed elevation 406', however an examination of the testimony at Planning Commission reveal that the assumptions related to neighboring lot residences finish floor elevations (FFL) were arbitrary and pure guesswork. The comments at the Planning Commission meeting make it clear that the Commissioners struggled with the height conditions due to that fact. With today's technology it is bewildering that an accurate Visual Simulation model was not provided. Failing the absence of such a model, the Appellants conducted recent survey and dimensioned site plan work that is depicted in Exhibit A of this Appeal The site and section information in Exhibit A and Photos in Exhibit B represent the correct conditions and elevations and should be considered along with previously submitted Visual Impact information in Attachment.1, Exhibit 4. If this subdivision is approved with three lots, including Parcel 1 as configured, the Appellants insist that any future development building height is limited to the 398' elevation to protect and maintain views and privacy from the neighboring properties. As an aside, privacy is not limited to view overlook as suggested by one of the Planning Commissioners. Privacy includes noise, activity, pets, vehicles, presence, etc., all of which have an effect on the ambient qualities of a neighborhood. Further, if this project is approved as three lots, it is recommended that the Architectural Review Commission must review any future development on Parcel 1 in a public hearing. GRADING /DRIVE /VEGETATION IMPACTS Testimony given at the Planning Commission meeting repeatedly stated that issues related to grading, earthwork quantities, retaining wall structures, vegetation removal and access would be worked out later. The Appellants disagree. A Preliminary Grading & Vegetation Removal Plan should be prepared now, before subdivision approval, and will very likely require a CEQA Initial Study analysis to understand earthwork and vegetation impacts with either a Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or an Environmental Impact Report required. FIRE ACCESS / HAZARD A Fire Truck turnaround in the middle of this subdivision, requiring fire responders to drag their equipment up a 20% slope for a distance of over 250' to access a structural and/or wildland fire before it engulfs Parcel 1 improvements and threatens neighboring lots is the proposed fire protection solution. However, Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 3 Page 184 of 332 Attachment 4 J this scenario is pure fantasy, especially when considering the functional reality of the turnaround area. It is tortured logic to believe that a red painted curb and signage will deter the drive and/or turnaround from being occupied by vehicles, toys, and the like, even if posted with signs threatening a City citation if they are blocked. If blocked or occupied, no fire truck operator would dare jeopardize their equipment and apparatus by entering a site that has no escape, making a successful response and suppression to Parcel 1 even more remote. And, from an aesthetic viewpoint, .such a turn around, smack-dab in the front yard of the existing residence, is a purely industrial design solution that is completely inappropriate in this residential neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD LOTTING CHARACTER Continual reference to this flag lot subdivision being similar to others in the neighborhood is misleading. The character of this project and this site is vastly different from other flag lots in the vicinity. The flag lot subdivision to the south was developed by Roy Newell in 1978 and had, and still has, vacant land upslope with no visual impact issues. The flag lot subdivision directly east of Newell's, by Spencer Bunya in 2007, is well down slope and setback from the existing residences along Flora Street, so no visual impacts are possible in that case. And, flag Lot #13 of Tract 1272, which was developed and sold by Appellants Joseph & Barbara Boud who, as members of the self-imposed Tract 1272 ARC, approved the subsequent house design after requiring setback modifications to protect viewsheds from their Lot#12. SUMMARY S RECOMMENDATIONS Opposition by eight concerned neighboring lot owners and residents to this project cannot be understated. These property owners have invested a lifetime of personal resources and energy to create and establish a quality neighborhood and residential environment for themselves and future owners. The Appellants feel that the Applicant has more than ample opportunity to gain reasonable financial benefit in developing their property with a project that does not severely impact the abutting properties safety, views, values, privacy and neighborhood. Frankly, the Appellants are puzzled why the City is so willing to support and accommodate such a marginal project, squeezing an improbable building site into an area with so many problems and impacts. The Appellants submit the following recommendations for consideration by the City Council. Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 4 Page 185 of 332 Attachment 4 Recommendation #1 - Preferred Deny the project with guidance given to the Applicant to pursue a two-lot subdivision with a future Lot Line Adjustment negotiated between the Applicant's and the abutting lots to the east (Lots 2 & 3, Tract 1272; see Attachment 1 for more information on the LLADJ possibility). This would not only be supported by the Appellants but would also eliminate the extensive and expensive infrastructure improvements, grading, vegetation removal, fire hazard & turnaround issues, etc., that will be necessary to improve Parcel 1 as a separate parcel. Recommendation #2 —Alternative If a three-lot project is approved it should require the submittal of a Preliminary Grading & Vegetation Removal Plan prior to approval and include the following conditions: 1. A 25' rear yard setback from the lots to the east (1649 & 1659 Corona Court) and to the south (2448 Johnson Avenue) for any structure, driveway or guest parking space 2. A maximum building height not to exceed elevation 398' 3. Public hearing review by the City's Architectural Review Commission The Appellants appreciate your consideration of this information and trust the City Council will make the right decision to protect our properties and maintain the quality of our neighborhood. Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78.09•November 6,2009•Page 5 Page 186 of 332 Attachment 4 EXHIBIT A Site & Section Information l t h fdVIENG c j was P!P I 3 9 House with 9' plate height and 5:12 rroof pitch, located with a 10' rear setback and ridgeline at elevation 406' 3`1 1 7 r House with 9' plate height and 5:12 I to roof pitch, located with a 25' rear 26 setback and ridgeline at elevation 398' Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 6 Page 187 of 332 7!e 5fo S `•077 ~ y Q 39?.0 .G. CONC. awlvlvEL Ar LET I(VS74L DM/. /IVLCr PER W.o. sro C-4 399 7 TN 2 /DE /iIILETS ti AV. 49. 9 SEE A`rAIL CET 9 or T.C. tri 1s 6•97 43 T.C.s_ N 4 40/..38 s lJ.•T.C. E DAA/ CTyi ces OTF.* & ! M4 SLOP FRon/rsErB unrL 1 z n7 or RW/SE NOTE . v TYPI L ONXXALL L IL tSh o A RETE. f'"` wPL 2 NoT LOT 2 3\ 6-A y 3.0 TrPiCa` iPEQ RE 6A WATE C V4 ES ONS ER IAT RAL$ ,f r T E R'= ,i. TIME P IFU/LD/ G CO ITA CT IV. 7MICA 93.0 f.L. 3 .0 T.W. 94'_0u, Page 188 of 332 e YI .( ,r '• b"ix lt'/}xy4i x: J. . v' rF't y 4 'ny. y d 1 4 c< r- F 4 1. ,1 S'siy,. mS }•`, y c 5,', y}KY fyrrs4s . i.` P 4is, 1'i :yl•ilAyp4*' sY„_+r r C .prA$Y'ia"r 1', 7 • x I " C iV t r" 49t xa rY ks' S.'f'; i. i rte r,. gi.. ty• p, r s r• Ste rD y a. 0 1 Y K 1L` m x G• Page 189 of 332 Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Appeal Package to Planning Commission with Exhibits 1-5 Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 9 Page 190 of 332 A zl -I-o `aNV1 y Cork+KiKwn APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL t At ch' e Date: September 25, 2009 P` a To: Department of Community Development City of San Luis Obispo Appellants: Nancy Shokohi, Owner— Lot 3, Tract 1272 Maureen Eyermann, Owner— Lot 2, Tract 1272 Kevin & Julie Elder, Residents — Lot 2, Tract1272 Joseph & Barbara Boud, Owners — Lot 12, Tract 1272 Steven & Paula Dooley, Owners — Lot 13, Tract 1272 William & Barbara Herrerras, Owners—Lot 4, Tract 1272 James & Marlene Killian, Owners — Lot.5, Tract 1272 Chris &Alyssa Holland, Owners 2448 Johnson Applicant: Jeff& Susan Spevack 2410 Johnson Avenue Subject: MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 The above noted property owners and residents (Appellants) who abut the above referenced subdivision proposed by Applicant (Spevack) hereby appeal the 9118109 Administrative Hearing approval of said Subdivision to the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission as described in Chapter 17.66 of the CityZoningRegulations. AP.LLCABLE_CLT-Y--ORDINANCES-8--POLICIES---------...-_---- --------------------._...------_. . The following cited policies are applicable in evaluating the project's consistencywithCityOrdinances. Chapter 16.18.020 — General Discusses the design of lots and states that lots that are impractical for intended uses due to terrain, natural features, access, or developable area should not be approved. Chapter 16.18.020A - Grading This chapter states that natural contours in new subdivisions shall be preserved; Restricts retaining walls to no greater than 3 feet and slopes to 2:1 maximum Chapter 16.18.050 — Depth/VVidth Relationship States that lots with 3:1 depth-to-width ratio are not permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the flag lot subdivision can be accomplished without detriment to adjacent properties. Di I Appeal of Subdivision MS 78-09•September 25,2009•Page 1 I t-1 ' J Page 191 of 332 Attachment 4 Chanter 16.18.060C-Flag Lots Requires access way to the rear be at least twenty feet wide with width and paving subject to approval of Community Development Department Director. Chapter 16.18.060D- Flag Lots Requires access driveways greater than 300' to provide two way access and fire truck access with appropriate turn around areas to exit in a forward direction. Fire Code requires that access roads are a maximum of 15% grade, all weather surface and provide an unobstructed width of 20'. Chanter 16.18.060G-Flag Lots Requires new parcels that are surrounded by residential development to be designated as a "Sensitive Site" requiring ARC review to consider impacts of overlook, solar access encroachment, noise protections and privacy. Chapter 16.18.130B-Hillside Subdivisions States that substantially larger lots or open space should be applied to the steepest areas, drainage swales, etc. Chapter 16.18.130C - Hillside Subdivisions States that grading is to be kept at an absolute minimum Chapter 16.18.130D- Hillside Subdivisions Contains design standards related to minimum . grading and avoidance of potential hazards such as erosion, sedimentation, fire or water quality. Parking & Driveway Standard.2130/City Fire Department Access Standards The City's Upward Driveway Standard #2130 contains slope and dimension standards-for the -driveway -ramp cornrectiom-with--the--pubfic -road;--slope- of driveway and vertical curve standards where the driveway levels out. The Fire Department establishes standards of 15% maximum slope, turnaround side slope and 20' unobstructed access width for the driveway. APPEAL The Appellants do not believe that Subdivision MS 78-09/PM-SLO-09-0074 should be approved for the following reasons: Buildinq Envelope Parcel 1 -Slope The proposed building envelope for Parcel 1 contains significant areas of steep slopes; nearly 35% of the proposed envelope contains slopes greater than 25% see attached Exhibit 1). Future development will require the removal of significant mature vegetation, including oak and pine trees. Both of these conditions would clearly require massive grading operations and retaining walls, Appeal of SubdWon MS 7849•September 25,2009•Page 2 Page 192 of 332 Attachment 4 violating a number of the aforementioned City Ordinances related to minimum grading, erosion and sedimentation hazards. Building Envelope Parcel 1 —Setbacks The proposed building envelope shows a minimum 5' setback on the east, south and west. The subject property is Lot 1 of Tract 1272, approved by the City in 1985. CC&R's were developed for the tract that made it very clear that respect for neighboring privacy and views was paramount (see attached Exhibit 2). Lot 1 was not included in the CC&R's because it was understood that no further development would occur on the Lot .1, therefore it was pointless to include it in the covenants, however the spirit of privacy and views was endorsed by all. Further, conditions of approval and historical decisions and correspondence addressing development of properties within Tract 1272 required developments to increase rear-yard setbacks, set development into existing grade and limit them to a single story where possible (see attached Exhibit 3). At the very least, the building envelope on Parcel 1 should adhere to the historical rear-yard setback of 25' and limit the building to a single story. Parcel 1 —Access The Tentative Map shows a 17% driveway grade for the first approximate 60' from Johnson Avenue with a driveway width of 20'. The driveway then narrows to 16' wide for the next 80' with a fire department tum around at the 90' distance, then continues up the hill at 7% increasing to 20% within a driveway width of 12'. We believe the 17% grade is questionable, as our survey indicates it approaches 20%, either case will require it to be excavated to comply with City code of 15% with retaining walls constructed along the sides. This will also necessitate the removal of existing property line screening vegetation. As the drive continues into-Parcel-1-at-12'-wide, it climbs up a grade that our sfope calculation-shows approaches 20%, not 15%, with no information provided on retaining wall and/or grading required to demonstrate the feasibility and/or impacts to the landform and existing drainage structure that runs along the common property line between Lots 1, 2 & 3. All of these conditions clearly contradict City Ordinance and Fire Code requirements and/or have the potential to cause serious environmental damage. Fire Hazard As was pointed out in a 9/09/09 letter from Appellant to City and discussed above, the southern boundary of the building envelope on Parcel 1 is about 325' from Johnson Avenue along this proposed 12' wide driveway with grades of more than 17% and a very tight turn on a 20% slope. The Fire Code requires a maximum 15% gradient with a 20' wide unobstructed access. To believe that painting the curbs red with no parking signs will restrict owners and guests from parking within the driveway or the fire truck turn around is unenforceable and pure fantasy. The functional reality is this: this severely constrained access road Appeal of Subdivision MS 78-09-September 29,2.009-Page 3 FY,. '—J?- Page 193 of 332 y/I I Attachment 4 exceeds gradient and does not satisfy width requirements and the proposed fire truck turnaround will certainly be blocked by car or RV parking, children's play equipment, trash cans or the like. In the event of a structural or wildland fire any delayed response time would immediately engulf the neighboring wood fences, exterior wood decks and homes. What kind of tortured logic is staff using to compromise and deviate from long-standing City health and safety requirements? When Tract 1272 was approved and the improvement plans prepared, the flag lot gradient and width.requirement to access Lot 13 was satisfied as required. Why are these access standards being compromised now? Visual Impacts As noted above, the design of Tract 1272, its conditions of approval, the CC&Rs, and historic decisions by the City as well as the ARC reviews for the tract made it abundantly clear that this development was intent on maintaining maximum privacy, views and vistas. Even a single story house located on Parcel 1 would compromise and severely affect the expectations established on this tract and in this neighborhood .resulting in significant quality of life impacts for the residents as well as producing severely diminished property values (see attached Exhibit 4). For the neighboring properties to embrace this parcel map proposal so the Applicant can gain financial benefit while their land values are diminished is patently absurd. Further, Condition #1 of MS 78-09 requiring ARC review provides no assurance or comfort to the Appellants. Once a parcel is legally created it has the ability and perception to be developed, whether by the present owner or a subsequent owner. The ARC would ultimately approve a project on this lot or the City would be found liable for a denial of property rights. The approval of this subdivision is a ploy to erihance-the speculative Value 'of"the Applicah-t's real-essate- -he- expense of the neighboring lot owner's values. It is in the City's best interest to use an abundance of caution when considering development or subdivision of marginal properties with significant constraints that conflict with so many City land use policies. ` Neighborhood Controversy This project is not supported by any abutting property owner and/or resident that will be affected by its approval and development. This includes Dooley (Lot 13), Boud (Lot 12), Eyermann (Lot 2), Elder (resident, Lot 2), Shokohi (Lot 3), Herraras (Lot4),.Killian (Lot 5), and Holland (2348 Johnson, abuts Parcel 1). The properties that abut this project were purchased and developed with the understanding and assurance that the condition of the neighborhood, the views, the privacy and ambience was predictable and long lasting. Historic City decisions, Tract 1272 conditions and covenants and tract ARC reviews of subsequent development all reinforce the intentions establishing this Appeal of Subdivision MS 78-09•September 25,2009•Page,$ p Page 194 of 332 Attachment 4 neighborhood and the Appellants have no desire for our quality neighborhood, our investments and expectations to be eroded or compromised. Secondly, a similar proposal to subdivide Lot 1 of Tract 1272 was submitted to the City in 1995 (PM SLO-95-020 (see Attached Exhibit 5). All of these same salient comments were presented at that time. City staff did not support the project and it was subsequently withdrawn. Why must we continue to time and again defend and protect our neighborhood from subsequent proposals when the record is very clear that this Parcel 1 site is unsuitable for development? Finally, the Applicants undertook a major remodel and renovation to their residence, removing all.walls except the northem .one. They then rebuilt the residence on the exact same footprint! With foresight, they should have reconfigured the siting of the house to allow for future development without impacting the neighboring properties, however they did not. We do not believe that the abutting properties should now be obligated to suffer for their lack of foresight, nor do we feel obliged to underwrite their retirement planning efforts. Project Alternatives Denial of MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 does not preclude the property owner of achieving a reasonable level of benefit from potential future value and/or development of their property. Several years ago, the owners of Lots 2 and 3, individually, approached the Applicants with the desire to purchase the rear, unused and inaccessible, portions of the Applicant's property abutting Lots 2 & 3. The Applicants were not interested in selling, so presumably an acre of land was not too much for them to maintain at that time. This option is still available to pursue and would require subsequent negotiations and cooperative processing of a Lot Line Adjustment. This land area would not be buildable, however would enable the Lot 2 & 3 owners to expand their yard areas and formalize their privacy areas with-the-onlybeing that the storm drainage-system-curb wall and inlet along their rear property lines is not compromised. Additionally, denial of MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 would not deny the Applicants from subdividing the front portion of their property along Johnson Avenue. The front yard area contains more than adequate land area that could be parceled off and, if properly designed, could still maintain adequate separation, privacy and yard areas for the existing residence, as well as minimize grading, vegetation removal, safety hazards and visual impacts as discussed herein. Recommendation This application is not about implementing Strategic Growth objectives, General Plan Goals, compliance with AB32 or other State or City planning objectives. It has to do with the respect for the quality of life and land use within an existing neighborhood, conformance with City codes and consistency of decision-making. There is no compelling reason to. approve such a marginal project especially Appeal of Subdivision MS 78.09•September 25,2009•Page 5 Page 195 of 332 Attachment 4 when Alternatives are available and, frankly, the Appellants are bewildered by the recent approval of MS 78-09 given the 25-year history of decisions that have protected the integrity of this neighborhood. We recommend that the Planning Commission deny MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09- 0074. We believe that Findings #2; 3, 4 and 6 cannot be satisfied, the project does not comply with the numerous City codes and policies as described above and the historical record makes it clear that this Parcel 1 area is not a candidate for subdivision and/or structural development. We recommend that the Planning Commission direct the Applicant to pursue the Project Alternatives as discussed above. Appeal o/Subdlvlslon MS 78-09•September 15,2009•Page 6 Page 196 of 332 1 Attachment 4 EXHIBIT 1 w. N1 -3 ) Page 197 of 332 L ..,1..` It \ G S•J' 1 ,,' \ N 42 if i i 1 At Q \ PPI -3cZ Page 198 of 332 gj ARachm RZm89 g r bay. f t9 Lo, r - iJ36°13'2f>W-•60.00' xj.385 rl- 383 4v ( 12.00' sO CONCRETE 5 16.00' 379 / c "'+ GUEST L PARKING j EXISTING RES i 378 _i 5 c.- AC 424' a l ll 1( ' GUEST lW 2LM r FIRE TRUCK `•. PARKING 9 4P TURN AROUND L——— —- LLCI L. _. 376 t^ Ct ( tl ' /' •I,' It G l q 74 1e 373 372 t..-. j ,t i.. .._•` C'.'%NCRET-S .. 371 OHO tib y AZom e 3` rb 5.00' _ !20,00 1. 1•,W?'.SO 69 op f O Q rt I EXISG"10r"LIC lit 12ES1Ej TREERND'P:U.E 3fiKPage 199 of 332 Attachment 4 EXHIBIT 2 Pf41-3 Page 200 of 332 Attachment 4 Recording requested by: Ticor Title Insurance Company When Recorded Mail to: poc. No. '743'7JosephC. Boud OFWCIAL RECORDS1009MorroStreet,Suite 206 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO., CASanLuisObispo,CA 93401 OCT 2 91986 FRANCIS M.COONEY Courity Clerk-Recorder TIME 8:00 AM DECLARATION & ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS & RESTRICTIONS This is a Declaration, made and dated this ILth day of 00101WT' , 1986 by and between Joseph C.'Boud, Barbara K. Boud, Fred G. Kennedy, Hazel J. Kennedy, and Michael Bravo, hereinafter called "Declarant". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is now the owner of that certain real property i n the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo,State of California, descri bed as follows: All or portions of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 24, 25, 26 & 27 in Block 4 ofGoldtree Vineyard Tract,according to the map recorded in Book 1, Page 14 of Record of Surveys, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; said property also described as Lots 2 to 14, inclusive, of Tract 12721 n the City of San Luis Obispo. BOOK 13, PAGE 55. WHEREAS, it is the intention of Declarant to impose certain mutual beneficial restrictions under a general scheme of use and improvement for the benefit of all the property; NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the property described herein is held and shall be held,conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered,leased, rented, used,occupied and/or improved subject to the following limitations, restrictions, covenants and reservations, all of which are declared and agreed to be in furtherance of a plan for the subdivision, improvement and sale of the property, and are established for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the property and every part of it. All of the limitations, restrictions,and convenants shall run with the land, and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the property described herein and shall inure to the benefit of all of the property and the future owners of that property or any portion of it. PG, t 1, 5 1 vni .N Parr i 7-APage 201 of 332 Attachment 4 Article I DEFIiiITIONS A. "Lot" means one of the numbered parcels of real property described herein. B. "Property" means the property described herein or any portion of it. C. "Set-back" means the minimum distance between a building or other structure and a given street or property line. D. "Map' shall mean the Final Subdivision Map recorded for Tract 1272 on file with the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County. E. 'Drainage System" means any drainage ditch, swele or pipe located within drainage easements on any lot of the final map for Tract 1272. F. "Owner"or "Owners"shall mean the record holder or holders of title of any lot. G. The singular shall include the plural and the masculine shall include the feminine, wherever the context so requires. G. "Board" means the Architectural Control Board as described herein. Article 11 BASIC RESTRICTiONS A. Use of Property. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes and no building shall be erected,constructed,altered or maintained on any of the lots other then a residence for a single family with customary and suitable incidentiai detached buildings as permitted by the Architectural Control Board (the Board). B. Architectural Control. No building shall be erected, constructed, altered or placed on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure has been approved by the Board,, whose function is to insure quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with existing structures and outdoor yard areas,and site location with respect to topography and finish grade elevations. C. Fencing. Property line fencing must be erected and placed in accordance with the standard fence design on file with the City of San Luis Obispo and completed prior to the final building inspection and occupancy permit for each individual lot. Ail other internal fencing or garden walls, including the location,style, material, color and height shall be subject to written approval of the Board. Any fence,or combination fence and retaining wall,greater than six (E) feet in total height as measured from the lower abutting grade elevation may be required to obtain a Variance from the City of San Luis Obispo. This shall be the responsibility of the individual lot owners as lots are developed. D. Landscape Requirements_ Front yard areas and property line fencing shall be landscaped by each individual lot owner and installed within 90 days after the final building inspection and occupancy permit for each individual lot. Street troes,as required by City ordinance,shall be planted by lot owners as lots are developed. 9n`Page 202 of 332 Attachment 4 E. Special Sidewalk/Landscape Reguirements. The four foot wide.(4') sidewalk in front of Lots 9 and 10 shall be expanded to a full six foot wide (6) sidewalk with the retaining wall relocated in the event the existing oak tree,whose location in the cul-de-sac prompted the lesser width sidewalk, is ever removed and/or destroyed. Special attention will be given landscape plans in the vicinity of this tree, so that proposed landscape materials and watering requirements are compatible with those of the oak tree. F. [t ukeen of Real Proaertq_ Each lot owner covenants to keep, maintain,water, plant and replant all required landscape areas, slopes, banks, right-of-ways, and set-back areas located on his/her lots so as to maintain landscaping i n a healthy condition, prevent erosion and to present an attractive,clean,sightly and wholesome appearance at all times. G. Upkeep gf Drainaoe Systems. Each lot owner shall continuously maintain, repair and/or replace all drainage system improvements serving the property within those areas designated on the final map of Tract 1272 as drainage easements, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. H. Garbage and Refuse Dis oral. No lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage or other waste shalt not be kept, except in sanitary containers, which must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and stored from public view. 1. Nuisance, Retail Sales and Non—Conformity. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the property or neighborhood. Retail sales, including garage sales, vehicle sales, household items, etc., are permitted and may be displayed provided said sale and display does not exceed two consecutive days in any 30 day period. J. Temporary Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, recreational vehicle,basement, tent,shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding shall be used on any lot at anytime as a residence either temporarily or permanently. K_ Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except one professsional sign of not more than one square foot, one sign of not more than five square feet advertising the property for sale or rent, or signs.used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction and sale period. L. Poles, Masts. Disks and Antennas. No poles, masts, satellite disks or antennas of any type, size or height shall be constructed on any lot, or on or above the roof of any dwelling or structure without the consent of the Board. A satellite disk must be shielded or screened from view by adjacent lots with an enclosure which must be approved by the Board. M_ Storage of Materials, Junk, ]rash and Eauip ent. The storage of or accumulation of junk, trash, materials and other offensive or 'noxious material is specifically prohibited. N. Storage of Cars, Trailers, Campers, Boats or Other Motor Vehicles. No livestock trailer, house trailer,travel trailer, self-propelled vehicle, boat, boat trailer or other similier type of vehicle shall be parked,stored or kept on the public streets, private driveways, or common driveways of any lot for any period exceeding 48 hours. Storage of these types of vehicles is permitted, provided they are hidden from view by screening, stored in garages,or other such method. 1-3_J- Page 203 of 332 Attachment 4 0. Common Drivewap.. Where adjacent lots choose to develop a common access driveway, any and all necessary permits and documents must be obtained and/or processed through the City of San Luis Obispo by the affected property owners. In no case shall the common drive be occupied so as to prevent the unobstructed ingress or egress of the lot owners. P: Livestock and'Poultry, No animals,livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot, except that two adult dogs, two adult cats or two other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial . purpose. Article 111 ARCHITECTURE STANDARDS A. Dwelling Size. No residence shall be erected on any lot having a total living space floor area, exclusive of open porches, garages, patios, exterior stairways and landings, of less than 1800 square feet. Every proposed residence must have a minimum two car garage. B. Buildi nu Location_ No building shall be located on any lot nearer to the front,side or rear lot lines than the minimum building setback lines as required by the City of San Luis Obispo, unless an exception is granted.by this Board,and a Variance received from the City of San Luis Obispo. The location of the structure or structures and the landscaping shall bear such over-ail relation to the adjacent properties so as to create an aesthetically pleasing overall appearance with particular attention given to maintaining adjacent properties privacy and views. C. Colors. All exterior colors,textures and materials,including roofs, must be set forth in the plans and specifications and approved in writing by the Board prior to commencement of construction. Color samples shall be submitted with plans and specifications which shall be coded or marked to indicate where the colors are to be used on the finished dwelling. D. Landscape Plans. A landscape plan,1 nci udi ng types and sizes of plants,trees or other landscape materials and their method of maintenance, shall be submitted to the Board for approval along with plans for the structure to be constructed on the lot. E. Fire Protection Systems. New residences constructed on Lots 2 through 4 and 9 through 13 shall be equipped with automatic residential rated fire sprinklers to the approval of the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department. F_ Exceptions to Architecture Standards. All of the above architectural standards apply to construction and/or development activities on all of the property described herein, with the exception of the existing improvements located on Lot 14 and the relocated improvements located on Lot 10. Any new construction or remodeling proposed for these lots shalt be subject to the architectural standards and procedures herein described. PA 1 -3$' 4 vol 2 904 Par, X32Page 204 of 332 Attachment 4 Article IV I ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL BOARD A. Membership_ The Architecture] Control Board is composed of Joseph C. Boud, Barbara K. Boud and Michael Bravo; 1009 Morro Street, Suite 206; San Luis Obispo,CA 93401. A majority of the board may designate a representative to actin its place. In the event of death . or resignation of any member of the board, the remai ni ng members shall have full authority to designate a successor. Neither the members of the board, nor its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this covenant. At any time, the then record owners of three-quarters of the lots shall have the power through a duly recorded written instrument to change the membership of the board or remove or restore to it any of its powers,duties and responsibilities. B. Procedure. The Board shall review individual plans and specifications submitted and provide a written approval within 30 days. If no notice of rejection or denial is received within 30 days from the date of receipt of the submittals, and no suit to enjoin the construction has been commenced prior to the completion thereof, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. Declarant, or their officers or agents, all acting singularly or together, shall not be responsible for any loss or damage or be liable in any.other way for any errors or defects, either latent or patent, in the plans and specifications submitted for approval, or any building or structure erected in accordance with such plans and specifications. Ins ection and Conformity to Plains During construction, Declarant or any agent or member of the Board may, from time to time, at any reasonable hour or hours, with reasonable notice, enter any lot and inspect any construction subject to this Declaration as to compliance with the approved submittals. Deviations shall be diligently guarded against, and all such deviations or nonconformities set forth in any notice of noncompliance issued by the Board.shall-be-cor-.rested-prior-toany final-occupancy permit granted by-the-City-of San Luis Obispo. Declarant, the Board,or any agent or officer thereof, acting in good faith,shall not be deemed guilty of, or become liable for any.manner of trespass for such entry or inspection. D. Enforcement of Board Ruling, The Board or Declarant shall have the right and authority, after reasonable notice, to perform the subject matter of such noncompliance correction, and the cost of the performance thereof shall be charged to such owner and may be recovered by the Board or Declarant i man action of low against such owner. Article V GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Scope and Duration. All the covenants and restrictions in this Declaration are imposed upon the property for the direct benefit of the owners as part of a general plan of improvement, development, building, occupation and maintenance; and shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all of the owners of the property and all persons claiming under them end Conti nue to be i n full force and effect for a period of 20 years from the date— that this Declaration is recorded. After this 20 year period, the covenants and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of two years each, unless en instrument, signed by three-fourths of the then owners of record of the property, has been recorded signifying termination. ri l 5 nnn.Page 205 of 332 Attachment 4 B. Interpretation of Restrictions. All questions of interpretation or construction of any of the terms or restrictions herein shalI be resolved by the Board or the Declarant and its decision shall be final, binding and conclusive upon ail the parties.affected. C. Breach. The covenants hereby established shall operate as covenants running with the land;and Declarant and/or the owner of any of the real property described herein,including a bona fide purchaser under contract, or any association formed or used by the owners, in the event of a breach of any of these restrictions or convenants or a continuance of any such breach may by appropriate legal proceedings take steps to enjoin, abate or remedy the same. It is hereby agreed that damages are not an adequate remedy for such breach. Every act or ommission whereby any of the covenants contained in this Declaration are violated in whole or in part is hereby declared to be and constitutes a nuisance, and every remedy allowed by law or equity against a nuisance, either public or private, shall be applicable and may be exercised by Declarent, the Board, or the owner of any of the.real p ro pe rt y dese ri bed herein. D. Protection for Mortagees and Title Insurance Companies.. A breach of the covenants contained in this Declaration shall not affect or impair the lien or charge of any bona fide mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value as to said lots or property, whether such owner's title was acquired by foreclosure or in a trustee's sale or otherwise. A lender who acquired title by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure or trustee's sale shall be obligated to cure any breach of the covenants which occurred prior to such acquisition of title, and shall be bound by these covenants. Breach of any of said covenants and restrictions,or any re-entry by reason of such breach, shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value as to said lots or property,or any part thereof. Any subsequent owner of such property shall be bound by these restrictions or covenants whether the owner of said property acqui red title by foreclosure,trustee's sale,or otherwise. E. Right to Enforce_ The_..p.r_ovisiam-c4.ntainedin..this Qrclar_tatian..shall..i.nure.to_tha . . . benefit of and be enforceable by Declarant,its successors or assigns, or the owner of any of the real property described herein and each of their legal representatives, heirs,successors or assigns. The failure to enforce any of such covenants or restrictions herein contained shall in no eaent be deemed to be.a weiver of the right to do so thereafter. In any lege] proceedings commenced by anyone entitled to enforce or restrain a violation of this Declaration, or any provision thereof, the losing party or parties shall pay the attorney's fees of the winning party or parties in such amount as may be fixed by the Court in such proceedings. F. Severability, Invalidation of any of these covenants bg judgement or court order she 11 in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 6 vm ?QnAaarriRAPage 206 of 332 Attachment 4 This Declaration is executed by Declarant to acknowledge and establish the terms and conditions set forth in this Declaration. Executed on rl 198616 San Luis Obispo,California. DECLARANTS b Jose p, . Boid Barbara K. Boud Michael Bravo Ped G. Kennedy a Hazel J. enne 7 Page 207 of 332 Attachment 4 STATE 0£CALIFORNIA SS. ItACOUNTYOf_ E } On WO—A 1986,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State,personally appeared Fred G.&.Hazel J.Kennedy,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. VITNESS my hand and official seal. 11 W Immmnwu W uunmmmmn nmwmmmW m W wmmYmuwxmm W m OFFICIAL'SEAL DONALD S. KENNEDYJNOTARYPUBLIC-CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFF{CE IN g PA LOS ANGELES COUNTY NotaryPublic in and for . tate v Feb. 15, 1990MyCommissionExpires r41WIYY.Y414WImYWY1m41mYWYW44b11111XW1111mmW WYYmIIYWIm4YIlY STATE OF Ci ITi I,A}((/ ff/ } COUNTY or SS. On 1986,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State,personally appeared Joseph C.&Barbara K.Boud,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the vrithin instrument and acknov ledged that he executed the same. VITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEA] 1986- - - - - - - - - - -9 JANET L.-KEN Notary Polis-CalltNot ubli n Id fo aid StatePrincipalOffice San Luis Obispo C My Comm. Exp.Oct. STATE Of CALIFORNIA COUNTY 09='L Q U.dam SS. On U 66L 29 75 1986,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State,personally appeared Michael Bravo,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknoMedged that he executed the same. VITNESS my hand and official seal. SHFRI RUMFOUI NOTARY PUSUCSANLUISOBISPOCOUNTY y Public in and for said Sta a CALIFORNIAMY marchmarche/' `` frOrtgnl66 on Exphea on Ma27,190 i s nnnA Anc+Page 208 of 332 Attachment 4 0 17• i L1Plt[ 4t',t7t v M.ZV..r/.Jf1f c!v--:.._ ' Lr Yom' A!9/.1r.JlN f#IY! 7. na,•q' u(u I..Yr ilk M1} k I 1 Q e b i u pok yt•10'07"i! C•99t'.__"f• .:s • L O:.' '. I. I 1v n v71, 1+1{• ry R I `I l 0•. .`Z s is'o.: 1 r M1 r• 4 Ea M h w PW r.7+rar/ynweviJ,syf•.ri r a :; W 1p W tL(nJrt7tY7nrJ0 nta+itd2 iS•C-- mw Axv.,r C7 v rTt a 3 ti W T V ki V v 31 N " Z Al 04 t Y, Z V M Z '7' ia \ 14 7.., ::.. r••,. tDOSI M_/6 rt.GfN Page 209 of 332 Attachment 4 EXHIBIT 3 Page 210 of 332 Attachment 4 city Of S3n WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8190 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 August 20, 1986 Joe Boud 1009 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Request to move a house from 2324 Johnson Avenue to 1650 Corona Court (from lot 12 to lot 9 of Tract 1272) Dear Mr. Boud: I have reviewed your proposal to move this house, including original and revised plans, and I have determined that it will not comply with tract condition 21, which says that houses on lots 5 through 10 "shall not diminish the views and privacy of existing neighboring houses.* I believe moving this house to any of lots 5 through 10 would have difficulty complying with this tract condition. It appears that single story houses set into the existing grade or with generous rear-yard setbacks, or both, would best meet this condition. You may be able to keep the house in this tract by repositioning it on lot 12 or moving it to some lot other than lots 5 through 10. You may contact Glen Matteson of this office if you have any questions. Sincerely Michael Multari Community Development Director copies: Jack Kellerman Mi. & Mrs. Honeyman Mr. & Mrs. Gillen gm Page 211 of 332 Attachment 4 Gin City of san W 890 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 August 25, 1986 Joe Boud 1009 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401' SUBJECT: House Moving 2,324 Johnson Avenue Dear Mr. Boud: Thank you for meeting with me to discuss your proposal to move the existing house at 2324 Johnson Avenue to 1650 Corona Court (from lot 12 to lot 10 in Tract 1272) . As we discussed; I believe the intent of the conditions of approval of the tract can be met if the building is set back 25 feet from the rear property line and the finished floor elevation does not exceed 408 feet, as illustrated on the exhibits you submitted which are on file with this department. You stated that you would like to have at least an 18-foot separation between the main structure and the garage, and I understand the value to the use of the property of maintaining a sense of continuity among the front yard open areas. Therefore, if it proves impossible in the field to provide both the 25-foot setback and an 18-foot building separation (due to location of trees, for example) ; please contact me and we can explore an alternative approach. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 549-7170. sincerely, Michael Multari, Director Community Development MM:drs cc: Glen Matteson (file) Jack Kellerman P141 Page 212 of 332 Attachment 4 0 city of sAn ,luis OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Off lee Box 8100• San Luls Obispo, CA 93403-8100 October 17, 1986 Mr. & Mrs. John P. Honeyman 2323 Flora Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: House Moving in Tract 1272 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Honeyman: 1 appreciate your concerns with the former Miller house which Joe Boud has moved from lot 12 to lot 10 in the new subdivision near your home. As you may know, planning staff rejected Mr. Boud's first proposal to locate the house at the pre-grading ground level and 15 feet from the rear property line. We suggested that, if the house was to be kept in the tract, that it be moved to a location other than the lots 5 through 10, which border the houses on Flora Street. Mr. Boud responded that his financing for the tract included retention of the house, and that he had designed lot 10 to accommodate it. He insisted that from his perspective and understanding of the Council's intent in conditioning the approval of the tract, that staff's interpretation was unfair and unreasonable. I then considered alternatives that I felt still met the intent of the conditions. Among those alternatives was approval of the relocation With conditions that the house--be at-least 25 feet from the rear property line and that the floor of the house not exceed 408 feet elevation, which required excavating part of the lot, about four feet. Mr. Boud still felt this was unfairly strict but apparently was able to accept it. It might be worth noting that without the tract condition, the zoning regulations would allow a full two-story house within eight to ten feet of the property line, at the pre-grading level. Therefore, it was felt that the unusually large setback and sinking of the pad constituted protection measures significantly in excess of typical, to help reduce impacts on nearby properties. Also, the relocation was approved with the understanding that Mr. Boud would repaint and reroof the house, make other repairs such as replacing rain gutters, and landscape the lot consistent with other homesites in the neighborhood. I have encouraged Mr. Boud to meet with his neighbors to explain in detail his plans for repainting and upgrading the house to make it compatible with others in the area. 1 continue to offer our offices in the city as a meeting place if that is more convenient. I'd also be happy to attend any meeting to help in any way to reach a satisfactory solution to your concerns. I will continue to talk with Mr. Boud to ensure he does let you know his specific plans and intentions,for the house.. Di 1 Page 213 of 332 Attachment 4 01 Wewill continue to take a close look at houses proposed on lots 5 through 10 and to'contact the immediate neighbors before acting on applications. Also,.we will consider referring development proposals for these lots to the Architectural Review Commission, though the council did not require architectural review when it approved the tract. Contact me or Glen Matteson of our staff if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Michael Multari, Director Community Development Department cc: Joe Boud 2656 Lawton San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 r Paul Lanspery Ron Dunin Pla 1- Page 214 of 332 Attachment 4 EXHI13IT 4 Page 215 of 332 V>ti. st W M . ti : ° I:4 ° ( ti ',` e ' + 1 if t` .-Aw r{''!a •'..'F ti, X 3i.wf N.T' i .,,ItE"""' .iir:. li J,tfi x5 it`i'F",•p iK x"11' w R Y ys r ._ L '.. t - 4,: Y*' j - r x+P y,„ „ '•{eew''t! r i.i r i'`+ r+ 1"r dam Ye+-,.'-°°h`.•— .. ." .. ..tea l- n + r. s uh r J. 4.-fl K' •1, T..,: v rR tW c +t 1 5t +9w i y r w'4ti r t9 A`"r i t ( ._ Y l T P"av 5y .f A . kY9 t':z ti r r c "yawg ti •c`j'4 r' ti e gc r 4 y U* T rtF 11 LI9/r y'- 4itVOO. Py t,. t 1RC: r ,Tv t INV T`w. tiYy f Cat: rye NT it" - ij. C. y+ {r'`'' *,}$ til yg7iM^F° Rq 1Ck . y, i r iv; • I:a s ` r•', 1 f aT e,.. ` '... .4 a . t t,xR+. n• tf q', 1N`! ,y }' 5 '>`}WrmrSS t... ttt " i t'; r• 4 s t'o"f nF- G.1q, 'x- S^`P " d i r a 3,1••s; r i`4+'' r SX i 9 ¢• q a,vY'k;. "tl titl Yk'rp 'nyyJN S' yak d T. Jfr Lv y' ,,' . 7' w+3'Zafir+ia rx s :C' y ' fX"•} 2`, tjE' `]' a n+rl v'* wF`xeT'n'x,m r! ' ' ''}'r'1 ld lel- N ':'. stir L7 Y`t r•,:.fi@w, > v:i!+a<Ym..iMN,"ti•Sr4 .:.Y INY. `:T Y.. i, Page 216 of 332 aK. L 1 c '* y4+ X1n'r N t 'ex wwmw-i4yz,, V ii',{ i't':Yt_.' f .L° Y`tr}. Z m'1f q,t.`` k' 1•1 1 Y" Y-'Y K'S t, ,(..( . A' r^a .. • t'' .',. °3'v W h ",j Yc,Y.uw f pw'YI v 4C+.'1 Y'W' i .'•' 4.Y rbc ` 4. i w F '''11J'r117M'f,r'. l'. '+ 3 .'`._ay,Y`?i4a 71{' A s.• 5Y''tif rir . 41' ' p"^3..¢yi"`?al . M' t F htl f r.. µ t, y y,'}'' f 1 M.. n ' 1n!{l '9''1* yy IC 4.S,f.'AfA!',J`i C) i{ ii§'^ A r h•L'lip./ f, iI, YL4 °` . L Y r l C3 1*S oma t 9 } M r i YS pty .€Yu'f.-. r.Zl""R •r k§§.° Y ki*e` Page 217 of 332 t to 4 A y fl na r k 1 ..r i f },v4 y •y-1 i til i'a i J'yr tnJ Y'A n y r.--•-I`G"•` Y .. n a rN, h nir 5c''7`r'- ,, t a _ 4 v t,_hJt 1^. L,i7yry$gy +F i. tNF rrk t`^ar Y..ey4 tty,1.''#tM1,G1 s, .ti >•rr ytSq alk m`Y> Ma Ir `tR i Yom: r.•e_: Y t yr gq y V- M Nlziy,t I t f' {'bt 1 Y'pdy,l't'I`' F A+EiY' ytf.. y•r 9i1 Iy FY'lt^ t { vy v i q{ $ L t o s„ri 1^ 7 4 K Page 218 of 332 k E 1` ° ' ''kY yrv. " i 9 SNA;', f ! '" 4. y.d tr.a r•'ft Jy ia d, rk } fY' 1x M .. Z '•zC' Cxv- i ` t r k•3;. y k ,y o',x WN Ea! s+ta cCi 4 f c/ •.il6°'X ..r .+ v f y. rta!3+cY Orr a 1 f w 4 C ^G. r y R '`q' y rhk„1 a} t" L 4 r 1 ',.n '` yy,, R -i u.'S.wk/'L as'C• 1 i A;}Y wA w ° (' r .Y s i j11 . Y.,• r 1 f C I Page 219 of 332 Attachment 4 EXHIBIT 5 Appeal ofSubdivislon MS 78-08•September 26,2009•Page 1f Page 220 of 332 Attachment 4 low n a SiP7 MK"3AV ftosi br atjz W to n ro .rnw $sn.n IoMai, »'gKIdoC10IMK'8A/N sWbl o:u 'r.utttmsy.cu 3aISP+l1 M't+,b 9xlor '1tMLA71W'fd o„+Fgs tom. vs.0•ni11 ip Hnba. v a o w w e v s sv a- k- = i Al.i ivZv N PA Q viw. i . i • w i Z Ij w i A vii •i .w.o o(••wQ ms`s u A mar • -w 3. .i. S p tNN V Y YW •Nj'JA J J 1 I Page 221 of 332 Attachment 4 JOSEPH BOUD ' 6 ASSOCIATES July 19, 1995 Pam Ricci Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Gelinas Parcel Map Dear Pam, We reside next to the above referenced project and have a number of comments that we feel should be considered In the City's review of this application. History. The Gelanis property and two other estate sized parcels were combined together a few years ago and subdivided as Tract 1272. The original developers of Tract 1272 were Joseph& Barbara Boud, Fred & Hazel Kennedy, Michael Bravo, and Dr. & Mrs. Edmond Gelinas. The Gelinas parcel was designated as Lot 1. As an original subdivider, It is my understanding that the State Subdivision Map Act specifies that a resubdivision of the same property by the original subdivider would require the processing of a Subdivision.Map, rather than a Minor Parcel Map. If this is the case, this application should be processed differently. However, regardless of the level of processing, certain agreements and mutual understandings were made by Dr. & Mrs. Gellnas with the other parties that cooperated in the original subdivision that have relevance in considering this present request. The design and odd configuration of Lot 1 was a result of the drainage structure that runs along Lots 2&3, carrying surface water to the storm drain inlet at the corner of Lots 2, 12 and 13. This strange- - configuration was_discussed_at.length_with Co-mmunity Development Department staff, Engineering staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council, with the collective understanding that the steep sloped"panhandle"areas behind the existing house were not ever to be considered for development. Conditions of approval of the subdivision and restrictive covenants were established for Tract 1272 that, among other objectives, were intended to insure that the subsequent build-out of the tract would be architecturally compatible and attractive, be sensitive and respectful to neighboring private yard areas, and would maintain views and vistas of the City, Edna Valley and the hills beyond. The Gelinas lot was not included in the CC&R's because It was an existing, completely... developed parcel and we were given assurance by all parties that additional development, other than minor and incidental improvements, were not to take place. Consequently, it seemed unecessary to encumber Lot 1 with the CC&R review process. Obviously, this understanding has not been carried forth by the present Gelinas Family Trust members, who apparently are interested only in increasing the speculative value of the estate. 1ao4 Moro X17 93 0206 1Smfair0ra934aS 805154 56S Page 222 of 332 Attachment a One final Point related to these historical decisions. At the request of Dr. & Mrs. Gelinas, the build-Out of the parcels along Corona Court immediately behind the Gelinas house (Lots 2& 3), were placed as close to the Corona Court frontage as permissible by the City, thus creating as much building separation as possible between the Gelinas home and its rear yard area and the homes on Lots 2 0. Lot Configuration & Developable Area. The City of San Luis Obispo has a number of ordinances, guidelines and policies that contain specific standards for design and configurations of new parcels. This proposal fails to meet these standards in nearly every category. Useable lot area, depth to length ratios and realistically useable outside yard areas are obviously deficient. Once the road access, tum around area, setback areas and steep sloped areas are deleted, the net developable land area on this proposed parcel is virtually non-existent. Grading. Another major area of concern is the amount of grading that will be necessary to access and subsequently develop this parcel. There is no doubt that an enormous amount of grading will be necessary to develop access into the parcel. The Clry's driveway standards contain a vertide curve alignment that would result in substantial cut banks from the Johnson Avenue frontage that would then require massive retaining wallimprovementstoholdthesecutareas. The project has not identified a building site area or footprint area, so we can only speculate that the building area is intended to key into the sloped area at the rear of the lot. That would result in even more massive amounts of grading and retaining wall development and may have the potential to undermine the drainage system that runs along Lots 2&3. Topography. The topography of the site directly relates to the grading and developable lot area issues. The topography shown on the tentative map is not correct. Presumably it was taken from the topography developed for Tract 1272, however one of the two foot contour.lines.was deleted... Consequently,.the_lot.drops.from 392.5.feet.to 380_feet,.or 12.5 feet, in a distance of 60 feet resulting in a slope calculation of 21%. This 21% slope covers at least 85% of the potential building area. Since the City's subdivision driveway standards require a 20'dedication with a minimum 16'wide improvement and a tum around area for driveways that exceed 150' in length, the flat area of the site must be used for circulation. This means that nearly 100% of the buildable site area will be on the steep sloped areas. Even if this project's building footprint were limited to the flat area of the proposed lot, the vegetation removal and access grading in itself would be far too extensive. Vegetation Removal. To accomodate this project, its circulation needs and grading requirements, will require the removal of nearly all of the mature trees, shrubs and landscape materials on the site and most of the screening hedge on the neighboring property line to the north. It is optimistic and pure fantasy to think that any vegetation will remain in the vicinity of the road access improvement, whether the project chooses to use a common driveway or not. This fact alone will destroy the softness that mature landscaping provides and create a major disruption to the visual integrity along JohnsonAvenueandintheneighborhood. 2 Page 223 of 332 Attachment 4 . Visual Impacts. All of the properties within Tract 1272 were located and designed to maintain maximum views and vistas for all lots and properties in the vicinity. In fact, one of the conditions of approval for Tract 1272 required that the lots abutting the neighboring upsloped properties along Flora Street required review by the City's Architectural Review Committee to evaluate this viewshed issue. This issue has also been incorporated and administered through the CUR procedures to make absolutely certain that views, vistas and private yard spaces were not impacted or intruded upon. Even a single story house located on'the flat.portion of the proposed parcel would severely affect the visual continuity in the neighborhood because of the loss of vegetation, grading and view obstruction impacts. Neighborhood Controversy. This project.is not supported by any abutting property owner that:will be affected by its approval and development. This includes Hinsdale Lot 14), Baldwin (Lot 13), Boud (Lot 12), Martin (Lot 2), Emmons (Lot 3) and Leitner Lot 4). The properties that abut this project were purchased and developed with the understanding and assurance that the condition of the neighborhood, the views, the privacy and ambience was predictable and long lasting. Proiect Alternatives. To deny this project, as presently submitted, does not eliminate the development potential of the Gelinas property. The front yard area contains more than adequate land area that could be parceled off and, if properly designed, could still maintain adequate separation from the existing house and could also minimize grading, vegetation removal and visual impacts in the vicinity. Conclusion. This project is poorly conceived and does not meet the planning, zoning, subdivision and engineering standards and policies that the City has adopted and administered for many years. This project is not an infill lot situation. It very simply is an attempt to squeeze a parcel into an excess sideyard area for purely speculative purposes. It does not represent orderly and harmonious development and good planning principals, and has no neighborhood support. What it does do however, is severely_affect the desireab_lility anof_investmentd occupation of the.properties in the surrounding area, which is protected by City Ordinance and State Law. This project should be denied and the applicant's directed to consider the development of the vacant land fronting the existing house at 2410 Johnson. Sincerely yours, e,8& Barbara Boud erty Owners; 1645 Corona Court, San-Luis Obispo 3 Y nI JV Page 224 of 332 Attac; July 15, 1995 Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis.Obispo,CA 93401 To: Administrative Hearing Officer. Regarding:Application Number. MS 75-95 2410 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 We are writing in regard to the above mentioned lot split which would create a building site from a flag lot. We live directly behind said property at 1659 Corona Court. We object to the lot split on the grounds that, if built upon,it would block our view and considering the size of the lot, force building close to property lines maldng'it very"congested". Since purchasing our property,values have gone down. If this lot were built upon it would greatly effect the value of our property. We are asking that you deny this request We would attend the hearing but we are going to be out of town. Kay and Michael Emmons cf Page 225 of 332 Z r l 01i CIe-Gls Ce'1 o. ee v n 44ki-to AL A& k aAiZ c Page 226 of 332 JOSEPH BOUD Attachment 5 8 ASSOCIATES DESIGN d PLANNING.SERVICES CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO November 17, 2009 City Council NOV 2 5 2009 City of San Luis Obispo 1180 Palm Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Appeal of MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 Dear Mayor and City Council members, We are one of the eight property owners and/or residents of the above subdivision project that have Appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project to the Council. We reside at 1645 Corona Court and have lived there from its origin. As the original.'developers of the underlying Tract 1272, of which this subject property was designated Lot 1, we would like to provide the Council with a historical perspective of the development of this neighborhood and additional regulatory standards to supplement the information contained in the Appeal package submitted on November 29, 2009. Three estate-sized parcels were combined in a cooperative effort to develop Tract 1272. During the design.and processing of the subdivision, great effort was made to convert this vacant property, surrounded by residential development, into a quality neighborhood. Extraordinary and explicit measures were undertaken to protect the neighboring properties privacy and views. For example, CC&R's for Tract 1272 self-imposed a requirement for Architectural Review by three of the tracts developers (Joseph Baud, Barbara Baud, Michael Bravo) to insure that viewsheds, privacy, overlook and thoughtful design were taken into considered and materials of construction were of a high quality. In many cases, new house siting and fenestration were altered to minimize the impacts to neighboring residences within the tract and external to the tract to satisfy these objectives and neighborhood concerns. Further, the City's Planning Commission, in reviewing the project, required that the original 15-lot subdivision be reduced to 14 parcels, not because the 15 lots weren`t consistent with the City's Ordinances, but because it simply felt"too tight" (actual quote). The City also required increased setbacks and lowered building elevations for lots that abutted the upslope properties along Flora Street(see correspondence in the Appeal package)to protect these properties views and privacy. We see no difference here. The development of this project should show the same respect as Tract 1272 did to protect the existing Flora Street neighborhood. In thiscase the neighborhoodis now the Corona Court and abutting property residential neighborhood. Discretionary approvals for projects such as this should consider strict compliance with City policies as well as less quantified standards that affect neighborhood character and quality of life expectations. Continued reference in staff reports and by the Applicant to this project complying with all.CityCodes, Ordinances and Policy is simply not correct. The following City requirements are inconsistent with this project and clearly indicate that this project cannot establish the requisite Legal Findings. For example: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: COMMUNITY'S GOALS 29. Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. LUE 2.2.10 Housing built within existing neighborhoods should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. 1009 Morro Street,Suite 206 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 P:805.543.0565 F:805.543.2187 E:jcboud@aol.com Page 227 of 332 Attachment 5J How does view obstruction and industrial design solutions (mid-tract fire truck turnaround) reflect the sensitive development.and neighborhood character that occurred in Tract 1272? LUE 2.2.12 Residential Project Objectives Residential Projects should provide: A. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project D. Pleasant views from and toward the project E. Security and Safety Privacy, views and fire safety are all severely compromised with the development of a three-lot project that includes a lot in this difficult accessed, view blocking, visually intruding Parcel 1. 2.4.5 Low Density Residential Low-density residential development should be primary dwellings having locations and forms that. provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for households occupying them. The 25 years of Corona Court as a cohesive, attractive, high quality, esteemed neighborhood is severely compromised with the introduction of a three-lot project. CONSERVATION&OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 9.1.5 View protection in new development . The City will ... carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road constructign on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards ... By merely making this statement, the City acknowledges the importance of the retention of visual quality. This is a long held philosophy in our City and certainly applies to each.and every property within the City. 9.2.2 Views to and from private development Projects should incorporate as amenities views from and within private development sites. Private development designs should cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to be met. it is not possible for Parcel 1 to development without impacting neighboring properties, including the existing residence located on proposed Parcel 2. Very simply, the project objectives,of the Applicant are ill conceived and unattainable. A revised project objective, as discussed in the Appeal package, would be a two-lot project with a negotiated lot line adjustment between abutting lots and the area contained in Parcel 1. COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES 1.4 Goals for Design Quality and Character Maintain the quality of life for residents Maintain property values The impacts of proposed Parcel 1 have severe quality of life and property value impacts to all of the abutting properties, including the existing residence on proposed Parcel 2. 5.3 Residential: Infill Development The guidelines are intended to provide for infill projects that are compatible with existingdevelopment ... As discussed above, the development of the Corona Court neighborhood with acute attention to views, privacy, overlook, and quality of life are all compromised with this project and certainly cannot be considered compatible with those long held expectations. 7.2 Hillside Development 1. Subdivision Design. A proposed subdivision of two or more parcels shall be designed to comply with the following guidelines: l Boud letter•Appeal of MS 78-09 to City Council•11113/09•Page 2 v' Page 228 of 332 Attachment 5 a. Parcel and building site slope. No parcel shall be created: 2)Without at least one building site of at least 5,000 square feet that has no natural slope of 10 percent or more. This is a three-lot subdivision. The proposed two vacant parcels have average slopes of15.7% and 17.2%, with even greater slope characteristics and constraints within their proposed building envelopes. There is an existing residence located on proposed Parcel2thatdoeshaveanaveragecrossslopeoflessthan10%. However, the intent of the standard, creating at least one new, building site with less than 10% slopes cannot be satisfied. This project creates no new building site of at least 5,000 square feet on a slopelessthan10%. 3. Placement of Structures. Each structure shall be located in the ... least visually prominentportionofthesite. 9. View Protection. Each proposed structure should be designed and located to avoid unnecessarily blocking views from other properties. a. Where feasible, a new structure should not be placed directly in the view of the primarylivingareasonaneighboringparcel. The language and spirit of the hillside development standards certainly should be considered in this situation and the proposed Parcel 1 clearly violates the visually prominent and view obstruction objectives. See the Visual Simulation information in the Appeal package, especially the photograph with the story pole. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Section 16.10.030 JBK. A Detailed Slope Analysis for projects containing slopes greater than 15% and a PreliminaryGradingandVegetationRemovalPlanhasnotbeensubmitted. The above information will conrrrm the severely constrained building area within Parcel 1 and 3 and provide information related to earthwork and vegetation removal impacts that should be evaluated through the CEQA Initial Study analysis. This project is not a clever or innovation subdivision and in no way reflects good land use planning and community design. Parcel 1 and its building envelope create a multitude of problems and concerns as enumerated in this letter and the Appeal package. For instance, a structural and/or wildland fire with the high probability of the fire truck turnaround blocked could easily result in damage or loss of three residential structures. Even a task as simple as wheelingthegarbagecanstotheJohnsonAvenuecurbonFridaymorningswillprovetobeamajor challenge if Parcel 1 is developed. If this project is approved, squeezing a lot into an improbable area with a future resilience looming above the backyard and staring into the windows of the existing house and in the face of the abutting neighbor's homes, along with sticking an industrial fire truck turnaround at the front door of their home, the Applicants will succeed in making a mockery of good, thoughtful planning, violate numerous City standards and degrade and devalue not only the abutting properties, butalsotheirown. We urge the City Council to' deny this project and direct the Applicant to pursue the other development options that are cited in the Appeal package. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joseph & Barbara Boud- 1645 Coropa Court, San Luis Obispo C: Appellants to MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 C: SLO Community Development Department Boud letter•Appeal of MS 78-09 to City Council•11113109•Page 3 Page 229 of 332 i Attachment 5 61 PN ` Page 230 of 332 irrtcf ;td Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: .James David, Assistant Planner(781-7576) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2009 FROM: Doug Davidson,Deputy Director b,b FILE NUMBER: AP-PC 78-09 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2410 Johnson SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Officer's decision to allow a subdivision proposal to create three conforming lots from one in the Low-density residential zone(R-1). RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's approval of the tentative parcel map based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements in the attached draft resolution. BACKGROUND Situation Engineering Development Associates (EDA), received approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 42,850 square foot R-1 lot into three conforming lots on the north side of Johnson Avenue between Ella Street and Sydney Street (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). The subject lot contains one residential dwelling, situated in the center of the lot. The subject lot is part-of Tract 1272, which created 15 lots (three fronting Johnson Avenue and 12 clustered around Corona Court to the north) in 1985. The parcel map proposes one lot between the existing house-and Johnson Avenue, one lot containing the house, and a third lot behind the house. The existing house conforms to property development standards such as building heights and setbacks. The Hearing Officer approved the tentative parcel map on September 18, 2009, based on findings of consistency with the Subdivision Regulations and subject to conditions and code requirements. An appeal to the Planning Commission was filed by the neighbors on September 28, 2009, motivated by concerns over viewshed, property values, slope, and potential fire hazards Attachment 3,Appeal Documentation). Hata Summary Address: 2410 Johnson Property Owner: Jeffrey and Susan Spevack Applicant/Representative: EDA,Jeff Wagner Appellants: Joseph Boud et. al. Zoning: Low-density residential (R-1) General Plan: Low Density Residential Page 231 of 332 Attacbment 6 AP-PC 78-09 2410 Johnson Page 2 Environmental Status: Categorically exempt (CEQA Guidelines Class 15; Section 15315) because: no variances or exceptions are required; all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available; the parcel was not involved is a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years; and the parcel does not have an average cross slope of greater than 20%. Site Desgdpttion The project site is just shy of an acre with one residential dwelling and landscape improvements. The dwelling has no covered parking spaces. The existing crescent-shaped driveway is steep coming off Johnson Avenue and then levels out as it climbs to the house. There are two curb cuts on Johnson Avenue. The subject property's average cross-slope is 15 to 17 percent and is surrounded by low-density residential (R-1) development. There are many ornamental shrubs and trees throughout the site. The property owner has an above-ground pool adjacent to the home, as well as a gazebo,pond, and play equipment in the rear yard. Project Description The applicant received a tentative parcel map approval to subdivide the lot into three parcels. The flag lot subdivision creates one lot between the existing house and Johnson Avenue, one lot containing the house, and a third lot behind the house. (Attachment 2, Tentative Parcel Map). The applicant is not proposing any new site development with the subdivision entitlement at this time. The existing driveway will be removed and curb cuts abandoned. A new driveway is proposed along the northern edge to serve all three parcels. The accessway will be owned in fee by the parcel furthest from the street,Parcel One, with an access easement over Parcels Two and Three. Guest parking 4 : spaces will be provided for all three proposed parcels in accordance with deep lot subdivision requirements. A fire truck turnaround is included on c vo Parcel 'Free to serve all three parcels. As proposed, the subdivision does not View o ro osed buildin envelo eon Parcel OnerequireanyexceptionstotheCity's ' " Subdivision or Zoning Regulations. EVALUATION Flag lots may be approved for subdividing deep lots where development would not be feasible Page 232 of 332 Attachment 6 AP-PC 78-09 2410 Johnson Page 3 with the installation of a standard street. The proposed subdivision conforms to the following subdivision regulations: Minimum Lot Area and Dimensions Figure 1:Comparison of proposed lots and R-1 zoning district standards Lot Dimension Minimum Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Requirements Avg.slope= 17.2% Avg.slope=4.9% Avg.slope= 15.7% Net area(square feet) Avg. cross-sloe 0-15% 6,000 n/a 12 370 n/a Net area(square feet) Viz. ss-s o a 16-20% 10 890 12,895 n/a 12,185 Width feet 50 64 101 124 Depth feet 90 200 128 98 Frontage feet 20 26 124 26 Residential lots sloped 16%or greater must be increased in size to meet minimum density requirements to allow at feast one density unit per lot in accordance with Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16.010. Lot Lines The location of lot lines is slightly irregular because of the unusual shape of the parcel being subdivided. Given that site area for all proposed parcels is more than adequate to support density, and the existing lot shape was previously approved when Tract 1272 was created, staff supports the proposed subdivision design. Slone Parcels One and Three slope an average of approximately 15 to 17 percent, but both parcels are sufficiently large enough to satisfy Zoning Regulations density requirements. Conditions included in the draft resolution (Attachment 5, Draft Planning Commission Resolution) require that grading is minimized to the smallest practical area of land for development on each parcel. Flan Lot Requirements Each lot has adequate yard setbacks and area for parking spaces. The applicant should be aware that three parking spaces (one covered) are required for future single-family residential development, and two parking spaces in addition to a guest parking space must be shown for Parcel Two on the parcel map prior to final recordation. The accessway is at least 20 feet wide and there is a designated landscape area with sufficient width to plant screening shrubs and trees on either side. Conditions of approval ensure that all three parcels are designated "Sensitive Sites". because surrounding residential development exists on adjacent parcels. A sensitive site requires architectural review to review the proposed development design and protect adjacent Pel - Page 233 of 332 a...'...Ab Attachment 6 AP-PC 78-09 2410 Johnson Page 4 properties from overlook, encroachment of solar access, and adequate noise protection and privacy. The project also abandons two existing curb cuts to create one accessway to serve all three parcels. This brings the site further into conformance with Parking and Driveway Standards. General Plan Conformance The project site is designated as Low Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use Element LUE) map and located within an existing subdivision. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to residential project objectives (LUE 2.2.12) and infill development. Each parcel provides security and safety, adequate usable outdoor area, adequate parking and storage space. The project is compatible with the neighborhood (LUE 2.2.10) because it intensifies development of a one-acre parcel in an area that has residential lots . averaging 7,000 to 13,000 square feet, which were created by previous subdivisions. The subdivision of Tract 1272 created a deep flag lot immediately adjacent to proposed Parcel One, and a recent four-lot subdivision was approved in the vicinity at 2417 Flora. Furthermore, proposed Parcel One is bounded by houses on all sides that are built at the same or higher elevation contours..Conditions of approval limit eventual housing development to single-story to keep pleasant views from and toward the project(LUE 2.2.12). Hearing Officer Action On September 18, 2009, the-Hearing Officer approved the tentative map based on findings of consistency with the Subdivision Regulations and the General Plan. The Hearing Officer heard testimony from the applicant's representative and concerned neighbors. Primary opposition was from northern neighbors concerned about eventual development of Parcel One at the rear of the subject property. Neighbors raised issues about impacts to views and property values, fire hazards and development of a sloping site. The Hearing Officer acknowledged these concerns and included conditions of approval to mitigate aesthetic impacts of eventual site development. These conditions included limiting future development to single-story structures, reducing the size of the building envelope on Parcel One, and designating sites "sensitive" thereby requiring architectural review. Staff Response to Appeal Issues The following is an abbreviated list of the appellants' concerns followed by staffs response: 1. The proposed building envelope for Parcel 1 contains significant areas of steep slope. Response: There is adequate area for development of a house in the northeast corner of Parcel One where slope is less severe (10 to 12 percent). The building envelope is overly large and Page 234 of 332 Attachment 6 AP-PC 7M9 2410 Johnson Page S encompasses steep areas less suitable for development. The Hearing Officer has required the applicant to reduce the building envelope to be more compatible with the site and surrounding neighbors. The average cross-slope of Parcel One is 17.2 percent. The area of Parcel One (12,895 sq. ft.) is sufficiently large enough to support a single-family residence, per Zoning Regulations density standards (minimum 10,890 sq. ft. based on slope category). Parcel One has been designated a sensitive site making the parcel subject to architectural review, and future development is limited to single-story. Architectural review will ensure that grading is minimized and development of the land generally follows the natural terrain contour(CDG 5.2). 2. The proposed building envelope shows a minimum 5-foot setback. The setback should be 25 feet to respect neighborhood privacy and views. Response: In the R-1 zone, the minimum required other (side/rear) yard is 5 feet for a point that is 12 feet high on the roof of a building (MC 17.16.020). Requiring a 25-foot setback from the rear property line would push the building footprint of a single-family house down the slope resulting in more severe grading, cut slopes, and force removal of the existing oak tree. This is inconsistent with Community Design Guidelines (CDG 7.2) and Subdivision Regulations (MC 16.18.130). The appellant has stated at the administrative hearing and in his appeal package that the subject parcel-is not governed by the CC&Rs in question. The provisions of this document have no legal bearing on the project under review. Furthermore, the CC&Rs default to the City of San Luis Obispo setback requirements for building locations(Apellant's CC&Rs, Article III). The appellant also relies on correspondence from the Community Development Director, dated 1986, to substantiate need for a 25-foot setback. These letters discuss setback requirements for 1650 Corona Court, which is subject to specific Tract 1272 conditions governing lots 5 — 10. 2410 Johnson is lot 1, and on the opposite side of the Tract. There is no nexus for requiring a 25- foot setback based on this information. 3. The Tentative Map shows an initial 17 percent driveway grade with a driveway width. of 20 feet tapering to 16 feet and then 12 feet. Response: The Fire Marshal has reviewed the tentative map and supports the project. Since this is a not a final map, small revisions to the initial driveway slope are feasible to bring the slope down to. 15 percent. The applicant has proposed a 20-foot driveway leading up to_a fire truck turnaround. According to the Fire Marshal, this 20-foot unobstructed access is all that is necessary for fire apparatus maneuverability on the private driveway. The Fire Marshal will ensure that the driveway meets applicable fire codes upon recordation of the final map. p- /= 0 Page 235 of 332 1_. . . ._a Attachment 6 AP-PC 78-09 2410 Johnson Page 6 The Public Works Department has reviewed the tentative map-and supports the project. Conditions and code requirements are included in the draft resolution to ensure that driveway improvements, grading and drainage comply with City standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. 4. The building envelope for Parcel One is 325 feet from Johnson Avenue, and the fire code requires maximum 15 percent gradient with a 20 foot wide unobstructed access. Response: The Fire Marshal has reviewed the tentative map and supports the project. The applicant has proposed a 20-foot driveway leading up to a fire truck turnaround. According to the Fire Marshal, this 20-foot unobstructed access is all that is necessary for fire apparatus maneuverability on the private driveway. With the provision of a fire truck turnaround at rear of Parcel Three, fire trucks will be able to pull a 300 foot hose to the farthest back corner of Parcel One. When Parcel One (sensitive site) is developed it will require architectural review and the Fire Marshal will require sprinklers for new construction. Code requirements have been included in the draft resolution that require the shared driveway and fire truck turnaround is conspicuously posted "NO PARKING—FIRE LANE CVC 22500". If at any time these areas are blocked, the offending party will receive a City-issued citation. 5. Development of Parcel One with a single-story house wilt impact privacy, views and diminish neighboring property values. Response: There are no City policies that specifically protect residential viewsheds or property values. Based on zoning (R-1), lot size (acre) and density, the property owner could develop a second two-story single-family dwelling or secondary dwelling unit with an administrative use permit without the subdivision entitlement. Conditions included in the draft resolution designating all parcels sensitive sites, restricting building height, and reducing Parcel One's building envelope successfully respond to neighborhood concerns while allowing the applicants to subdivide their property for infill development. The appellant has included visual simulations to demonstrate potential impacts to viewsheds of uphill properties. These sketches assume a 2500 square foot home, which is the entire extent of the building envelope. Conditions included in the draft resolution require the building envelope to be reduced in size so that eventual development of the parcel will be consistent in size with the existing house on Parcel Two and the rest of the neighborhood. The applicant's representative has provided a formal response to the appeal documentation, which includes a plausible cross- section sketch of potential visual impacts to uphill neighbors that is less severe (Attachment 4, Applicant's Response to Appeal). The Commission should bear in mind that this application is for subdivision of land, and compatibility concerns with eventual development will be addressed through the required architectural review process. L - 0 Page 236 of 332 E Attachment 6 AP-PC 78-09 2410 Johnson Page 7 6. The project is not supported by eight neighbors, who had an understanding that their neighborhood would remain unchanged. A previous subdivision request for this parcel was withdrawn in 1995. Response: The subject property is the last remaining acre parcel in the neighborhood. Flag lot subdivisions have occurred on adjacent properties at 2330 Johnson and 2417 Flora. The average tot size in the neighborhood is 7,000 to 10,000 square feet. The subdivision request is compatible with the neighborhood. The previous subdivision application in 1995 was withdrawn after staff sent an incomplete letter. Staff did not formulate a position on the application since it was incomplete. 7. Several years ago the neighbors approached the applicants with the desire to purchase the rear portions of the lot. The applicants did not want to sell at that time. Response: The applicant has reconsidered this alternative and extended a desire to negotiate sale of Parcel One to the uphill neighbors. This is a matter between the property owners and does not affect the analysis of the parcel map. 8. This project is not about implementing Strategic Growth objectives, General Plan Goals, compliance with A1132 or other State or City standards. Response: The General Plan contains numerous policies encouraging infill development, including: HE 3.12.9 — Balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as much on infill development and densification within City limits as on annexation of new residential land. LUE Community Goal #31 — Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. COSE 4.4.3 — Compact, high-density housing to achieve more efficient use of public facilities,services, and land resources. COSE 1.6.2 —Community size should be designed that housing,jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. COSE 1.6.13 — The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. CONCLUSION The Hearing Officer approved the project because it complies with the Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Regulations, General Plan and Community Design Page 237 of 332 Attachment 6 AP-PC 78-09 2410 Johnson Page 8 Guidelines. The Hearing Officer restricted the parcels to single-story development to recognize the-expressed concerns about neighborhood compatibility. The entitlement follows the traditional neighborhood pattern of subdivisions creating larger than average R-1 parcels. The tentative map has been supported by all relevant departments and conditions and code requirements included in the draft resolution will ensure that the final map meets all applicable City ordinances and codes. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may uphold the appeal and deny the tentative parcel map, provided that the Commission can make the required findings. 2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and applicant. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Tentative Map Attachment 3: Appeal documentation Attachment 4: Applicant's Response to Appeal Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Resolution Page 238 of 332 Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION, UPHOLDING APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION CREATING THREE LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2410 JOHNSON, MS 78-09 WHEREAS, the applicant, on August 5, 2009, submitted an application for a minor subdivision of a one-acre parcel into three conforming parcels in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer, at an administrative hearing held in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 18, 2009, approved the tentative parcel map creating three lots from one lot; and WHEREAS, Nancy Shokohi, Joseph & Barbara Boud, Maureen Eyermann, Kevin & Julie Elder, Steven & Paula Dooley, William & Barbara Herrerras, James & Marlene Killian, Chris & Alyssa Holland [appellants], filed a joint appeal of the Hearing Officer's action on September 28, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo at a public hearing held in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2009, denied the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision approving the tentative parcel map creating three lots from one lot; and WHEREAS, Appellants filed a joint appeal of the Planning Commission's action on November 9, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 5, 2010, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Planning Commission's action upholding the Hearing Officer's decision to allow a subdivision creating three lots on property located at 2410 Johnson MS 78-09); and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, the records of the administrative hearing, the records of the Planning Commission hearing, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Denial of Appeal. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action denying an appeal and upholding the Hearing Officer's decision to allow a subdivision creating three lots on property located at 2410 Johnson is hereby denied based on the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative parcel map is consistent.with the General Plan, which designates the area for- low-density residential development and promotes infill development. P14I----73 Page 239 of 332 Council Resolution XXXX (2010 Series) Attachment 7 Page 2 2. The sites are physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone because the proposed parcels meet the minimum area, width and depth standards for lots with an average cross-slope of 16-20%. 3. The project is compatible with the neighborhood (LUE 2.2.10) because it intensifies development of a one-acre parcel in an area that has residential lots averaging 7,000 to 13,000 square feet, which were created by previous subdivisions. Furthermore, proposed Parcel One is bounded by houses on all sides that are built at the same or higher elevation contours. 4: The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the sites do not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife, are surrounded by urban development and have already been developed with one single-family dwelling and landscaping improvements. 5. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision since required easements will remain in place following the subdivision and will be applicable to the newly created parcels, and code requirements require the recordation of new easements and the relocation of utilities wherever necessary to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Department Director. 6. The tentative map is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions, Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines) because: no variances or exceptions are required; all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available; the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years; and the parcel does not have an average cross slope of greater than 20%. Section 2. Conditions and Code Requirements. The denial of the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, Application No. MS 78-09, is subject to the following conditions and code requirements applicable to the subdivision approval: 1. The Community Development Director has designated Parcels One, Two and Three as sensitive sites". This status ensures that future infill development will respect existing site constraints, privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, provide for adequate parking, and be compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood. An application for architectural review will be required in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.48.050. 2. Applications submitted for architectural review on Parcel One shall include housing designed not to exceed a 406-foot elevation at the highest point of the roof, to preserve pleasant views from and towards the property (LUE 2.2.12), and remain consistent in character with the neighborhood. 3. The building footprint shown on Parcel One shall be reduced in size so that eventual 4D A 1- 7Page 240 of 332 Council Resolution XXXX(2010 Series) Page 3 . housing development of the parcel will be setback at least 10 feet from the northeast property line. The driveway shall not be allowed within this required 10 foot setback. 4. Future development of Parcels One &Three shall provide one(1) additional on-site guest parking space per lot, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. Grading and site disturbance on all parcels shall be limited to that required for providing access, utilities, and drainage improvements to these parcels until complete development plans are submitted for review. 6. Grading associated with development of new structures shall be minimized to the smallest practical area-of land for development on each parcel. 7. Existing overhead utility lines serving the house on Parcel 2 shall be undergrounded. Undergrounding of all wire utilities serving this subdivision shall be achieved without a net increase in the number of utility poles_ unless specifically approved by the city and serving utility companies. 8. The existing driveway approaches shall be abandoned. New curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed per City Engineering Standards. 9. The proposed northerly approach shall be installed per City Engineering Standard #2111. The subdivision improvement plan submittal shall include a line-of-sight analysis of pedestrians located on the public sidewalk and/or ADA sidewalk for exiting vehicles. 10. The subdivision improvement plans and map shall show and honor the existing sump and berm area located at the northeast corner of proposed Parcel 2 that serves the upslope lots of Tract 1272. The final map shall include an additional drainage easement if the existing containment area and safe overflow for the storm drain system are not located within the existing easement area. Otherwise, the applicant shall demonstrate that the existing grading improvements are not necessary and shall propose a revised solution for the safe overflow. 11. It is highly recommended that a common driveway be provided to serve this development and the underdeveloped parcel to the north (2374 Johnson). The applicant shall exhaust all opportunity to provide and develop a common driveway with 2374 Johnson for the mutual benefit of both properties. Development costs shall not be considered as a reason to not pursue a common driveway unless it can be shown that the common improvements would be excessive in comparison to a driveway dedicated to serve the parcels within this subdivision. 12. Within the Cityright-of-waysewer laterals proposed to serve Parcels 1 and Parcel 2 must be no less than 16"on center. 13. A CCTV inspection of the existing sewer lateral proposed to serve Parcel 3 shall be submitted to the Building Division during the building permit process. Page 241 of 332 Council Resolution XXXX (2010 Series) Page 4 Attachment 7 Code Requirements The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan checkprocess. 1. Any required building permits for utility installations, relocations, or building alterations shall have all work completed and receive final inspection approvals to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 2. The Shared driveway and the fire truck turn-around shall be conspicuously posted "NO PARKING—FIRE LANE CVC 22500". 3. A separate exhibit showing all existing public and private utilities shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director prior to recordation of the map. The utility plan shall include water, sewer, storm drains, site drainage, gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV, water wells/springs, , and any utility company meters for each parcel if applicable. The relocation of any utility shall be completed with proper permits prior to recordation of the map. Utilities shall not cross proposed property lines unless located within suitable easements. Easements, if proposed, shall be shown on the final map or shall be recorded concurrently to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director and serving utility companies. 4. Final lot line locations and building setbacks shall consider building allowable area analysis, exterior wall protection, projections, and the location of building service equipment in accordance with the uniform codes and to the satisfaction of the Building Division and Planning Division. Any necessary analysis and/or exhibits shall be submitted for review and shall be approved prior to recordation of the map. 5. Any building permits issued for work required to satisfy the conditions of the subdivision shall receive final inspection approvals or shall have substantially completed all work to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 6. A separate building permit shall be obtained for the upgrade, alteration, and/or relocation of any on-site utilities or structures. Any required improvements shall have all work completed and final inspections approved to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 7. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable. A private waterline easement shall be provided for the water services crossing Parcel 3 to serve Parcels 1 and 2. 7 Page 242 of 332 w , Council Resolution XXXX(2010 Series) Attachment 7 Page 5 Public Right-of-Way 8. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to recordation of the map. 9. Additional public right-of-way or public pedestrian easements may be necessary to accommodate improvements required for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Site,Water, Sewer& Utilities 10.The proposed driveway shall be shown to comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for sloping driveways. 11.The improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed parking spaces to serve the existing developed Parcel 2 in accordance with the zoning regulations and the Parking and Driveway Standards. 12.Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. A private sewer main may be proposed to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Utilities Engineer, and Public Works Director. 13.If proposed, an on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's/Property Owner's Association and shall be covered in the CC&R's or comparable maintenance agreement. 14.The existing water service shown to serve the proposed Parcel 3 shall be shown to comply with current city standards and be capable of providing adequate fire service to a new residence. Otherwise, the service shall be abandoned at the public main in favor of a new meter manifold designed to serve all three parcels. Grading& Drainage 15.The preliminary soils report prepared by Geosolutions, Inc with Report No SLO6905-1, dated May 19, 2009 shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations. 16.All elevations must be based on a City Bench Mark and noted per City datum elevations. The plans shall note the benchmark number, location and elevation. Include a clear description of the benchmark referenced on the plans. Clarify whether the NGVD 29 or NAVD 88 datum is being used. 17.The subdivision improvements and/or building plans shall include provisions to minimize the amount of any collected groundwater seepage that would be directed to the gutter at the public street in accordance with City Engineering Standard 1010.B. Page 243 of 332 Council Resolution XXXX(2010 Series) Page 6 1 18.Development of the proposed parcels shall comply with the erosion control provisions of the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. 19.All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easementsiblanket easements, and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. 20.The subdivision improvement plans shall clarify where the existing drainage facilities are located and where they are discharged. Trees and Landscape Requirements 21. Street trees are required as a condition of subdivision. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage. 22.The subdivision improvement plans shall correctly show the size and location of all existing trees. Tree species, diameter, and accurate canopy depictions shall be shown and noted for reference. 23.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. 24.The subdivision improvement plans shall provide clarification on the existing and proposed landscape and landscape irrigation improvements on the proposed undeveloped Parcel 3. Landscape irrigation shall be provided to the existing landscape if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. The landscape irrigation shall be separate from the remaining parcels. A new landscape irrigation meter may be required for this purpose. Water Impact fees will be required for any additional water meters. Flag lot Subdivision 25.The final map shall include any required easements required for the reasonable development of the affected properties. Easements may include but are not limited to grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle tum-around, and utilities. Any maintenance agreements shall be completed and recorded before or concurrent with final map approval. 26.The proposed access easement for Parcel 1, 2, and 3 shall comply with the City's parking and driveway standards for slopes and maneuverability. These standards require adequate area to allow vehicles to exit from all legal parking spaces and garages in a forward direction in not more than two maneuvers. ro Page 244 of 332 A Council Resolution XXXX(2010 Series)At a(-,hMant 7 Page 7 Misc. Requirements 27.The subdivision improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to final inspection approvals and/or recordation of the map. A completion guarantee shall be provided per city standards if the map is approved for recordation prior to completion of all required subdivision improvements. 28.The required public and private subdivision improvements may be completed with a separate subdivision/public improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works Department. As an alternate, the building plan submittal may be used to show all required improvements. Improvements-located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees. 29.A separate plan review fee payable to the Public Works Department may be required for the Public Works Department review of subdivision improvements associated with the building plan submittal. Said review fee shall be in accordance with the subdivision improvement plan review fee resolution in effect at the time of the building permit application submittal. 30. Subdivision improvement plans shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. The plans shall be approved prior to map recordation. Public improvements shall comply with the City Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications in effect at the time of submittal of the improvement plans. The current standards are dated January 2009. Mapping and Misc.Requirements 31.All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A computer disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 32.The parcel map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map shall use English Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards. All record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis if applicable. Page 245 of 332 Attac'irmer tt 7 Council Resolution XXXX(2010 Series) Page 8 Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2010. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney pA ^Page 246 of 332 F D CoP 6414A-1< RED FILE COUNCIL designL'I CDD DIR 2T-2eAOeraya ITFIN DIR professionals MEETING AGENDA O'AGA'94wg-Nr+Yisr-t IRE CHIEF 2'T ORNEY tf—pw 01R DA o.ITEM #2rCLERK/ORIG "CLICE CHFEEP,jcivil engineers O land surveyors"O landplannersE:AGB CEO I31R December 30, 2009 Mf16 61g City Council C" nice- 996 Palm Street Cly San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 s RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION UPHOLDING THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION TO ALLOW A SUBDIVISION CREATING THREE CONFORMING LOTS FROM ONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2410 JOHNSON (MS 78-09) (PM-SLO-09-0074) To the City Council: On behalf of the project applicants, Sue and Jeff Spevack, eda -design professionals submits the following response to the subject appeal. Our responses to the Planning Commission appeal are in your hearing packet, and will not be repeated here. We support and agree with the Staff Report. This letter focuses only on the new information raised in the appeal. This appeal is, first and foremost, a test of the City's resolve to implement the growth strategies in the General Plan,.and as expressed in the Conservation and Open Space Element, Section 4.4.3. Compact, high-density housing, which states: The City will promote higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use of public facilities and services, land resources, and to improve the jobs/housing balance. This map creates two lots for two additional dwelling"units, consistent with the density allowed for the.original 0.96-'acre lot and with General Plan policies and goals. The sole reason for this appeal is to prevent partial obstruction of the appellant's view over the Spevack's property, even though there is no legal protection for views from a private residence, Arguments about the building envelope, grading,fire issues, and lot configurations are merely attempts to justify the goal of view protection, All these arguments have been rejected by staff, the Administrative Hearing Officer, and the Planning Commission. . SLOPE/ BUILDING ENVELOPE The appeal recommends a 25400t setback,which would eliminate flat portions of the site and push a homesite onto steeper slopes. The appeal's objective is a map condition RECEIVED DEC 3 12009 1998 Santa Barbara Street,Suite.200,San Luis.Obispo, CA 93401 805-548658 fax 805-549-8704 www.edainc.con, SLO CITY CLERK Page 247 of 332 City Council Appeal of 2410 Johnson Map December 30, 2009 Page 2 of 3 that would "render Parcel 1 as a non-building site". This setback is counter to City requirements, and it was correctly rejected by the Planning.Commission. Furthermore, the appeal claims that there is insufficient usable area within the Parcel 1 building envelope to allow a home to be built. This is simply not the case, andthere are many homes in the.City built on much steeper lots. It is likely that the house foundation will be constructed with three to five-foot stem walls on the downhill side, which would allow a house to be built over the slope, without grading to level the hillside. This is common practice. HEIGHT/VISUAL IMPACTS The appeal provides photographs and rough sketches to imply visual impacts. eda has not verified whether the story poles photographed at the fence line were placed accurately. Although the cross-section shown in Exhibit A of the appeal is very similar to the one reviewed by the Planning Commission, its graphics are potentially misleading. The appeal "insists" on a 398-foot ridgeline elevation, which would maintain the entire view currently enjoyed by the appellant. It would also force the floor elevation.down to 383 feet and put the house in a'deep hole, requiring cuts of up to eight feet across the rear and side of Parcel 1. This is not feasible, nor is it consistent with City policies as noted in the Staff Report. FIRE ACCESS/HAZARD The Fire Marshall has indicated that the driveway configuration on the map is acceptable with a minor revision to the driveway slope, to be addressed at permit application. There are no issues here. NEIGHBORHOOD LOTTING CHARACTER All three lots are consistent with other lots in the neighborhood and comply in every way with the City's ordinances. RECOMMENDATIONS The Spevacks recommend once more that the City's stringent architectural review process be utilized so that the site, the proposed architecture, lot grading, and other project impacts can be analyzed as a system. Short:circuiting the,review process by placing unnecessary and damaging restrictions. on Parcel 1 is not good planning. The Spevacks accepted the additional protections and mitigations imposed by the Planning eda—design prolessionals 1998 Santa Barbara Street, Suite 200,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805-549-8658 fax 805-549-8704 www.edainc.com i Page 248 of 332 i City Council Appeal of 2410 Johnson Map. December 30, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Commission. Further details are best left to architectural review—when all the relevant factors can be weighed properly and accurately. Micromanagement by the City Council is not necessary. The Spevacks request that the City Council uphold its General Plan policies and goals, concur with the findings of its staff and the Planning Commission, and deny this appeal. Thank you very much. Yours truly, eda -design professionals Jeffr yP. Wa ner, PE Vice residen eda—design professionals 1998 Santa Barbara Street,Suite 200,San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-549-8658 fax 805-549-8704 www.edainc.com Page 249 of 332 Date: December.30,2009 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA To: City Council A / 6/D ITEM # P l City of San Luis Obispo Subject: MS 78-09 PM-SLO-09-0074 I am the owner of the property at 1649 Corona Ct. for over 14 years. I have attended two hearings regarding the proposed subdivision at 2410 Johnson Ave. I am still perplexed that the subdivision was approved with very minor modifications by the Planning Commission. Even with these changes,the third parcel will obstruct the views from neighboring lots,remains a fire hazard, impedes traffic flow on Johnson Ave. and significantly reduces the property values and quality of the neighborhood. I am saddened that.Mr. Spevack continues to pursue this project knowing the impact that it has on his neighbors. One would think that the subdivision of his property into two parcels would have met his goals in having a more secure financial future. We approached Mr. Spevack approximately four years ago with the intent of purchasing part of his lot. We were turned down. Unfortunately I am currently not in a position to purchase this land, especially as a single mother. My financial future, as well as my daughter's, is in jeopardy due to decreasing property values. The 406 foot height limit was arbitrarily selected without much substantiation or degree in accuracy. This height would clearly block views from my balcony. A ten foot setback, proposed in the October 28, 2009 hearing would only obscure the view even more. Mr. Spevack continues to pursue his own financial gains at the expense of many others. I am opposed to the development of parcel 3 for all of the reasons indicated above as well as in our November 9, 2009 appeal. I implore the City Council to listen to the citizens in our neighborhood who clearly oppose this subdivision. I also ask Mr. Spevack to look beyond his own financial gains and consider the request of his neighbors in order to maintain a civil relation- ship with them. GbPY Gh1l rLThankyouforyourconsideration. E<touNCIL C3TDD DIR aeAO cl'1pl 2TIN DIR• p"A8tl6A5_Sr6kn/X-43-FIRE CHIEF., . Maureen Eyerman O9 ATTORNEY Caw DIR 2'CLERK/ORIG G-POLICE CHF DEPT HEADS LT-REC DIR RECEIVED SNF _(URIDRIR DEC 3 0 2009 Nns Cou CcL Clt'•I /VLG2 SLO CITY CLERK Page 250 of 332 l To: San Luis Obispo City Council(Dave Romero,John Ashbaugh,Andrew Carter,Jan Marx,Allen Settle) Re:2410 Johnson Avenue 3 lot subdivision, being appealed at your upcoming Jan. 5"' meeting My name is Jeff Spevack, my wife and I have owned and lived in our house at 2410 Johnson Ave, for the past 10 years. Over the past year we have gone through the City planning process to be permitted to subdivide our one acre lot into three one-third acre lots. Our reasons for wanting to subdivide are:we only use a third of our one acre,we are the only acre lot left in the neighborhood,this would give us more options with our property. We have followed the City's guidelines and regulations,City staff from planning, public works,and fire departments have all been out to our site, and are all in support of our project. Our new lots will conform to the other lot sizes in our neighborhood,and there are no variances to City regulations. At the Director's Subdivision Hearing on 9/18/09,the project was approved by hearing officer Doug Davidson. Our concerned neighbors were there to voice their positions, but they were advised to raise their concerns through the architectural planning process. Our neighbors appealed this decision to the City Planning Commission on 10/28/09, but their appeal was denied and our project was once again approved, with a few modifications. Now they are appealing again. To address our neighbors appeals and concerns, we have responded to every concern, now for the third time.Their appeal is based on questioning the planning that has already been done step by step by EDA/Jeff Wagner(our planner),who has worked over the year with James David(SLO City planner), and has been supported at the Preliminary Hearing and at the Planning Commission hearing.Their concerns about this being an unbuildable lot, and regarding viewshed issues are really a NIMBY issue. You are welcome to come visit our lot and see for yourselves. In light of our efforts,we are very disappointed that this is being appealed by our neighbors,for the same redundant and meritless reasons as before.We are not developers, we are not trying to split our property into a bunch of tiny lots, we are trying to do a sensible and conservative tot split. This is costing us a lot of money, and the city a lot of time and money. Ironically,the neighbors who are appealing our project all live in large two-story houses that significantly block the views of their uphill neighbors on Flora Street. We ask that you support the Staffs recommendations,and deny this appeal in the strongest language possible! I would like to discuss this in person, and I would be brief and to the point(maybe 15 minutes?) Please call Jeff at 423-2335! RECEIVED VJ .j DEC 16 2009 SLO CITY CLERK 7 L „ Page 251 of 332 Page 1 of 1 r Chippendale, Sue From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:24 PM To: Council_ALL; Hampian, Ken; Lichtig, Katie; Stanwyck, Shelly; Elke, Brigitte; Dietrick, Christine; Mandeville, John; David, James Subject:Council Correspondence for January 5 Council Meeting Attachments: cwuncilcorrespondencespevack.pdf Attached please find a letter from Jeff Spevack regarding the upcoming appeal of a proposed subdivision at 2410 Johnson (MS 78-09). The appeal is scheduled to be heard at the Council meeting on January 5, 2010. Mr. Spevack and his wife are the original applicants and would like Council members to call them and discuss the matter in person if at all possible. Thanks, Sue 12/16/2009 Page 252 of 332 RECEIVED DEC 2 - 7009 To the City Council of San Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK Re: Spevack subdivision RED FILE ME ING AGENDA ITEM CaL_ We, William and Barbara Herreras,reside at 1669 Corona Court [Lot 4 Tract 1272]. We have resided at this address for more than 10 years. Both of us have been residents of the City of San Luis Obispo for in excess of 40 years. We join in the protest expressed by our neighbors regarding the Spevack subdivision. The subdivision has a material negative impact on our property values and the integrity of the neighborhood. In order to avoid redundancy we request that the City Council consider the following negative impact that has been summarized in the Appeal of Subdivision Approval: e Slope/building envelope D MAL 1_3-rCOUNCIL O CDD DIR e Grade/drive/vegetation impact O-GAONrrrm&z CYFIN DIR aAGAE)451'-&m4--r-Zr-TIRE CHIEF L3"9TTCRNEY 03 pw DIR e Fire Access/Hazard CLERWORIG OTCUCE CHFj1iDEPTHEADS2"REC DIR ti C71UTIL DIR e Neighborhood Lotting character CHR DSR.. nK,1 rr,es CvusaciL . G-ri ^16z- We respectfully request that the City Council accept the recommendations urged by our neighbors in this appeal and follow the recommendations contained in the appeal. William A. Herreras Barbara Herreras Page 253 of 332 RECEIVED JAN 51010 design profess CIO'SLO CITY CLERK Aq civil engineers I land surveyors I land planners F/ZD CDPY C/jIlf/LOctober21, 2009 RED FILE COUNCIL G- CDD DIR feAeClr;/nXot BTIN DIRMEETINGAGENDAL, AWCrry414(, IRE CHIEF James David DAT S o ITEM # A 0RNE'CE"Pw DIR City of San Luis Obispo 3'CLERiVOPoa Ci'POLICE CHF Community Development Department DEPT HEADS Cru%DIR It3 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 n-HR 010R C"WR 91tfi l,Jr rwES C,°O tL RE: MS 78-09, PM-SLO-09-0074, 2410 Johnson Avenue APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ecce Dear Mr. David, On behalf of the project applicants, Sue and Jeff Spevack, eda-design professionals submits the following response to the appeal of the approval of the subject Tentative Parcel Map. Please place this response in the.Planning Commissions packet for the October 20, 2009 hearing. Thank you. APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL The applicants are the owners of the 2410 Johnson Avenue property. They request that the appeal of the Administrative Officer's approval be denied by the Planning Commission. The appeal presents no significant new information. Both the Spevacks and eda believe that staff acted appropriately in its approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, and that staffs findings should be upheld so the Spevacks can move on without further unnecessary costs and delays. The applicants believe that their map is a test of their right to develop their property within the bounds of the City's policies and ordinances. It is also a test of the City's resolve to fulfill Strategic Growth objectives, General Plan goals, AB32 and other planning objectives. This project complies with all City requirements, policies, goals, and contrary to the appeal, staff Findings 2, 3,4, and 6. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the appeal. A point-by-point response to the appeal is offered below, in a format similar to the appeal itself. Building Envelope Parcel 1 –Slope Slope. City staff reviewed the slope gradients that eda presented on the approved map and concurred with our figures. The area of 30%slope cited in the appeal comprises approximately 250 square feet, and is a manufactured slope resulting from backyard 1998 Santa Barbara street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 . 805-549.8658 Fax 805-549.8704 www.adalno.comPage 254 of 332 Planning Commission PM-SLO-09-0074 October 21, 2009 Page 2 of 4 construction. The point is irrelevant, however, since the development standards are based on average slope. Trees and landscaping., The map was not conditioned to preserve the 24"eucalyptus or the 6"oak, so their removal is not prohibited. There is no intent to remove the trees unnecessarily, as they are recognized as assets. Regardless, their fate will become evident after building plans are developed and the plans are subjected for ARC and City staff review. Some ornamental landscaping may be removed, which Is allowed. ARC will review landscape issues during permit review. Massive Grading eda's preliminary.grading review indicates that cuts and fills for the driveway and related walls should not exceed three feet in height. Construction of a house should not require more significant grading. In eda's opinion this does not represent massive grading and Is within allowed limits. ARC will review grading issues when it reviews a building permit application. Building Envelope Parcel 1 —Setbacks For clarification, the Spevacks propose to subdivide Lot 1 of Tract 1272 into Parcels 1, 2, and 3. Tract 1272 CC&Rs. The appeal points out that the Tract 1272 CC&Rs do not apply to Lot 1 (Spevack). We agree. The CC&Rs are irrelevant. Setbacks.. eda intended the building envelope to define the limits of construction of a home and yards, including possible retaining walls. We evaluated the use of three-foot retaining walls at the top of Parcel 1 to provide for a lower elevation for a yard and future house, to mitigate impacts on neighbors'views. The applicants wanted to provide for that option. Higher walls could be considered by the owner and reviewed by ARC. ARC Review. ARC will evaluate building setbacks when application is made for a building permit, as well as building orientation and height, depth of the rear yard, landscaping, and other issues. Let us allow ARC to apply all of the considerations and do its job property. We recommend the building envelope remain.as approved by staff. Parcel 1 —Access Driveway grade. The Final Parcel Map will be based on driveway slopes of 15% or less and all Fre Department requirements will be met. The effect of reducing the grade of the first 60 feet of the proposed driveway is shown on the attached exhibit. Reducing the grade from 17% to 15% changes little. At one point near the top of Parcel 2 the driveway will indeed climb a 20% existing slope for approximately 20 feet, but cuts of two to three feet.at the break will allow a driveway to be designed at a 15%grade. oda-design professionals 1998 Santa Barbara Sheet,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805-549.8658&Fax 805,549-8704 wwwedaine.comPage 255 of 332 i Planning Commission PM-SLO-09-0074 October 21, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Vegetation. Vegetation along the property line that must to be removed will be replaced with appropriate new plantings. The applicants are in favor of maintaining the visual screen between properties. Drainage Structure. There is a drainage easement on Lots 2 and 3 (Tract 1272) that abuts Lot 1 (Spevack). Future construction will not cross the property line, so whatever structures exist on Lots 2 and 3 will remain. The 19-drainage easement at the NW corner of Lot 1, adjacent to Lot 13(Tract 1272), and.the small drainage structure will be unaffected or addressed to the City's satisfaction. Fire Hazard. The Tentative Map was presented to the City's Fire Marshall, Roger Maggio. He indicated that with driveway grades limited to 15%and the turnaround as presented within design limits, the Fire Department would be satisfied, subject to his final approval of the actual construction documents. Fire safety standards are not being compromised. Visual Impacts CC&Rs and Owner Exoectatlons, The Spevacks are not responsible for the development expectations of their neighbors or the incorrect reliance on CC&Rs that do not apply to their lot. The appellants have no vested right to the views into and across the Spevack's back yard and home. The Spevacks cannot accept the appeal's implication that their legitimate financial Interests are secondary to the appellants'. Visual Impact Sketches. The rough sketches presented in the appeal reflect a worst- case analysis that overstates the likely view Impacts of a home on Parcel 1. The sketches reflect no 43aek yard and assume the possible highest floor elevation for the home. We believe that adding a backyard and lowering the home by at approximately three feet would more be more realistic. We expect that ARC will consider view impacts and building setbacks in its deliberations. City Land Use Policies. The Spevack's investment in their map and this costly appeal process is not a "ploy", as claimed in the appeal. It is a legitimate exercise of their property rights, consistent with City ordinances and City and state policies to fully utilize existing lots for infill development. The staff found that the approved Tentative Map is consistent with all City policies and ordinances, and we'concur. ARC Review, The City's ARC is widely known as a strong and active review body. The appellants should take comfort in ARC review of a future home project on this property. We anticipate that the appellants will participate in that process, as well. Oda-design professionals 1998 Santa Batbare Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805-549.8858&Fax 805-549-8704 www.edaincoomPage 256 of 332 Planning Commission PM-SLO-09-0074 October 21, 2009 . Page 4 of 4 Neighborhood Controversy The abutting neighbors have freely enjoyed the view benefits provided by the Spevack's. The applicants understand why these neighbors would resist any change to that condition. Nevertheless, views of the Spevack's back yard and over their home are not a vested right held by the neighbors. It is true that the Spevacks remodeled their home in 2001, but that is irrelevant to this appeal. The approved Tentative Map enables the Spevacks to pursue a land division, as other landowners in the neighborhood have already done. Future Parcel 1 is suitable for development, despite the appeals' attempts to show otherwise. This appeal is, quite literally, NIMBY opposition to a project that fits the goals of the City to intensify development within the city limits. Protect Alternatives We concur that selling Parcel 1 to the abutting neighbors is a viable option. The Spevacks have formally offered to meet to discuss this opportunity to the owners of Lots 2 and 3(see attached letter dated October 12, 2009). To date, neither owner has indicated an interest in pursuing the alternative suggested in the appeal. Recommendation The Spevacks believe that this appeal is about their right to develop their property within the bounds of the City's policies and ordinances. This j1 a test of the City's intentions to fulfill Strategic Growth objectives, General Plan goals, AB32 and other planning objectives in the face of neighbors who wrongly believe they are ehtitled to protect their interests by infringing on the legitimate rights of others. This is a project that complies with all City requirements, including Findings 2, 3, 4, and 6. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the appeal. We look forward to presenting our project on October 28. Yours truly, eda-design professionals Jeffrey P. agn r, PE Vice Presl t copy: Sue and Jeff Spevack eds-design proressronars 1998 Santa Barbara Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805.549.8858 8 Fax 805-549.8704 www.adainc.comPage 257 of 332 1 I1 .1 y i9i9i9 J 4 1• C Y6Y \ U a_Y- r `` E` t YY• riot LIRA 1 t 1 Page 258 of 332 To: Nancy&Emil Shokohl,Maureen Eyerman, 10/12/09 From:Jeff&Sue Spevack Re:Property Subdivision Dear Nancy&Emil,and Maureen, Sue and I would like to extend an offer. In fact, it is raised in the Appeal as a Project Alternative to our proposed map. We would like to revisit the idea of selling Parcel 1, to one or both of you. That way, you could extend and improve your yards,to enhance the value of your homes,and own and preserve yourown viewshed. Our engineer agrees that a Lot Line Adjustment between us would not be a difficult task once our map is finalized. It is another process, but a relatively easy one. Please let us know if this is a resolution you are serious about We think it has merit. I have left phone messages with you both, and Nancy has left a phone message back,but I thought a letter would be best. Sincerely, Jeff&Sue Spevack 2"- k Page 259 of 332 v> t'' revK\.f. f< +e.. T - y.s 15^ r t Sr r f et- F pc 3 y yys A,y S• i'r xM3'- r' T - 4.,`y rT YO 5t9.t+a.. r RKA yy ' f it y • r ` i F, . vy " A l,*L- r sB}rS` ' fifes h^ .G:: t , -. '& iS1Y y. vC ILt}F r/ t"'Zi''n,( L9ijb•'$—y.S y FY oY' i n4 .-a 58Jpi"• N' K l i, Y r,. r r {f 4 v >. y Fg'+'.: r 1 A fC P' ty„7 fl / RIF? 'ii JlVz t i z-rcsr 3a.e' a S 4g I t'. T i`a 3 ka n q stYJP A C <i.' i O 7 •r k tr rfy i" '^C 4+J `{/' y, q l,Y a .•„r-.,^a T vyr t r +'° x fY j {+ yS~2 c Jt r .r Y;a n$ tis y,2i 7.ti \ .y„ U y a(.rr r .. AMit y? trr;'< yd t 3 J" y,-n t r t tt`•+^ L- t t1, ..^i cL t i t Jr a w_a r. z.. W la7;M P I,a },4Sy.SS t ? f '• ,+'.x;? T° tit 't. „meq'.r '!M ' '' }Fe R' 1,ra F Z +f tT- Yfr. f ff 3+ wi' rtc.i. - SS`Yo +M.ati T r s,.+5 s v N° a 9 r T f M t- y T P K t 1. ria r {15. tLt y 7.r ;ti ll y?^..t,, •r a tr 0. v 13 " 1ys r. o• > 4;-2 f i 7 ti X.14F y h s 1 a g' p 'y31. h.,., 3N! p J' "'o a- h41 } f/ t •Ftc, --r c•. .r}'y t r .1 _.. t T' trnt.}+,z,-`-,-` z ct`' '{' "t, crr tr;. 2 n Lam-:• ,x •sse { a . 4 w4s d` T 35f tv'a Y tt. -' -•oi;{ r JJ*. s t0' l 3. f yid. r> '•`ta't's'i u:FST 4,u`if t''d r•Is R µ.,Js a f} t C+- w r' lsF. L3) ni'v i +ti/RF'r.'xc' q tr G '' y ftL"rl r'i" Lt .G S I- Ir.J93, t'+} S.t ' t".. . i a M, t r e' S a b'a rk"$ 1`p t» 'Lr`\. t L`r[i ' y` .y yt try fo A T, '' b .. Er C' p[eiK 1 " q,•,a p i t ':y `! ' r < i^. fs 7 L'` P> Y r Yy " ° S S ,{'r T A T t r '` s+,'s .g°4s r a r5 t\ 1 .` ,.•„. If Leroff 1• x. n di '-7'- il O r`: nA ..h r r Q4. vr.;.i Y .ice'T - 4¢ j - s i 5 i a* ,\ > ..0 l.E y JI 54r ` fp f' T, i 'S,c r F . Sr: v 41 P .c 1r•' _ . H•' ry x wf`,.,_ \., p, ;' t ni 7a ,ir j n,i C L t T Vqt+ bv 6^+r r...'">Rf Y t Y+• rr, yp: }. .4:. r i 3 i0. 12 AA ZZ Tj`RT' u'u Y ti:•j 4g, h i: y+r ; t r aT ` k ti YS '' l 32t: T-et`. 4'• "' k n a'1^5 s5"f 1+, / rTr 1`' yr i.. t'r At3PA x 4lJ feY` 7 l * ! w 4;a ..2i t_ v ' tS e c,, a+2 •. -rrr T r rc',i \ t W` 8., t tlR,t {,r c t 4r:!!^V Ts{°,+ F S+„• r +.{ T. lt T tly a. y . Z> r tf s •, 4 str T ltT < r r y i z i'+ { 3,V+rSf li w tF fir , kr ' S T a ' ! t s f. rrN- a v,t. f c. ' •rll ` l 'r*r s rs T?'y y` `'+ f't - nR. .< h•. kr' }t ri `n+km r r Z n Page 260 of 332 i Attachment 4 I I C l M a N J V^J 1 V! C/) 1 n P/L O I Z c Page 261 of 332 December 26, 2009 To: City Council of San Luis Obispo Re: Spevack subdivision We reside at 2448 Johnson Avenue, which is directly adjacent to the proposed Spevack three-lot subdivision. We recently moved to San Luis Obispo from Sacramento in August of 2009, and still own our home in Sacramento, which is located in a high density subdivision. We were pleased to find our current residence at Johnson Avenue as it has much more space and privacy than we were used to in Sacramento. In fact, the strict building regulation of this city is among the many reasons why we were drawn to living in San Luis Obispo. You can imagine our surprise, after being moved in for one month, to find out of the Spevak's plans. The planned property will clearly infringe on our privacy, with the major concern being over look, in addition to negatively affecting our property value as well as the value of surrounding properties. We ask that you preserve the integrity of this neighborhood and not allow it to become high density housing. Allow us to enjoy the quality of life that we paid so much for in the purchase of this home. We respectfully request that the City Council accept the recommendations urged by the appellants. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chris and Alissa Holland Page 262 of 332 Filing Fee: $250.00 Paid I Y OF6DEVELOPMENC11/ O N/A J REFER TO SECTION 4 NOV o:9 Ifthlosan LUIS owpO MU APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION NAM *VlcaH/ 01 al s -. ttr 659 CCAON4 Ct; %o q.5 fol Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Phone Fax 44 Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: PUWA11Nb CVAM I46IcN Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 1012!M 09 3. The application or project was entitled: /74 115-01 0- 09.00- 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member V-ot-- on Staff Members Name and Department) Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: CC_ /e9 PL.44W/Nb GCYfI/N/5 fNY SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. RECEIVED Page t of 3 NOV 0 91009 SLO CITY CLERK Page 263 of 332 r r wj tem ...t2 artin,a .Ce-W l.. cs" Ca't-- (,,,v. `/ O• J'LCLe.c-f:1 'ly(•' (-K.a. , w`" P'. ".. 4.o_`a.- `..•'a. _ J Page 264 of 332 Reason fbr Appeal continued SEr,E A7Tgc D . SEC770N,L APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration.of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application.or project are subject to a filling fee of$250',which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities_..If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be,heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be, notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must"submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please.be advised that if your request for continuance is received after.the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council•may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council. 1 hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on mybehaff•when said app I ' schedul d for a public hearing before the City Council. Signae oT Appellant) ate) Exceptions to I fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are$100. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$250 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for--fa JAt'Iao 10 cc: City Attomey City Manager Department Head S0N1J M A"ev Advisory Body Chairperson Cpuc l-5WCA2SD A) Advisory Body Liaison KI Iyt At,u.aAi q r Dcma Dpcvi aso,v City Clerk(orl final) 7A,M Ec A-V IT) Page 2 of 3 a/09 Page 265 of 332 Department of Communi' Development City of San Luis Obispo P P 919 Palm Street Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805) 781-7172 Project Address 2410 JOHNSON Parcel# 003-703-029 _ Project Title Legal Description CY SLO TR 1272 LT 1 Zoning 1 R-1 Zoning 2 Property Owner SPEVACK JEFFREY&SUSAN In Care Of Owner Address 2410 JOHNSON AVE SLO CA 93401-5350 Applicant Name EDA DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Day Phone(805)549-8658 Address 1998 SANTA BARBARA STREET,SUITE 200 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Representative JEFF WAGNER PE Day Phone(805)549-8658 Address 1998 SANTA BARBARA STREET,SUITE 200 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Appellant#1 NancyShokohi- bay Phone(805)234-5972 Address 1659 Corona Ct San Luis Obispo,CA Appellant#2 Joe Boud Day Phone( )543-0565 Address 1645 Corona Ct SCO CA 93401' Send correspondence to Representative Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of.the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Planning Services Summary Application# Type of Application Received Fee MS 78-09 Review of a subdivision creating three lots SLOMS09-0074 8/5/2009 6,328 from one in the'R-1 zone AP-PC 78-09 Appeal of hearing officer's decision to allow a 9/28/2009 250 three-lot subdivision AP-CC 78-09 Appeal of Planning Commission's decision on 11/9/2009 0 the project approval Total fees 6,578 Received By TYLER COREY Fee Paid by Applicant (6328)Appellant#1 ( 250) Assigned plannerAP-PCPC CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Hearings ng 9/18/2009 10/28/2009 NOV 0 9 2009 C I+3Co ones 12-11 01 COMNIIINIT% _- ,ELOPIMENT Page 266 of 332 APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Date: November 9, 2009 To: City Council City of San Luis Obispo Appellants: Nancy Shokohi, Owner— Lot 3, Tract 1272 Maureen Eyermann, Owner— Lot 2, Tract 1272 Kevin & Julie Elder, Residents— Lot 2, Tract1272 Joseph & Barbara Boud, Owners — Lot 12, Tract 1272 Steven & Paula Dooley, Owners — Lot 13, Tract 1272 William & Barbara Herrerras, Owners— Lot 4, Tract 1272 James & Marlene Killian, Owners — Lot 5, Tract 1272 Chris &Alyssa Holland, Owners 2448 Johnson Applicant: Jeff& Susan Spevack 2410 Johnson Avenue Subject: MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 On 9/18/09 the above referenced three-lot subdivision was approved by the Community Development Department at an Administrative Hearing. It was appealed to the City's Planning Commission who, on 10/28/09, also approved the project with modified conditions. The Appellants continue to believe that this project is inappropriate and will result in significant and unavoidable negative impacts to their properties and their neighborhood. The Appellants do not believe that the modified conditions imposed by the Planning Commission provide adequate protections and mitigation of impacts that fully address their concerns. The grounds for Appeal are enumerated in Attachment 1, the Planning Commission Appeal package, and should be considered in concert with the minutes and testimony at the Planning Commission meeting along with the following comments. Principal concerns continue to center around Slope and Useable Building Envelope, Grading & Vegetation Removal, Building Height & Setbacks, Visual Impacts, Driveway Access & Grades, Fire Access and Neighborhood Compatibility. These subjects are discussed in greater detail below and illustrated in the accompanying Exhibits A and B. SLOPE / BUILDING ENVELOPE Slope calculations and site sections are described in Attachment 1 and its related Exhibits. Expanded comments are as follows: Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09-November B,2009-Page 1 Page 267 of 332 The Appellants do not dispute that Parcel 1 may have an average cross slope Within the gross lot area of 17.2%, however an examination of the delineated building envelope results in a more accurate depiction of the useable building area. Building Envelope w/10' rear setback = 6,213 sf Building Envelope less drive, guest parking & garage= 5,213 sf Building Envelope less areas of>25% slope = 2,863 sf useable area The building envelope includes the building footprint, patios, walks, retaining walls and circulation elements. In Parcel 1, the steep slope areas (at least 2,350 sf) occupy most of the center area of the envelope, forcing a future building onto the least slope impacted area of the envelope, the easterly area, which coincidently, is the most intrusive and impacting to the neighboring lots. Using the Appellant preferred 25' setback, which was required by the City elsewhere in the underlying subdivision (see Attachment 1, Exhibit 3) results in the following: Building Envelope w/25' rear setback = 4,348 sf Building Envelope less drive, guest parking & garage = 3,348 sf Building Envelope less areas of>25% slope = 998 sf useable area The above scenario illustrates the severely constrained useable site area, essentially rendering Parcel 1 as a non-building site, if reasonable and historically consistent 25' setback restrictions are imposed to protect the integrity of the existing neighborhood. A 25' setback reflects the setback applied to the abutting Flora Street lots for Tract 1272 lot development and this same requirement should be applied here. It is the Appellant's position that pushing a future structure onto an area of a parcel that creates the greatest impact to neighboring parcels produces an unavoidable, unmitigatable negative impact. Contrary to the Applicant's representative testimony at the Planning Commission, this is not a case of a "Not In My Backyard" attitude by the neighbors. The grounds for Appeal are factual, not emotional. This Parcel 1 area has never been a candidate for development because: (1) Dr. & Mrs. Gelinas (original and previous owners) wanted maximum privacy for their backyard area. They emphasized this fact in participating in the development of Tract 1272 and requiring that the Lots 2 & 3 houses were sited as close as possible to Corona Court; and, (2) it has always been widely recognized by all as being far too constrained to support any development. Once a parcel is legally created it has the ability and perception to be developed, whether by the present owner or a subsequent owner. City approval of a parcel that has no and/or marginal future development opportunity could potentially expose the City to be found liable for a denial of property rights. The City should Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 2 Page 268 of 332 certainly exercise an abundance of caution in approving such a severely constrained properties. HEIGHT/VISUAL IMPACTS The Planning Commission established a maximum building height not to exceed elevation 406', however an examination of the testimony at Planning Commission reveal that the assumptions related to neighboring lot residences finish floor elevations (FFL) were arbitrary and pure guesswork. The comments at the Planning Commission meeting make it clear that the Commissioners struggled with the height conditions due to that fact. With today's technology it is bewildering that an accurate Visual Simulation model was not provided. Failing the absence of such a model, the Appellants conducted recent survey and dimensioned site plan work that is depicted in Exhibit A of this Appeal. The site and section information in Exhibit A and Photos in Exhibit B represent the correct conditions and elevations and should be considered along with previously submitted Visual Impact information in Attachment 1, Exhibit 4. If this subdivision is approved with three lots, including Parcel 1 as configured, the Appellants insist that any future development building height is limited to the 398' elevation to protect and maintain views and privacy from the neighboring properties. As an aside, privacy is not limited to view overlook as suggested by one of the Planning Commissioners. Privacy includes noise, activity, pets, vehicles, presence, etc., all of which have an effect on the ambient qualities of a neighborhood. Further, if this project is approved as three lots, it is recommended that the Architectural Review Commission must review any future development on Parcel 1 in a public hearing. GRADING /DRIVE /VEGETATION IMPACTS Testimony given at the Planning Commission meeting repeatedly stated that issues related to grading, earthwork quantities, retaining wall structures, vegetation removal and access would be worked out later. The Appellants disagree. A Preliminary Grading & Vegetation Removal Plan should be prepared now, before subdivision approval, and will very likely require a CEQA Initial Study analysis to understand earthwork and vegetation impacts with either a Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or an Environmental Impact Report required. FIRE ACCESS / HAZARD A Fire Truck turnaround in the middle of this subdivision, requiring fire responders to drag their equipment up a 20% slope for a distance of over 250' to access a structural and/or wildland fire before it engulfs Parcel 1 improvements and threatens neighboring lots is the proposed fire protection solution. However, Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 3 Page 269 of 332 this scenario is pure fantasy, especially when considering the functional reality of the turnaround area. It is tortured logic to believe that a red painted curb and signage will deter the drive and/or turnaround from being occupied by vehicles, toys, and the like, even if posted with signs threatening a City citation if they are blocked. If blocked or occupied, no fire truck operator would dare jeopardize their equipment and apparatus by entering a site that has no escape, making a successful response and suppression to Parcel 1 even more remote. And, from an aesthetic viewpoint, such a turn around, smack-dab in the front yard of the existing residence, is a purely industrial design solution that is completely inappropriate in this residential neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD LOTTING CHARACTER Continual reference to this flag lot subdivision being similar to others in the neighborhood is misleading. The character of this project and this site is vastly different from other flag lots in the vicinity. The flag lot subdivision to the south was developed by Roy Newell in 1978 and had, and still has, vacant land upslope with no visual impact issues. The flag lot subdivision directly east of Newell's, by Spencer Bunya in 2007, is well down slope and setback from the existing residences along Flora Street, so no visual impacts are possible in that case. And, flag Lot #13 of Tract 1272-, which was developed and sold by Appellants Joseph & Barbara Boud who, as members of the self-imposed Tract 1272 ARC, approved the subsequent house design after requiring setback modifications to protect viewsheds from their Lot#12. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS Opposition by eight concerned neighboring lot owners and residents to this project cannot be understated. These property owners have invested a lifetime of personal resources and energy to create and establish a quality neighborhood and residential environment for themselves and future owners. The Appellants feel that the Applicant has more than ample opportunity to gain reasonable financial benefit in developing their property with a project that does not severely impact the abutting properties safety, views, values, privacy and neighborhood. Frankly, the Appellants are puzzled why the City is so willing to support and accommodate such a marginal project, squeezing an improbable building site into an area with so many problems and impacts. The Appellants submit the following recommendations for consideration by the City Council. Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 4 Page 270 of 332 1 Recommendation #1 - Preferred Deny the project with guidance given to the Applicant to pursue a two-lot subdivision with a future Lot Line Adjustment negotiated between the Applicant's and the abutting lots to the east (Lots 2 & 3, Tract 1272; see Attachment 1 for more information on the LLADJ possibility). This would not only be supported by the Appellants but would also eliminate the extensive and expensive infrastructure improvements, grading, vegetation removal, fire hazard & turnaround issues, etc., that will be necessary to improve Parcel 1 as a separate parcel. Recommendation #2 —Alternative If a three-lot project is approved it should require the submittal of a Preliminary Grading & Vegetation Removal Plan prior to approval and include the following conditions: 1. A 25' rear yard setback from the lots to the east (1649 & 1659 Corona Court) and to the south (2448 Johnson Avenue) for any structure, driveway or guest parking space 2. A maximum building height not to exceed elevation 398' 3. Public hearing review by the City's Architectural Review Commission The Appellants appreciate your consideration of this information and trust the City Council will make the right decision to protect our properties and maintain the quality of our neighborhood. Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09-November 6,2009-Page 5 Page 271 of 332 EXHIBIT A Site & Section Information 1 ice= 0 98• 1\ 316• S 3 House with 9' plate height and 5:12 rroof pitch, located with a 10' rear setback and ridgeline at elevation 406' 46 -175 IF 10 House with 9' plate height and 5:12 roof pitch, located with a 25' rear 2 setback and ridgeline at elevation 398' Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 6 Page 272 of 332 76 5 0 77 3 4.0o 2 9pO 39Z.D fL. CONC. -IIAAIA 47- hVLET ISTQL LaRAN INLET PER L.D. . 5TD C-1 394 99. 9d/lN 2 /OE /i IM SEEL.EML HEFT9 9 11.1w. 7•C. 4AD.55 a 0.43 E DAA/ AGE E5M . 2'M CT9 OTE.- & / MA SLOPyFRONT T3 7TP/ L ONALL L ErEr N MCA NOT LOT , 21 3. 01 T REQ RE &AWATE V4 ES ONER LA . RA ,4T TSL$ TIME P 8[//LD/ G CD 5TR C N. • \ 393.5FL• 7MIC 913.0 f.L. 3 •OTW. e Page 273 of 332 PhotosEXHIBIT B ElevationPole • i . Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS Y• Ti -y I I H K a ^7Y i•a•t,_ ...Ji:. Ste. t I r r• November 6,2009 Page 7 Page 274 of 332 ATTACHMENT 1 Appeal Package to Planning Commission with Exhibits 1-5 Appeal to City Council of Subdivision MS 78-09•November 6,2009•Page 9 Page 275 of 332 APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Date: September 25, 2009 To: Department of Community Development City of San Luis Obispo Appellants: Nancy Shokohi, Owner— Lot 3, Tract 1272 Maureen Eyermann, Owner— Lot 2, Tract 1272 Kevin & Julie Elder, Residents — Lot 2, Tract1272 Joseph & Barbara Boud, Owners — Lot 12, Tract 1272 Steven & Paula Dooley, Owners— Lot 13, Tract 1272 William & Barbara Herrerras, Owners— Lot 4, Tract 1272 James & Marlene Killian, Owners— Lot 5, Tract 1272 Chris &Alyssa Holland, Owners 2448 Johnson Applicant: Jeff& Susan Spevack 2410 Johnson Avenue Subject: MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 The above noted property owners and residents (Appellants) who abut the above referenced subdivision proposed by Applicant (Spevack) hereby appeal the 9/18/09 Administrative Hearing approval of said Subdivision to the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission as described in Chapter.17.66 of the City Zoning Regulations. APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES & POLICIES The following cited policies are applicable in evaluating the project's consistency with City Ordinances. Chapter 16.18.020 —General Discusses the design of lots and states that lots that are impractical for intended uses due to terrain, natural features, access, or developable area should not be approved. Chapter 16.18.020A- Grading This chapter states that natural contours in new subdivisions shall be preserved; Restricts retaining walls to no greater than 3 feet and slopes to 2:1 maximum Chapter 16.18.050 — DepthAA1idth Relationship States that lots with 3:1 depth-to-width ratio are not permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the flag lot subdivision can be accomplished without detriment to adjacent properties. Appeal of Subdivision MS 78-09•September 25,2009•Page 1 Page 276 of 332 11 Chanter 16.18.060C Flag Lots Requires access way to the rear be at least twenty feet wide with width and paving subject to approval of Community Development Department Director. Chanter 16.18.060D— Flag Lots Requires access driveways greater than 300' to provide two way access and fire truck access with appropriate tum around areas to exit in a forward direction. Fire Code requires that access roads are a maximum of 15% grade, all weather surface and provide an unobstructed width of 20'. Chapter 16.18.060G—Flag Lots Requires new parcels that are surrounded by residential development to be designated as a "Sensitive Site" requiring ARC review to consider impacts of overlook, solar access encroachment, noise protections and privacy. Chanter 16.18.130B— Hillside Subdivisions States that substantially larger lots or open space should be applied to the steepest areas, drainage swales, etc. Chanter 16.18.130C— Hillside Subdivisions States that grading is to be kept at an absolute minimum Chapter 16.18.130D— Hillside Subdivisions Contains design standards related to minimum grading and avoidance of potential hazards such as erosion, sedimentation, fire or water quality. Parking & Driveway Standard 2130/City Fire Department Access Standards The City's Upward Driveway Standard #2130 contains slope and dimension standards for the driveway ramp connection with the public road, slope of driveway and vertical curve standards where the driveway levels out. The Fire Department establishes standards of 15% maximum slope, turnaround side slope and 20' unobstructed access width for the driveway. APPEAL The Appellants do not believe that Subdivision MS 78-09/PM-SLO-09-0074 should be approved for the following reasons: Building Envelope Parcel 1 -Slope The proposed building envelope for Parcel 1 contains significant areas of steep slopes; nearly 35% of the proposed envelope contains slopes greater than 25% see attached Exhibit 1). Future, development will require the removal of significant mature vegetation, including oak and pine trees. Both of these conditions would clearly require massive grading operations and retaining walls, Appeal of SuMftlon MS 78-09•September 24 2009•Page 2 Page 277 of 332 i i violating a number of the aforementioned City Ordinances related to minimum grading, erosion and sedimentation hazards. Building Envelope Parcel 1 —Setbacks The proposed building envelope shows a minimum 5' setback on the east, south and west. The subject property is Lot 1 of Tract 1272, approved by the City in 1985. CC&R's were developed for the tract that made it very clear that respect for neighboring privacy and views was paramount (see attached Exhibit 2). Lot 1 was not included in the CC&R's because it was understood that no further development would occur on the Lot 1, therefore it was pointless to include it in the covenants, however the spirit of privacy and views was endorsed by all. Further, conditions of approval and historical decisions and correspondence addressing development of properties within Tract 1272 required developments to increase rear-yard setbacks, set development into existing grade and limit them to a single story where possible (see attached Exhibit 3). At the very least, the building envelope on Parcel 1 should adhere to the historical rear-yard setback of 25' and.limit the building to a single story. Parcel 1 —Access The Tentative Map shows a 17% driveway grade for the first approximate 60' from Johnson Avenue with a driveway width of 20'. The driveway then narrows to 16' wide for the next 80' with a fire department tum around at the 90' distance, then continues up the hill at 7% increasing to 20% within a driveway width of 12'. We believe the 17% grade is questionable, as our survey indicates it approaches 20%, either case will require it to be excavated to comply with City code of 15% with retaining walls constructed along the sides. This will also necessitate the removal of existing property line screening vegetation. As the drive continues into Parcel 1 at 12' wide, it climbs up a grade that our slope calculation shows approaches 20%, not 15%, with no information provided on retaining wall and/or grading required to demonstrate the feasibility and/or impacts to the landform and existing drainage structure that runs along the common property line between Lots 1, 2 & 3. All of these conditions clearly contradict City Ordinance and Fire Code requirements and/or have the potential to cause serious environmental damage. Fire Hazard As was pointed out in a 9/09/09 letter from Appellant to City and discussed above, the southern boundary of the building envelope on Parcel 1 is about 325' from Johnson Avenue along this proposed 12'wide driveway with grades of more than 17% and a very tight tum on a 20% slope. The Fire Code requires a maximum 15% gradient with a 20' wide unobstructed access. To believe that painting the curbs red with no parking signs will restrict owners and guests from parking within the driveway or the fire truck turn around is unenforceable and pure fantasy. The functional reality is this: this severely constrained access road Appeal of Subdivision MS 71149•September 28,2008•Page 3 Page 278 of 332 exceeds gradient and does not satisfy width requirements and the proposed fire truck turnaround will certainly be blocked by car or RV parking; children's play equipment, trash cans or the like. In the event of a structural or wildland fire any delayed response time would immediately engulf the neighboring wood fences, exterior wood decks and homes. What kind of tortured logic is staff using to compromise and deviate from long-standing City health and safety requirements? When Tract 1272 was approved and the improvement plans prepared, the flag lot gradient and width.requirement to access Lot 13 was satisfied as required. Why are these access standards being compromised now? Visual Impacts As noted above, the design of Tract 1272, its conditions of approval, the CC&Rs, and historic decisions by the City as well as the ARC reviews for the tract made it abundantly clear that this development was intent on maintaining maximum privacy, views and vistas. Even a single story house located on Parcel 1 would compromise and severely affect the expectations established on this tract and in this neighborhood .resulting in significant quality of life impacts for the residents as well as producing severely diminished property values (see attached Exhibit 4). For the neighboring properties to embrace this parcel map proposal so the Applicant can gain financial benefit while their land values are diminished is patently absurd. Further, Condition #1 of MS 78-09 requiring ARC review provides no assurance or comfort to the Appellants. Once a parcel is legally created it has the ability and perception to be developed, whether by the present owner or a subsequent owner. The ARC would ultimately approve a project on this lot or the City would be found liable for a denial of property rights. The approval of this subdivision is a ploy to enhance the speculative value of the Applicant's real estate at the expense of the neighboring lot owner's values. It is in the City's best interest to use an abundance of caution when considering development or subdivision of marginal properties with significant constraints that conflict with so many City land use policies. Neighborhood Controversy This project is not supported by any abutting property owner and/or resident that will be affected by its approval and development. This includes Dooley (Lot 13), Boud (Lot 12), Eyermann (Lot 2), Elder (resident, Lot 2), Shokohi (Lot 3), Herraras (Lot 4), Killian (Lot 5), and Holland (2348 Johnson, abuts Parcel 1). The properties that abut this project were purchased and developed with the understanding and assurance that the condition of the neighborhood, the views, the privacy and ambience was predictable and long lasting. Historic City decisions, Tract 1272 conditions and covenants and tract ARC reviews of subsequent development all reinforce the intentions establishing this Appeal of SubdlvWon MS 78-09•September 25,2009•Page 4 Page 279 of 332 neighborhood and the Appellants have no desire for our quality neighborhood, our investments and expectations to be eroded or compromised. Secondly, a similar proposal to subdivide Lot 1 of Tract 1272 was submitted to the City in 1995 (PM SLO-95-020 (see Attached Exhibit 5). All of these same salient comments were presented at that time. City staff did not support the project and it was subsequently withdrawn. Why must we continue to time and again defend and protect our neighborhood from subsequent proposals when the record is very clear that this Parcel 1 site is unsuitable for development? Finally, the Applicants undertook a major remodel and renovation to their residence, removing allwalls except.the northern .one. They then rebuilt the residence on the exact same footprint! With foresight, they should have reconfigured the siting of the house to allow for future development without impacting the neighboring properties, however they did not. We do not believe that the abutting properties should now be obligated to suffer for their lack of foresight, nor do we feel obliged to underwrite their retirement planning efforts. Project Alternatives Denial of MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 does not preclude the property owner of achieving a reasonable level of benefit from potential future value and/or development of their property. Several years ago, the owners of Lots 2 and 3; individually. approached the Applicants with the desire to purchase the rear, unused and inaccessible, portions of the Applicant's property abutting Lots 2 & 3.. The Applicants were not interested in selling, so presumably an acre of land was not too much for them to maintain at that time. This option is still available to pursue and would require subsequent negotiations and cooperative processing of a Lot Line Adjustment. This land area would not be buildable, however would enable the Lot 2 & 3 owners to expand their yard areas and formalize their privacy areas with the only condition being that the storm drainage system curb wall and inlet along their rear property lines is not compromised. Additionally, denial of MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 would not deny the Applicants from subdividing the front portion of their property along Johnson Avenue. The front yard area contains more than adequate land area that could be parceled off and, if properly designed, could still maintain adequate separation, privacy and yard areas for the existing residence, as well as minimize grading, vegetation removal, safety hazards and visual impacts as discussed herein. Recommendation This application is not about implementing Strategic Growth objectives, General Plan Goals, compliance with AB32 or other State or City planning objectives. It has to do with the respect for the quality of life and land use within an existing neighborhood, conformance with City codes and consistency of decision-making. There is no compelling reason to. approve such a marginal project especially Appeal of Subdivision MS 7809•September 25,2009•Page 5 Page 280 of 332 when Alternatives are available and, frankly, the Appellants are bewildered by the recent approval of MS 78-09 given the 25-year history of decisions that have protected the integrity of this neighborhood. We recommend that the Planning Commission deny MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09- 0074. We believe that Findings #2; 3, 4 and 6 cannot be satisfied, the project does not comply with the numerous City codes and policies as described above and the historical record makes it clear that this Parcel 1 area is not a candidate for subdivision and/or structural development. We recommend that the Planning Commission direct the Applicant to pursue the Project Alternatives as discussed above. Appeal of SubdlWslon MS 78.08•September 2%200•page 6 Page 281 of 332 EXHIBIT 'I Page 282 of 332 1 t a t IIN qp r ,.0 Q 400 q s Q Ill l It IV\ oj va Page 283 of 332 50' 380 ., r ,• .• ui d 3B3ro N r 1s. 200' 0„(s0 16 CONCRETE Q Q 379- GUESS PARKING J EXISTING RES 378 m AC.., 424' m GUESTa %.• 2;^ I PARKING ut PpL FIRE TRUCK LTURNAROUND ALL; t,.,.-_•. - uw_ ,.._.__ _ ... .L _ Vm 74 L m LL 4F373 Lli 372 CONCRETS .. 371 O V AZ tr} l 5.00 20.00 6' \ Y' OJ, tta y ru i vl x tFL 3 EXIMG i0''P=C.._.. w t+1 S--.. fiREE-- -.-.E.. BaaPage 284 of 332 EXHIBIT 2 Page 285 of 332 i Recording requested by: Ticor Title Insurance Company When Recorded nail to: DOC. NO. 70437 Joseph C. Boud OFWCIAL RECORDS 1009 Morro Street,Suite 206 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO., CA San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 OCT 2 9 1986 rRANCIS M.COONEY County Clerk-Recorder TIME 8:00 AM DECLARATION & ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS & RESTRICTIONS This is a Declaration, made and dated this nth day of 011I0fl7i+4"% , 1986 by and between Joseph C.'Boud, Barbara K. Boud, Fred G. Kennedy, Hazel J. Kennedy, and Michael Bravo,hereinafter called "Declarant". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is now the owner of that certain real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo,State of California, described as follows: All or portions of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 24, 25, 216 & 27 in Block 4 of Goldtree Vineyard Tract,according to the map recorded in Book 1, Page 14 of Record of Surveys, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; said property also described as Lots 2 to 14, inclusive, of Tract 1272 in the City of San Luis Obispo. BOOK 13, PAGI: 55. WHEREAS, it is the intention of Declarent to impose certain mutual beneficial restrictions under a general scheme of use and improvement for the benefit of all the property; NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the property described herein is held and shall be held,conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered,leased, rented, used,occupied and/or improved subject to the following limitations, restrictions, covenants and reservations, all of which are declared and agreed to be in furtherance of a plan for the subdivision, improvement and sale of the property, and are established for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the property and every part of it. All of the limitations, restrictions,and convenents shall run with the land, and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the property described herein and shall inure to the benefit of all of the property and the future owners of that property or any portion of it. 1 vnt ?.:ii 4 Parr f 7 4Page 286 of 332 Article I DEFINITION A. "Lot" means one of the numbered parcels of real property described herein. S. "Property" means the property described herein or any portion of it. C. "Set-back" means the minimum distance between a building or other structure and a given street or property line. D. "Map" shall mean the Final Subdivision Map recorded for Tract 1272 on file with the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County. E. "Drainage System". means any drainage ditch, swele or pipe located within drainage easements on any lot of the final map for Tract 1272. F. "Owner"or "Owners"shall mean the record holder or holders of title of any lot. G. The singular shall include the plural and the masculine shall include the feminine, wherever the context so requires.. G. "Board" means the Architectural Control Board as described herein. Article II BASIC RESTRICTIONS A. _Use of Property_ No lot shall be used except for residential purposes and no building shall be erected,constructed,altered or maintained on any of the lots other than a residence for a single family with customary and suitable incidentiai detached buildings as permitted by the Architectural Control Board (the Board). B. Architectural Cootrg1 No building shall be areeted, constructed, altered or placed on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showi ng the location of the structure has been approved by the Board, whose function is to insure quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with existing structures and outdoor yard areas,and site location with respect to topography and finish grade elevations. C. Fencing_ Property line fencing must be erected and placed in accordance with the standard fence design on file with the City of San Luis Obispo and completed prior to the final building inspection and occupancy permit for each individual lot.All other internal fencing or garden walls, including the location,style, material, color and height shall be subject to written approval of the Board. Anyfence, or combination fence and retainingwall, greater than six 46? feet:in total height as measured from the lower abutting grade elevation may be required to obtain a Variance from the City of San Luis Obispo. This shall be the responsibility of the individual lot owners as lots are developed. D. Landscape Requirements. Front yard areas and property line fencing shall be landscaped by each individual lot owner and installed within 90 days after the final building inspection and occupancy permit for each individual lot. Street trees, as required by City ordi name,shall be planted by lot owners as lots are developed. 2 9onA 4 cnPage 287 of 332 E_ Special SidetiralklLandscape iteauirements. The four foot wade.(4') sidewalk in front of Lots 9 and 10 shall be expanded to a full six foot wide (b') sidewalk with the retaining wall relocated in the event the existing oak tree,whose Location in the cul-de-sac prompted the lesser width sidewalk, is ever removed and/or destroyed. Special attention will be given landscape plans in the vicinity of this tree, so that proposed landscape materials and watering requirements are compatible with those of the oak tree. F_jl cRj &n of Real Property. Each lot owner covenants to keep, maintain,water, plant and replant all required landscape areas, slopes, banks, right-of-ways, and set-back areas located on his/her lots so as to maintain landscaping in a healthy condition, prevent erosion and to present an attractive,clean,sightly and wholesome appearance atoll times. G. Upkeep of Draiaaae Systems. Each lot owner shall continuously maintain, repair and/or replace all drainage system improvements serving the property within those areas designated on the final map of Tract 1272 as drainage easements, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. H. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. No lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage or other waste shall not be kept, except in sanitary containers, which must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and stored from public view. 1. Nuisance, Retail SalesandNon-Conformity_ No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the property or neighborhood. Retail sales, including garage sales, vehicle sales, household items, etc., are permitted and may be displayed provided said sale and display does not exceed two consecutive days in any 30 day period. J. Temporary Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, recreational vehicle, basement, tent,shack,garage, barn or other outbuilding shall be used on any lot at anytime as a residence either temporarily or permanently. K_ Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except one professional sign of not more than one square foot, one sign of not more than five square feet advertising the property for sale or rent, or signs.used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction and sale period. L. Poles. Masts. Disks and Antennas. No poles, masts, satellite disks or antennas of any type, size or height shell be constructed on any lot, or on or above the roof of any dwelling or structure without the consent of the Board. A satellite disk must be shielded or screened from view by adjacent lots with an enclosure which must be approved by the Board. M. Storage .of Materials dunk, Trash and Equipment. The storage of or accumulation of junk, trash, materials and other offensive or noxious material is specifically prohibited. H. Storage of Cars, Trailers, Campers, Boats or Other Motor Vehicles. No livestock trailer, house trailer,travel trailer, self-propelled vehicle,boat, boat trailer or other si miliar type of vehicle shall be parked,stored or kept on the public streets, private driveways, or common driveways of any lot for any period exceeding 48 hours, Storage of these types of vehicles is permitted, provided they are hidden from view by screening, stored in garages,or other such method. 3 c%nri a A n APage 288 of 332 0. Common Driveways. Where adjacent lots choose to develop a common access driveway, any and all necessary permits and documents must be obtained andlor processed through the City of Son Luis Obispo by the affected property owners. In no case shall the common drive be occupied so as to prevent the unobstructed ingress or egress of the lot owners. P. Livestock and Poul Eq. No animals,livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot, except that two adult dogs, two adult cats or two other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. Article III ARCHITECTURE STANDARDS A. Dweliiay Size. No residence shell be erected on any lot having a total living space floor area, exclusive of open porches, garages, patios, exterior stairways and lendings, of less than 1800 square feet. Every proposed residence must have a minimum two car garage. B. Building location. No building shall be located on any lot nearer to the front,side or rear lot lines than the minimum building setback lines as required by the City of San Luis Obispo, unless an exception is granted,by this Board.and a Variance received from the City of San Luis Obispo. The location of the structure or structures and the landscaping shall bear such over-ail relation to the adjacent properties so as to create an aesthetically pleasing overall appearance with particular attention given to maintaining adjacent properties privacy and views. C. Colors_ All exterior colors,textures and materials,including roofs, must be set forth in the plans and specifications and approved in writing by the Board prior to commencement of construction. Color samples shall be submitted with plans and specifications which shall be coded or marked to indicate where the colors are to be used on the finished dwelling. D_ Landscape Plans. A landscape plan,including types and sizes of plants,trees or other landscape materials and their method of maintenance, shall be submitted to the Board for approval along with plans for the structure to be constructed on the lot. E. Fire .Protection Systems. New residences constructed on Lots 2 through 4 and 9 through 13 shall be equipped with automatic residential rated fire sprinklers to the approval of the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department. F. Exceptions to Architecture Standards. All of the above architectural standards apply to construction and/or development activities an all of the property described herein, with the exception of the existing improvements located an Lot 14 and the relocated improvements located on Lot 10. Any new construction or remodeling proposed for these lots shall be subject to the architectural standards and procedures herein described. 4 voL29Q4PAGE182Page 289 of 332 Article IV 1 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL BOARD A. Membershi The Architectural Control Board is composed of Joseph C. Boud, Barbara K. Boud and Michael Bravo; 1009 Morro Street, Suite 206; San Luis Obispo,CA 93401. A majority of the board may designate a representative to act.i n its place. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the board, the remaining members shall have full authority to designate a successor. Neither the members of the board, nor its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this covenant. At any time, the then record owners of three-quartars of the lots shall have the power through a duly recorded written instrument to change the membership of the board or remove or restore to it any of its powers,duties and responsibilities. B. Procedure. The Board shall review individual plans and specifications submitted and provide a written approval within 30 days. If no notice of rejection or denial is received within 30 days from the date of receipt of the submittals, and no suit to enjoin the construction has been commenced prior to the completion thereof, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. Declarant, or their officers or agents, all acting singularly or together, shall not be responsible for any loss or damage or be liable in any other way for any errors or defects, either latent or patent, in the plans and specifications submitted for approval, or any building or structure erected in accordance with such plans and specifications. C. Inspection and Cogformitq to Plans. During construction, Declarant or any agent or member of the Board may, from time to time, at any reasonable hour or hours, with reasonable notice, enter any lot and inspect any construction subject to this Declaration as to compliance with the approved submittals. Deviations shall be diligently guarded against, and all such deviations or nonconformities set forth in any notice of noncompliance issued by the Board shall be corrected prior to any final occupancy permit granted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Declarant, the Board,or any agent or officer thereof, acting in good faith,shall not be deemed guilty of, or become liable for any manner of trespass for such entry or i nspection. D. Enforcement of Board Ruling, The Board or Declarant shall have the right and authority, after reasonable notice, to perform the subject matter of such noncompliance correction, and the cost of the performance thereof shall be charged to such owner and may be recovered by the Board or Declarant in an action of law against such owner. Article Y GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Scope and Duration. All the covenants and restrictions in this Declaration are imposed upon the property for the direct benefit of the owners as part of a general plan of improvement, development, building, occupation and maintenance; and shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all of the owners of the property and all persons claiming under them and conti nue to be i n full force and effect for a period of 20 years from the date— that this Declaration is recorded. After this 20 year period,the covenants and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of two years each, unless an instrument, signed by three-fourths of the then owners of record of the property, has been recorded signifying terminatiop. g r nnn• •Page 290 of 332 Interpretation of Restrictions. All questions of interpretation or construction of any of the terms or restrictions herein shall be resolved by the Board or the Declarent and its decision shall be final, binding and conclusive upon ail the parties.affected. C. Breach. The covenants hereby established shall operate as covenants running with the land;and Declarant and/or the owner of any of the real property described herein,Including a bona fide purchaser under contract, or any association formed or used by the owners in the event of a breach of any of these restrictions or convenants or a continuance of any such breach may by appropriate legal proceedings take steps to enjoin, abate or remedy the same. Itis hereby agreed that damages are not an adequate remedy for such breach. Every act or ommission whereby any of the covenants contained in this Declaration are violated in whole or in part is hereby declared to be and constitutes a nuisance, and every remedy allowed by law or equity against a nuisance, either public or private, shall be applicable and may be exercised by Declarant, the Board, or the owner of any of the real property described herein. D. Protection for Mortagees and Title Insurance Companies. A breach of the covenants contained in this Declaration shall not affect or impair the lien or charge of any bona fide mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value as to said lots or property, whether such owner's title was acquired by foreclosure or in a trustee's sale or otherwise. A lender who acquired title by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure or trustee's sale shall be obligated to cure any breach of the covenants which occurred prior to such acquisition of title, and shall be bound by these covenants. Breach of any of said covenants and restrictions,or any re-entry by reason of such breach, shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value as to said lots or property,or any part thereof. Any subsequent owner of such property shall be bound by these restrictions or covenants whether the owner of said property acquired title by foreclosure,trustee's sale,or otherwise. E. Richt to Enforce_ The provisions contained in this Declartation shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by Declarant,its successors or assigns, or the owner of any of the real property described herein and each oftheir legal representatives, heirs,successors or assigns. The failure to enforce any of such covenants or restrictions herein contained shall in no event be deemed to be-a waiver of the right to do to thereafter. In any legal proceedings commenced by anyone entitled to enforce or restrain a violation of this Declaration, or any provision thereof, the losing party or parties shalt pay the attorney's fees of the winning party or parties in such amount as may be fixed by the Court in such proceedings. F_ Severability. Invalidation of any of these covenants by judgement or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 6 v. ?.gnAaer.iRPage 291 of 332 II This Declaration is executed by Declarant to acknowledge and establish the terms and conditions set forth in this Declaration. Executed on 7* 1986 in San Luis Obispo,California. DECLARANTS Josep . Bo d Barbara K. Boud Michael Bravo Ped G. Kennedy Hazel J. enne 7 r' AAA • W Page 292 of 332 i STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF 4 g } On M0,61M I r— 1986,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State,personally appeared Fred G.&Hasel J.Kennedy,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. wuuuwlwnwmpmpnwlmmwuanlmlwuunnnunlmwPmawuluwwPlnwlaOFFICIAWSEAL DONALD S. KENNEDY o NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN 0 LOS ANGELES COUNTY I Notary Public in and for tate My Commission Expires Feb.15, 199 EUPPIwUUU111UWwnwllUlwI1P111nnNWwwYwYUW11wIW STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF On 1986,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State,persanaily appeared Joseph C.&Barbara K.Boud,personally known to me or proved to ane on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknawiedged that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL JANET L. KENNEDY Notary Puplic-calitomia Not ublirin 1d fo aid StatePrincipalOfficeIn San Luis Obispo County My Comm. Exp.Oct.31. 1986 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNIY 0' SS. L ' On 42V_Cft c 27, , 1986,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State,personally appeared Michael Bravo,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. MWIS081spo LA UC COUNTY arY Public in and for said Sta eMyComnin.19$D s onnr anoPage 293 of 332 0 zt 141. IY" ,' Q ? .+ '+ N ^ ^., •• •1 t V r ly. 'al kit- LCL_ 14 Z OdP90 00)Ing A 1110 2KI ol cli ewar A%,O.f a.. /• 'm a 3t 4 4 4t.l6sr.erm Page 294 of 332 EXHIBIT 3 Page 295 of 332 IN II ip city of sAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 August 20, 1986 Joe Boud 1009 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Request to move a house from 2324 Johnson Avenue to 1650 Corona Court (from lot 12 to lot 9 of Tract 1272) Dear Mr. Boud: I have reviewed your proposal to move this house, including original and revised plans, and I have determined that it will not comply with tract condition 21, which says that houses on lots 5 through 10 "shall not diminish the views and privacy of existing neighboring houses." I believe moving this house to any of lots 5 through 10 would have difficulty complying with this tract condition. It appears that single story houses set into the existing grade or with generous rear-yard setbacks, or both, would best meet this condition. You may be able to keep the house in this tract by repositioning it on lot 12 or moving it to some lot other than lots 5 through 10. You may contact Glen Matteson of this office if you have any questions. Sincerely Michael Multari Community Development Director copies: Jack Kellerman Mr. & Mrs. Honeyman Mr. & Mrs. Gillen am Page 296 of 332 city of sAn WlS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 August 25, 1986 Joe Boud 1009 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401• SUBJECT: House Moving 2324 Johnson Avenue Dear Mr. Boud: Thank you for meeting with me to discuss your proposal to move the existing house. at 2324 Johnson Avenue to 1650 Corona Court (from lot 12 to lot 10 in Tract 1272) . As we discussed; I believe the intent of the conditions of approval of the tract can be met if the building is set back 25 feet from the rear property line and the finished floor elevation does not exceed 408 feet, as illustrated on the exhibits you submitted which are on file with this department. You stated that you would like to have at least an 18-foot separation between the main structure and the garage, and I understand the value to the use of the property of maintaining a sense of continuity among the front yard open areas. Therefore, if it proves impossible in the field to provide both the 25-foot setback and an 18-foot building separation (due to location of trees, for example) , please contact me and we can explore an alternative approach. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 549-7170. Sincerely, Michael Multari, Director Community Development MM:drs cc: Glen Matteson (file) Jack •Kellerman Page 297 of 332 i 1 4 lid IIVaIDI city oftuispsOBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 October 17, 1986 Mr. & Mrs. John P. Honeyman 2323 Flora Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: House Moving in Tract 1272 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Honeyman: 1 appreciate your concerns with the former Miller house which Joe Boud has moved from lot 12 to lot 10 in the new subdivision near your home. As you may know, planning staff rejected Mr. Boud's first proposal to locate the house at the pre-grading ground level and 15 feet from the rear property line. We suggested that, if the house was to be kept in the tract, that it be moved to a location other than the lots 5 through 10, which border the houses on Flora Street. Mr. Boud responded that his financing for the tract included retention of the house, and that he had designed lot 10 to accommodate it. He insisted that from his perspective and understanding of the Council's intent in conditioning the approval of the tract, that staff's interpretation was unfair and unreasonable. I then considered alternatives that I felt still met the intent of the conditions. Among those alternatives was approval of the relocation with conditions that the house be at least 25 feet from the rear property line and that the floor of the house not exceed 408 feet elevation, which required excavating part of the lot, about four feet.. Mr. Boud still felt this was unfairly strict but apparently was able to accept it. It might be worth noting that without the tract condition, the zoning regulations would allow a full two-story house within eight to ten feet of the property line, at the pre-grading level. Therefore, it was felt that the unusually large setback and sinking of the pad constituted protection measures significantly in excess of typical, to help reduce impacts on nearby properties. Also, the relocation was approved with the understanding that Mr. Boud would repaint and reroof the house, make other repairs such as replacing rain gutters, and Is the lot consistent with other homesites in the neighborhood. I have encouraged Mr. Boud to meet with his neighbors to explain in detail his plans for repainting and upgrading the house to make it compatible with others in the area. I continue to offer our offices in the city as a meeting place if that is more convenient. I'd also be happy to attend any meeting to help in any way to reach a satisfactory solution to your concerns. I will continue to talk with Mr. Boud to ensure he does let you know his specific plans and intentions for the house. Page 298 of 332 We Will continue to take a close look at houses proposed on lots 5 through 10 and to contact the immediate neighbors before acting on applications. Also, we will consider referring development proposals for these lots to the Architectural Review Commission, though the council did not require architectural review when it approved the tract. Contact me or Glen Matteson of our staff if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Michael Multari, Director Community Development Department cc: Joe Boud 2656 Lawton San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 r Paul Lanspery Ron Dunin Page 299 of 332 EXHIBIT 4 Page 300 of 332 Ll.'•4 v y l rT,. r N fit S { l 4 d . a t P H•r(` L 11 Y"1 L. L} fit 27 IVIr, IONTr". LIZ r»lt`'^' a((s y i e S, yry b%f. ti• F' i' A+.F`'}'J"". + s7.- r f L 1• tj*r ar 7 Y h r• , ''a/y 2'r r k. v r 4trr, u R a r Rj4 Page 301 of 332 C.Y YA 4 A 9'` w iT 1. „eA4 d 1 .,fib° I`-" x 1 " Lot 3 south w vp rP2'•.f trI Y sx `Y'Yi'+3YR '. `F + t yr y4 G kl' rya s Jy SdF3h . fi;.sq'Li'I. tt ^•„ #, :4 r y '' v,,• v,- Lot 3 north Page 302 of 332 y :i'„; ".• + C a r '"`" rA .Fr 4 rr .. ,A + i" 1 Vra r; A _ 1 ryy tMer^4 t t 1r$ T a w irto Xl'hJ+"irt !'R t v A , y 1?:Y 4' 3,-'i*n` }` y 1 rMAj r iS ,. r C+.P;4 W`{,µ 1P y 1c l'•i YG911r 4 't p T'`/ h1'Y''< n 1 ki 10Xi• Cc' a'F 4 r ayr Mrh A.y' y yfe7 y i' *4 fes' 0^+ 4 '• riw + 1 +yr r" - Page 303 of 332 3 ° A at• l,y p r ypw, , Fir' It r asc. . t.] L R` i r( 1 vlF,La 4l.41 i, "'• I 'k, ,p YF`. d`-, •/j,y„ t.L ll I-r FFFii%.. Lot 3 south RID J a y ' ' p(yt y`tv f ,mow ..J y Y yy ll 11 4+:yw.. 1g^ a 4'`fr'f+twi`'`Ij', i}'„Kr.l_, FN cJf" fy, h'Y r• 't?= ti IZ'.Y" A t s I.#J,Iti y..l• rt of Lot 3 north Residence shown assumes a single story 2500 sf residence w/2 car garage located w/in building envelope as presented at the Administrative Hearing on 9/18/09 Page 304 of 332 EXHIBIT 5 Appeal of Subdlvlsfw MS 78-09•September 25,2009•Page 11 Page 305 of 332 t t 401.-6tAo tiyay C labs6 an'alyt4oslpi rrF a vMosritbr .im N s*st n ••sato* rt•i•n Io4GL Vs IQ$* 101 MK'8011 Foss r 0*-Z oils 's+u LUMMt 10t bis1h lS4t%v g2w I.LSNI A.Uwj QV14pow eons.*9,61/7 Ito n,.1.+t .•r VON N O Wolz 1.i: ZV b0 eon. - O••• Y- 17YN • Il.-1 u rM r r . •Y:.i a 3tl ac ii,;3d P I [\ l Z Yon: u - •Yon- •L V. J wl...• r Vw Y Y. . f Y t 1 spy j i re 14- I m O I N a I 1 FEZ/ 7 sit Page 306 of 332 JOSEPH BOUD 6 ASSOCIATES July 19, 1995 Pam Ricci Community Development Department. City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Gelinas Parcel Map Dear Pam, We reside next to the above referenced project and have a number of comments that we feel should be considered in the City's review of this application. History. The Gelanis property and two other estate sized parcels were combined together a few years ago and subdivided as Tract 1272. The original developers of Tract 1272 were Joseph & Barbara Boud, Fred & Hazel Kennedy, Michael Bravo, and Dr. & Mrs. Edmond Gelinas. The Gelinas parcel was designated as Lot 1. As an original subdivider, It Is my understanding that the State Subdivision Map Act specifies that a resubdivision of the same property by the original subdivider would require the processing of a Subdivision.Map, rather than a Minor Parcel Map. If this is the case, this application should be processed differently. However, regardless of the level of processing, certain agreements and mutual understandings were made by Dr. & Mrs. Gelinas with the other parties that cooperated in the original subdivision that have relevance in considering this present request. The design and odd configuration of Lot 1 was a result of the drainage structure that runs along Lots 2&3, carrying surface water to the storm drain inlet at the corner of Lots 2, 12 and 13. This strange configuration was discussed at length with Community Development Department staff, Engineering staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council, with the collective understanding that the steep sloped"panhandle" areas behind the existing house were not ever to be considered for development. Conditions of approval of the subdivision and restrictive covenants were established for Tract 1272 that,.among other objectives, were intended to insure that the subsequent build-out of the tract would be architecturally compatible and attractive, be sensitive and respectful to neighboring private yard areas, and would maintain views and vistas of the City, Edna Valley and the hills beyond. The Gelinas lot was not included In the CC&R's because It was an existing, completely___. developed parcel and we were given assurance by all parties that additional development, other than minor and incidental improvements, were not to take place. Consequently, it seemed unecessary to encumber Lot 1 with the CC&R review process. Obviously, this understanding has not been carried forth by the present Gelinas Family Trust members, who apparently are interested only in increasing the speculative value of the estate. 1009 Moan tRet,shite 206 Sm lou 09341 8004 S6S Page 307 of 332 Ly One final point related to these historical decisions. At the request of Dr. & Mrs. Gelinas, the buildout of the parcels along Corona Court immediately behind the Gelinas house (Lots 2& 3), were placed as close to the Corona Court frontage as permissible by the City, thus creating as much building separation as possible between the Gelinas home and its rear yard area and the homes on Lots 2 U. Lot Configuration & Developable Area. The City of San Luis Obispo has a number of ordinances, guidelines and policies that contain specific standards for design and configurations of new parcels. This proposal fails to meet these standards in nearly every category. Useable lot area, depth to length ratios and realistically useable outside yard areas are obviously deficient. Once the road access, tum around area, setback areas and steep sloped areas are deleted, the net developable land area on this proposed parcel is virtually non-existent. Grading. Another major area of concern is the amount of grading that will be necessary to access and subsequently develop this parcel. There is no doubt that an enormous amount of grading will be necessary to develop access into the parcel. The City's driveway standards contain a verticle curve alignment that would result in substantial cut banks from the Johnson Avenue frontage that would then require massive retaining wall improvements to hold these cut areas. The project has not identified a building site area or footprint area, so we can only speculate that the building area is intended to key into the sloped area at the rear of the lot. That would result in even more massive amounts of grading and retaining wall development and may have the potential to undermine the drainage system that runs along Lots 2& 3. Topography. The topography of the site directly relates to the grading and developable lot area issues. The topography shown on the tentative map is not correct. Presumably it was taken from the topography developed for Tract 1272, however one of the two foot contour lines was deleted. Consequently, the lot drops from 392.5 feet to 380 feet, or 12.5 feet, in a distance of 60 feet resulting in a slope calculation of 21%. This 21% slope covers at least 85% of the potential building area. Since the City's subdivision driveway standards require a 20'dedication with a minimum 16'wide improvement and a tum around area for driveways that exceed 150' in length, the flat area of the site must be used for circulation. This means that nearly 100% of the buildable site area will be on the steep sloped areas. Even if this project's building footprint were limited to the flat area of the proposed lot, the vegetation removal and access grading in itself would be far too extensive. Vegetation Removal. To accomodate this project, its circulation needs and grading requirements, will require the removal of nearly all of the mature trees, shrubs and landscape materials on the site and most of the screening hedge on the neighboring property line to the north. It optimistic and pure fantasy to think that any vegetation will remain in the vicinity of the road access improvement, whether the project chooses to use a common driveway or not. This fact alone will destroy the softness that mature landscaping provides and create a major disruption to the visual integrity along Johnson Avenue and in the neighborhood. 2 Page 308 of 332 C Visual Impacts. All of the properties within Tract 1272 were located and designed to maintain maximum views and vistas for all lots and properties in the vicinity. In fact, one of the conditions of approval for Tract 1272 required that the lots abutting the neighboring upsloped properties along Flora Street required review by the City's Architectural Review Committee to evaluate this viewshed issue. This issue has also been incorporated and administered through the CUR procedures to make absolutely certain that views, vistas and private yard spaces were not impacted or intruded upon. Even a single story house located on the flat_portion of the proposed parcel would severely affect the visual continuity in the neighborhood because of the loss of vegetation, grading and view obstruction impacts. Neighborhood Controversy. This project.is not supported by any abutting property owner that.will be affected by its approval and development. This includes Hinsdale Lot 14), Baldwin (Lot 13), Boud (Lot 12), Martin (Lot.2), Emmons (Lot 3) and Leitner Lot 4). The properties that abut this project were purchased and developed with the understanding and assurance that the condition of the neighborhood, the views, the privacy and ambience was predictable and long lasting. Project Alternatives. To deny this project, as presently submitted, does not eliminate the development potential of the Gelinas property. The front yard area contains more than adequate land area that could be parceled off and, d properly designed, could still maintain adequate separation from the existing house and could also minimize grading, vegetation removal and visual impacts in the vicinity. Conclusion. This project is poorly conceived and does not meet the planning, zoning, subdivision and engineering standards and policies that the City has adopted and administered for many years. This project is not an infill lot situation. It very simply is an attempt to squeeze a parcel into an excess sideyard area for purely speculative purposes. It does not represent orderly and harmonious development and good planning principals, and has no neighborhood support. What it does do however, is severely affect the desireablility of'investment and occupation. of the properties in the surrounding area, which is protected by City Ordinance and State Law. This project should be denied and the applicant's directed to consider the development of the vacant land fronting the existing house at 2410 Johnson. S noerely yours, Barbara Boud roperty Owners; 1.645 Corona Court, San Luis Obispo 3 Page 309 of 332 July 15, 1995 Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To: Administrative Hearing Officer. Regarding:Application Number. MS 75-95 2410 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo,CA. 93401 We are writing in regard to the above mentioned lot split which would create a building site from a flag lot. We live directly behind said property at 1659 Corona Court. We object to the lot split on the grounds that,if built upon,it would block our view and considering the size of the lot,force building close to property lines making it very"congested". Since purchasing our property,values have gone down. If this lot were built upon it would greatly effect the value of our property. We are asking that you deny this request. We would attend the hearing but we are going to be out of town. Kay and Michael Emmons Page 310 of 332 y . ,- nom,_,. Q, ,. -•...'. f1 I_.,. 4. Q l Page 311 of 332 I ahI IIIII IIIIII{{ Illllllilllll City OSAn IUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 November 12, 2009 Nancy Shokohi 1659 Corona Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION 2410 JOHNSON. 30 MINUTES) Dear Ms. Shokohi: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting,but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk. Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline(i.e. December 15,2009), we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore,please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Officeno later than November 23rd. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7102. fA Ms. Nancy Shokohi Sincerely, U 0 Elaina Cano City Clerk OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.Page 312 of 332 I IIIIIIIII IIlllll IIIIIIiIIIII C ity of s. An x,115 oBispo 99.0 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 November 12, 2009 Nancy Shokohi 1659 Corona Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIO_N DECISION—2410 JOHNSON. 30 MINUTES) Dear Ms. Shokohi: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal to beset for the next reasonably available council meeting,but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk. Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline(i.e. December 15, 2009),we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore, please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than November 23rd. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7102. Ms. Nancy S kohi Sincerely, NOV 1009 Elaina Cano City Clerk SLO CITY CLERK OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.Page 313 of 332 4 a t O M Q U U a"i LL w CA TUaa d UUo l r. Page 314 of 332 JOSEPH BOUD ' ASSOCIATES DESIGN&PLANNING SERVICES RECEIVED November 17, 2009 NOV 2 5 2009 City Council City of San Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK 1180 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Appeal of MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 Dear Mayor and City Council members, We are one of the eight property owners and/or residents of the above subdivision project that have Appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project to the Council. We reside at 1645 Corona Court and have lived there from its origin. As the original developers of the underlying Tract 1272, of which this subject property was designated Lot 1, we would like to provide the Council with a historical perspective of the development of this neighborhood and additional regulatory standards to supplement the information contained in the Appeal package submitted on November 29, 2009. Three estate-sized parcels were combined in a cooperative effort to develop Tract 1272. During the design and processing of the subdivision, great effort was made to convert this vacant property, surrounded by residential development, into a quality neighborhood. Extraordinary and explicit measures were undertaken to protect the neighboring properties privacy and views. For example, CC&R's for Tract 1272 self-imposed a requirement for Architectural Review by three of the tract's developers (Joseph Boud, Barbara Boud, Michael Bravo) to insure that viewsheds, privacy, overlook and thoughtful design were taken into considered and materials of construction were of a high quality. In many cases, new house siting and fenestration were altered to minimize the impacts to neighboring residences within the tract and external to the tract to satisfy these objectives and neighborhood concerns. Further, the City's Planning Commission, in reviewing the project, required that the original 15-lot subdivision be reduced to 14 parcels, not because the 15 lots weren't consistent with the City's Ordinances, but because it simply felt"too tight" (actual quote). The City also required increased setbacks and lowered building elevations for lots that abutted the upslope properties along Flora Street(see correspondence in the Appeal package)to protect these properties views and privacy. We see no d;fference here. The deve!oprnent of this project should show the same respect as Tract 1272 did to protect the existing Flora Street neighborhood. In this case the neighborhood is now the Corona Court and abutting property residential neighborhood. Discretionary approvals for projects such as this should consider strict compliance with City policies as well as less quantified standards that affect neighborhood character and quality of life expectations. Continued reference in staff reports and by the Applicant to this project complying with all City Codes, Ordinances and Policy is simply not correct. The following City requirements are inconsistent with this project and clearly indicate that this project cannot establish the requisite Legal Findings. For example: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: COMMUNITY'S GOALS 29. Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. LUE 2.2.10 Housing built within existing neighborhoods should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. 1009 Morro Street,Suite 206 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 P:805.543.0565 F:805.543.2187 E:jcboud@aol.com Page 315 of 332 How does view obstruction and industrial design solutions (mid-tract fire truck turnaround) reflect the sensitive development and neighborhood character that occurred in Tract 1272? LUE.2.2.12 Residential Project Objectives Residential Projects should provide: A. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project D. Pleasant views from and toward the project E. Security and Safety Privacy, views and fire safety are all severely compromised with the development of a three-lot project that includes a lot in this difficult accessed, view blocking, visually intruding Parcel 1. 2.4.5 Low Density Residential Low-density residential development should be primary dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for households occupying them. The 25 years of Corona Court as a cohesive, attractive, high quality, esteemed neighborhood is severely compromised with the introduction of a three-lot project. CONSERVATION &OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 9.1.5 View protection in new development The City will ... carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road construction on views and visual quality by applying the.Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards ... By merely making this statement, the City acknowledges the importance of the retention of visual quality. This is a long held philosophy in our City and certainly applies to each and every property within the City. 9.2.2 Views to and from private development Projects should incorporate as amenities views from and within private development sites. Private development designs should cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to be met. it is not possible for Parcel 1 to development without impacting neighboring properties, including the existing residence located on proposed Parcel 2. Very simply, the project objectives of the Applicant are ill conceived and unattainable. A revised project objective, as discussed in the Appeal package, would be a two-lot project with a negotiated lot line adjustment between abutting lots and the area contained in Parcel 1. COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES 1.4 Goals for Design Quality and Character Maintain the quality of life for residents Maintain property values The impacts of proposed Parcel 1 have severe quality of life and property value impacts to all of the abutting properties, including the existing residence on proposed Parcel 2. 5.3 Residential: Infill Development The guidelines are intended to provide for infill projects that are compatible with existing development ... As discussed above, the development of the Corona Court neighborhood with acute attention to views, privacy, overlook, and quality of life are all compromised with this project and certainly cannot be considered compatible with those long held expectations. 7.2 Hillside Development 1. Subdivision Design. A proposed subdivision of two or more parcels shall be designed to comply with the following guidelines: Baud letter•Appeal of his 78-09 to City Council•11113/09•Page 2 Page 316 of 332 a. Parcel and building site slope. No parcel shall be created: 2) Without at least one building site of at least 5,000 square feet that has no natural slope of 10 percent or more. This is a three-lot subdivision. The proposed two vacant parcels have average slopes of 15.7% and 17.2%, with even greater slope characteristics and constraints within their proposed building envelopes. There is an existing residence located on proposed Parcel 2 that does have an average cross slope of less than 10%. However, the intent of the standard, creating at least one new, building site with less than 10% slopescannot be satisfied. This project creates no new building site of at least 5,000 square feet on a slope less than 10%. 3. Placement of Structures. Each structure shall be located in the ... least visually prominent portion of the site. 9. View Protection. Each proposed structure should be designed and located to avoid unnecessarily blocking views from other properties. a. Where feasible, a new structure should not be placed directly in the view of the primary living areas on a neighboring parcel. The language and spirit of the hillside development standards certainly should be considered in this situation and the proposed Parcel 1 clearly violates the visually prominent and view obstruction objectives. See the Visual Simulation information in the Appeal package, especially the photograph with the story pole. SUBDMSION REGULATIONS Section 16.10.030 J&K. A Detailed Slope Analysis for projects containing slopes greater than 15% and a Preliminary Grading and Vegetation Removal Plan has not been submitted. The above information will confirm the severely constrained building area within Parcel i and 3 and provide information related to earthwork and vegetation removal impacts that should be evaluated through the CEQA Initial Study analysis. This project is not a clever or innovation subdivision and in no way reflects good land use planning and community design. Parcel 1 and its building envelope create a multitude of problems and concerns as enumerated in this letter and the Appeal package. For instance, a structural and/or wildland fire with the high probability of the fire truck turnaround blocked could easily result in damage or loss of three residential structures. Even a task as simple as wheeling the garbage cans to the Johnson Avenue curb on Friday mornings will prove to be a major challenge if Parcel 1 is developed. If this project is approved, squeezing a lot into an improbable area with a future residence looming above the backyard and staring into the windows of the existing house and in the face of the abutting neighbor's homes, along with sticking an industrial fire truck turnaround at the front door of their home, the Applicants will succeed in making a mockery of good, thoughtful planning, violate numerous City standards and degrade and devalue not only the abutting properties, but also their own. We urge the City Council to deny this project and direct the Applicant to pursue the other development options that are cited in the Appeal package. Thank you for your consideration. Sin Joseph & Barbara Boud 1645 Corona Court, San Luis Obispo C: Appellants to MS 78-09; PM-SLO-09-0074 C: SLO Community Development Department Boud letter•Appeal of MS 78-09 to City Council•11113109•Page 3 Page 317 of 332 x LUw a U0 F I C=) U O U) J V v` Q NW N Q m G H 6V V O f O a a Cud a 5, 0 ¢ E O N J Page 318 of 332 Filing Fee: $250.00 PaidJOFAP13td9Z@d al' ' <gt'M1L NIA IClty 0f 0 9 2009• REFER TO SECTION 4 Moo Sa n LUIS OBISPO Y DEVELOPMENT APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION IYANc S ynEca./I of al s ,4 t h /659 60AW4 e2 %o 93¢oi Name Mailing Address and Zip Code L15VS- 239"12- Phone Fax AA Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2 SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: PI bJNrNb GoiKM 65i0N Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 10'01 3. The application or project was entitled: M4 lb-09 M-SL0 0q- 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. on Staff Member's Name and Department) Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: o /e9- G4+ifN/Nb GCrhM aY SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. L Page 1 of 3 NOV 0 9 2009 SLO CITY CLERK Page 319 of 332 Page 1 of 1 Chippendale, Sue From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 1:00 PM To: nashokohi@gmail.com' Subject:Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision on the Project Approval 2410 Johnson Attachments: Shokohi 1-5-10.pdf Attached please find a copy of the above mentioned appeal, including a copy of your signed 45-day letter. Please distribute to other appellants as you see fit. Thank You, Sue Chippendale City Clerk's Office City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805)781-7103 11/23/2009 Page 320 of 332 i Page 1 of 1 Chippendale, Sue From: Davidson, Doug Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 1:12 PM To:Chippendale, Sue Subject: RE: 2410 Johnson Appeal Yes we have, Sue. No need to call them again. Thanks for checking. Doug Davidson, AICP City of San Luis Obispo Deputy Director, Development Review Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-781-7177 From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 1:10 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: 2410 Johnson Appeal Hi Doug, Just a quick question about the above. Has CDD given the Spevacks a heads up as to the date of the appeal? I plan on sending them a legal notice and the agenda report when the time comes, but was wondering if I need to give them a call right now? If they've already been contacted, I don't want to keep bugging them. Thanks, Sue 11/23/2009 Page 321 of 332 Page 1 of 2 e Chippendale, Sue From: David, James Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:49 PM To:Chippendale, Sue Subject: RE: Correspondence from Joseph Boud Let's go with the first option because I will definitely be referencing his letter in the agenda report. Thanks for checking! James David Assistant Planner City of San Luis Obispo 805) 781-7576 jdavid@slocity.org From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:09 PM To: David, James Subject: RE: Correspondence from Joseph Boud I checked with Elaina on this and she said if you are referencing Mr. Boud's correspondence in your agenda report, then the correspondence should be as an attachment to said report. If not, and it is just extra"stuff'then we can send it out as a Red File after the agenda is distributed next Tuesday. Your call. Sue From: David, James Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 1:37 PM To: Chippendale, Sue Subject: RE: Correspondence from Joseph Boud Hi Sue, I was planning on attaching it with the appeal to the Council Staff Report, Do you think the Red File is still necessary? James David Assistant Planner City of San Luis Obispo 805) 781-7576 jdavid@slocity.org From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:19 AM To: David, James Subject: Correspondence from Joseph Boud Hi James, On November 25th, I received in the Clerk's Office a copy of correspondence by Joseph Boud, one of the appellants appealing the PC decision at 2410 Johnson. I've attached a copy for you in case you haven't seen it, although he said he would drop one off to CD. My question is: How do you want me to handle it? Do you want 12/1/2009 Page 322 of 332 Page 2 of 2 i me to hang on to this and send it as a Red File for the Jan. 5th agenda? Or????? Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Sue 12/1/2009 Page 323 of 332 t4,LwV J w.a ova;)". ,o WN I Jr4W41(4- M I K S races US/05 RED FILE COUNCIL CDD DIR MEETING AGENDA a FIN DIR f+Y'FIRE CHIEF ATE M #LFMt 13 A70RNEY 2-PW DIR f3 CLERK/ORIG 70LIC E CHF DEPT FJEADS EC DIR 2UTIL DIR Q-HR DIR September 16, 2009 nTrm CauNc.L Attention San.Luis Obispo City PIanning Dept We do not object to the proposed subdivision at 2410 Johnson Ave. RECEIVED DEC 31 2009 SLO CITY CLERK Page 324 of 332 09/15/2009 04:21 80554+ `3 CONTINENTAL K R 3 PAGE 05/05 September 16, 2009 Attention San Luis Obispo City Planning Dept We do not object to the proposed subdivision at 2410 Johnson Ave. as°a 04 C\Y\50Nn Page 325 of 332 09/15/2009 04:21 80554 13 CONTINENTAL MTR 'S PACE 04/05 September 16, 2009 Attention.San Luis Obispo City Planning Dept. We do not object to the proposed subdivision at 2410 Johnson Ave. 6A fi) Page 326 of 332 O O N N O O p 75 Q O X ' O 3 b O O ,> Q? Nm ,C N O N N cN 3aa N v N O E N .' a N H L •- c N L. O H 0 c N C NN ,;. ' D Q } Na 3 U -5570O +- O) a 0 0Q a 0 N U >` z a a O a O - O U U L U 0 p Q a I Q N c N Z O 0 Q c N c U O a a a H aa 4- aa3CUao 6. ID U L CL , L N U Q j U O U Q U a O L B , p "o c 0 O 4. O N E S z3 _ O p c N cq o av am " h O C Z3 Z3 N t- E c r. L O 0 U N QU UF .0 Q % a Page 327 of 332 Page 328 of 332 OWNER's STAJEMENI WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE All THE OWNERS or, AND ALL RECORDHOLOERS Of SECURITY INTEREST IN, AND All PARTIES HA ~NG ANY RECORD TITI.E lNTEREST IN THE REAL PRQPERTY INCLUDED \\!THIN THE SUBDM~ON AND PRCl.ECT SHOWN ON THIS MAP, AND THAT EACH OF US DOES HEREBY CONSENT TO THE RUNG AND/OR RECORDATION or THIS MAP. THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEOICA lED AS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES: PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT OR 'P.U.E." DEUNEAlED ON SAID MAP FOR PUBLIC USE AND lHE BENEFIT Of THE SEVERAL PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED TO SER;£ IN SAID SUBDMSION. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS DELINEA 1ED ON SAID MAP. WE HEREBY RESERVE TO 0URSEL;£S, OUR HEIRS. AND ASSIGNS ORAINAG~ UTILITY, COMMON OR1¥£WAY, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR THE USE AND BENEAT OF THE PRESENT AND F\JllJRE OWNERS OF THE LOTS EFFEClED BY SUCH EASEMENTS /,S OEUNEAlED ON SAID MAP. BEIEJCIARY STA)EIENT RABOBANK, N.A., BENEAOARY UNDER DEED OF TRUST .RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 2017, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-()06767 OFACIAL RECORDS SAN WIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. BY: 7!/1/Jf<~ TillE: £.ti.~ A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the Individual who signed the document to Which this certificate is attached, and not the trulhfulness,accuraoy,orvalldllyofthatdooument. STAlE or 9a I; <>~n;g_ SKlNA]IJRE QIISSHJNS COUNTY or Sanl...\s. O '., ;:,po THE SIGNATURES or THE FOU.O\\!NG EASEMENT HOLOERS HA;£ BEEN ON .;J.,..,._ ~ 201.'.l BEEIRE M~ r ,VoiJ.'jOMITlED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66436 SUBSECTION a-3-A(I) 'f• I, \>c. PERSONALLY APPEARED < -.6.,n WH PRO¥£D TO ME ON OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, TimR IN1ER~1S GH' W.,~ANNOT .EFFREY SPEVACK SEPARAlE PROPERTY TRUST DAlED AUGUST 21, 2013 'THE BA. SIS Cf SA. TISFACTORY DENCE TO BE THE PERSGN'8) WHOSE NAM-'8) RIPEN INTO A FEE TITI.E AND SAID SIGNATURES NOT_B[QUIRED Y THE ,rs)ARE~RIBED TO THE \\!THIN INSTRUMENT ~12. ACKNO\\lEDGED TO ME GO;£RNING BODY. . / '1iiAT HE EY EXECUlED THE;..,~E IN HISlt!;ll'/THEIR AUTHORIZED ERNEST WIITAKER AND MARTHA WHITAKER AS !)INERS or AN EASEMENT CAPAC! , AND THAT BY HISl!IDl{THBR S1GNATURl;{8) ON THIS INSTRUMENT, FOR WAlER CAS AND SEWER LINES RECoiiDED•MARCH 10 1952 IN BOOK THE PERSON'8) 0R THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF \llilCH THE ~'8) AClED, 649, PAGE 044 Of OfflCIAL RECORDS SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, NOTARY ACKNQIVDGMENI A notary pubUc or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. EXECUlED THE INSTRUMENT. I CERTIFY LINDEil PENALTY Of PERJJRY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA. . \ \ LAWS or lHE STATE OF CALFORNIA THAT THE FOREOONG PARAGRAPH IS TRUE \ AND CORRECT. A \ \ \\!TNESS MY HAND AND OfflCIAL SEAL ~ \ \~ COMMISSION NO.: ,;J/pfl 7.2{} = "' ~[J... · la ~ COOJRREN~ OOOWITS ," "' .. / / I I // ~-~11 couNTY OF: S.., L.;s Obisl'o RECORDER'S rasctJi\4ER: -- ShcN\...e .. Ck,r MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:~01'/ mE T ~ IN. LI~ ~~~~~~~,fv ~ sgl~Qli, i'f:u~:k~ PRINlEO NIIME: OVIQW. 1/{ 'o/t. BY THE LOCAL AGENCY APPRO~G THE ~~~~AU~ Luis Obsp!,\ ON <!.... 2.2. 20JJ BEFORE ME, Llsc,-H. =+f'<cl: A/71'111ZY f1J6UG-,PERSGNALLY APPEARED WHO PROVED TO-ME ON THE BASIS or SATISFACTORY EVIDEN TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) ('\ ~ THE MAKES NO REPRESENTATION REGARDING THE • QIBfCJQR OF C<HOYJY QEYEIOPMENI STAJDIENT V $E/;i~tfi THIS MAP. G OF ANY IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE \\!THIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNQ'IW>GED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUlED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/1HBR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR ~GNATURE(S) ON THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSGN(S) OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSGN(S) AClED, EXECUlED THE INSTRUMENT. I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STAlE or CALFORNlA THAT THE FOREOONG PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT. I DO HEREBY ST A TE THAT THE COMMUNITY DE¥£LOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CIT1\ . •vi /e , OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STAlE CALIFORNIA DID ON Xv!IR 2 'ii 2rf+l,\ NO • ~ FOLI.01NG O MEN AFFECTING THE PROPERTY DEN01ED APPRO¥£ THIS MAP OF PARCEL MAP NO'. SLO 09-0074 IN ACCORDANCE \\ITH_~E H , ON/"'E BBNC;RE~ CONCURRENllY HERE\\!TH: PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, AND HEREBY AGREE Jn ACCEPT ON \ \ 1 g/ / / PEDESTRIAN AND STORM DRAIN EASEM~ AS SHOWN ON;THIS,,lfAP.'",! EM~Ct ~ AND DRAINAGE (ONE EASEMENT, ONE PARTY) BEHALF OF lHE PUBLIC A PUBLIC UTILITY, EASEMENT OR 'P.UZ' AS WEll·~ \~)b':!;Af!T OF~~T AND AGREEMENT FOR COMMON ORI¥£. WAY, . /\V / ( ASINSlRUMENT NO. '.2,0110?,,01..'2. ~ \\!TNESS MY HANO AND OFFlCIAL SEAL 2.J5q -<>' n__ fl\._£./ i ~•, /', \ \ COMMISSION No.,gl\'CI BY: ~ (\ \ '· . ., \~ co¥£NANT TO INSTALL Pueuc 1MPRO¥£MENTS );f:: _ 7'VJ · d~ C::::-I • , • Clo' p ~g;3~A:.~i} ~~ECTilR \ \ TE • ) .1 AS INSTRUMENT NO. '2.o\lQzO 't",0 £'.,m COUNTYOF: ~ L...UIS I~: CITYOF~SAN.:N.LL!Jr.f .. ~COB~(~A\\if:3'AU~R\NI\ '/-'---'l Ls,:,... H. . .Ices±-MY couM1SS10N EXPIRES: 'Crul'lL 25, SOLS EN '"'. \ \ ____ .. PRINlED NAME: ----\ PROJECT NO. SL'oooo5'2 \ \) 119IARY AQCNOlllijlGNENT . \ \ \ DJ,W: AUG1J~7, 201~ \; A notary publicorotheroflicercompleting lhiscertificateverffiesonlytheldenlltyofthe / . -. V lndlVl!1ual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the / PRF'PARED f()R: a< \ truthfulness,accuracy,orvalidityofthatdocumenl 7-· \\1101. ~UR LAN't 1.', : ?-N 1-., UIS •o;OA 93401 STAlE OF CALIFORNIA • . V .. COUNTY OF ./ ·--~-. \ ~ARED BY: ig~TI~~~C. ON 20_ BEFORE cL / "'{ ~\" /SA'fLUIS OBISPO CA 93401 p,&IC,PERSGNALL Y APPEARED \lliO ~D j6 ME ON • \ ___ / / THE BASIS or SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO B THE RSGN(S WH ~AME(S) \ ----____ ./ IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE \\!THIN INSTRUMEN D CKNO GED ME \ \ THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUlED THE SAME IN HIS R R AU RIZE ~\ CAPACITY(IES), AND TH~T Y HIS/HER/IHBR SIGNA RE( ON TH~N MENT, ) THE PERSGN(S) OR TH lTIY UPON BEHALF or WHI TH PER A D, EXECUTED THE INSTRU ::· CERTIFY UNDER PENAL ;.Cl!; .IJRY U ER E LAWS Of THE STATE OF A THAT THE FOREOON.'('ARA IS~E) AND CORRECT. \ \ \ \, \\!TNESS MY HAND AND OFFlCI SEAi\ en \ I \ \OMMISSKlN NO.: ++'--- ~-G-NA-TU-RE-: -----\~'mv OF: _/-.'/ ___ _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ___ _ PRINlED NAME: RE~ STA)EIENI 4i-2-8 .2011 DAlE ALEO THIS .lL\>AY Of~ 20U AT ~M. IN BOOI< ~ OF PARGa MAPS, AT PAGES J5::Ji_ AT THE REQUEST OF \\!WAM R. D'!ER, LS 5661. DOCUMENT NO. ?J)\1 Q ';Q'2.,28 FEE: 111.\-00 SIGNED:~~~ NTY R DER BY:_.='!l.!l""ol&'l,,N<=\--- VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 75 PARCEL MAP SLO 09-0074 A SUDIVISON OF LOT 1, TRACT 1272 (13 MB 55) City of San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo, California OCTOBER 2016 SHEET 1 OF4 WRDSPE13101 FIR$TAl,'ERICANTITlECO 4001-3332779(L0 Page 329 of 332 i------, LOT13 I FD EPOXY LOT 14 SET N&T LS 5661 TAG LS4819 IN BASE OF IN SIDEWALK N53'37'22"E LOT12 t/, DESTROYED METAL FENCE\ RESET N&T LS 5661 J POST ( -----N53°37'22~ M&R2~ ---SN;;;;r;S)--,,36,.,.8,:,3'-"~------- &! 184.00' R2 ? ~ M&R2 \ ~ FD N&T I -t ,~ 628 OR 156 ~I~ \· ~~~8~~:ALL o 1 ;, =40ft4Dft [aa-~I ~ ~~ ---""""" ~"-"'----l \ con r --= ~ I I "'-~E;1~:0~~:661 FD 1-112" 1P wnAG \'~ --- / "--~3°~"£ 111 ·5 I ;;:JI LS4819PERR4 \ --- \ I~ !I ~ \ j 11 Ii iii~\~, \ con/ \ :r-s:,:, _ l ! : . \ /o'., \ __i_S~R~m 7I 1~ -----~,:;; ... ·[.·M29~.oi~-;;.·.· .. ---FD1"1P;\(1; --- \ W/ PLASTIC <9.;i-0 ~ \ I FD EPOXY · -PLUG LS 4819 I ~~"" FD1"1P I TAG!NSIDEWALK I es.;,i:;;:-../ -- \ W/TAGRCE6923 LS4819 PARCEL2 . 6',r,, J \ !N MON WELL PER R2 I : PARCEL 1 j 24 PM 79 I f-I 24PM79 I / 76 BASIS Of BEARINGS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE CENTERLINE OF JOHNSON AVENUE 'M-llCH BEARS N 36'25'01# W BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS PER R2 . R1 Ri R3 R4 Cl1Y OF SA!i LUIS OBISPO. HORizONTAL CONlROL,NETWORK (2007) 106 RS 12 13 MB 55 2006-088709 C~llFICATE OF CORRECTION LEGEND : .L I FOUNO Cl MONUMENTS PER R2 .t'-FOUND MONUMENTS PER R2 AS NOTED UNLESS OTHERWISE IND!CA TED 6--SET 5/8" REBAR W/PLASSC CAP LS 5661 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SNF SEARCHED, NO)HING FOUNO N&T NAIL AND TAG FD FOUND S,NCARCOS ~ __ -,) I j I_I ----~~----1------------: / --DRIVE /-·1 ~-==----_/ \ /-----L I • 1 PARCEL 4 I / I FD PIN IN CONCRETE g -I -·:(_·I/:__ 24' PM 79 / ~ UJ FD PIN IN CONCRETE ~~i~7s~~l~~E:o:6 I <( I I (/) 0" ·.__ -( _,,/ /'-" ~ y~ ~1r~0~::~L:i~;51 N=2295432.762 I c,-i ~ 1 '-. CC:: I 0::: N=2296020 004 es~,.,-i . • ~_;_'ii 11·· . '-_ T· --, ---N~'ff,~-:.,ss,,,. RI I-_-"--"---"-::: J ~ -E-5773302~2-- /i " I -~3'!.!!_°"-c /\ / SYDNEY STREET ~ i' I 1 1 1 1 ----1 , I ~~ ~ E I I FD PIN IN CONCRETE LI \ '----T --L --L IN MON WELL PER R2 ~ ..?s ~ ___ J SYDNE"::: STREET __ PARCEL MAP SLO 09-0074 A SUDIVISON OF LOT 1, TRACT 1272 (13 MB 55) City of San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo, California OCTOBER 2016 SHEET2 OF4 FIRST AMER,CAN TITLE CO. 4001-3332n9 (L') (j r [ Page 330 of 332 77 BASIS CF BEARINGS TI1E BASS Of BEARINGS FOR TI<IS sulll(y IS iHE CENTERLINE Of JOHNSON A~UE l\lllCH BEARS N 36'25'of' W BETI\EEN FOUND MONUMENTS PER R2 . . ' I l~--------------.,,.,,22"EM&R2 18402'M--_ J _ ---7r-1SNF "'::::'·~~------T FD EPOXY 184 0d R2 M&R2 I I TAGLS4819 SETN&TLS5661 I-I-'" (\ /~ \ \ L DESTRQ.YED INBASEOF -------:::-FDN&T ~ ~ \ \ I RESETN&TLS5661 METAL FENCE I ~ l'o, ...,.,;~ ~'.?-LS48191N ~--~ ~ \ \ ~ INSIDEWALK POST ~I~ ~~,()V',&. ~\; TOPOFWALL / '~ ~ ~ \ \ i '*-628 OR 156 ~~ ~4<f.,~/(.' \ R1/. /-~OFSANWIS-OOISPOl«lRIZDI/T .. AL "9• ~ ~.,z~.:-"-1>, ~ 8 "~,i, ,t6'4:-I><, PUBLIC STORM <· ( / CON L N°"1wDRK (2007}" \ I "' 7',0' ~ ~~ :il ~ .J DRAIN ESMT R.2 1 106 RS 2--\~--", \ I ~-?,,.;>~-FD 1-172" IP W/ TAG I PER THIS MAP ~~~' ~~~~08~09 ~ERTIFlCATE Of CORREi;TION I I I I I I I I I I I I --+ SETN&T IN SIDEWALK LS 5661 U,J ::::, z w ~ z 0 U) z J: 0 ..., I 01''~~ LS4819PER"R4~ I \ //---.. \ I / 1 9IF :.L -N53'37'22"E 183.85'M&R2 -------=,~ \\ / / -~ "'\ -</ \/ ~Jhl ~"~~;~1~01•w2e:-1-L--C~M~~~:R~:EW~;~N~G~;u~~;E~~=-E-=+~--_J ~/-,~-~ / / \ .t_ D'{iiiONUMENTSPERR2 ,~~PEDESTRIAN 'CY' &P.U.E.FORPARCELS2&3 -?o, I 1/ // \IJ! \ \\ : .,1 FOU~M~ENTSPERR2ASN01ED J I ESM't N36°22'38~ ~~37'E"~ N3S013,20,'W 20.D0' / , '&.~ \ "~ _// / UNLf .. ~,WISE INDICATED 25}:,,-1-L---/"-51 .2:: 00 ~ 32 . 550 \ , '\ (/\ / ___ ·-~ -~/,,/6---~sUfu:J~:~i~:~TED 1 I I a, 8778' ...-~ , \ .,, , : WI \,"tz_a·xe· / ~~~ ~11,\. :\ \ \ f,~l-) j -:: :7::·T::TI<ING FOUND ~L=~7.01'R=28.00' -v,, \ " /~ :! ! PUE j { II/ pji~iii:GE ~\:\\\\ j,~:=r=/ FD FOUND ..-/ ! 70, 7o ESMT SETN&T_J...S566l-\ / ~· : N36°25'01''W 2070' I ) ' F REP~:;~~ \ \ \ ~1il I L--1~J "'--sae•2s•o1"E 2264' ("\ 7"7 ) \ \ 11!~ I . V I I / /\ ) z ~ I I (\ / / \I V I : -1,,,,/ .. ,,,__ ;;; I~ S53"36'1rrW 20 00' '1~ "'.. ,/ // I ) \ I I ·,o~.J ~~ -,:~.;, \ \ I 1/'/ \ ~, ~ ~ // ""iS\"'-\ I \ / \ ,,,"'~'/:_"c, ".r, I~ 0 //// ~_r \ \__'-~ ~ a; -1,, ,0 ..-..,,:~ & <f I // \ ~l:;i 6" ""1. .<>~,i>J.I,~ / \ I I / \ ~ l;> Y7 \ I I -?a I' / /\ \ ( v' I .1e.,.., \ II i ,/)I\\~\\\\ \\_j/1 I \ : ~\,'i'\,/\\\\-.,_/ I ,..,, \ / \~: i \ \ \\\ \) 1' ______ "·1-------------'1',; ~ -----~7a_ 77 -~ -\ ~\---~ ----N~r--;~~·i'ii"ioo'oiM&R2 ___ ------91 _E. ------/ -- FD EPOXY \ \ \\ \ N 5J'JoW E: R2 FD 1" IP TAG IN SIDEWALK I I \/ I W/ PLASTIC LS 4819 _ , \ PLUG LS 4819 l / j \ / ; I I 1 in. =20ft. 20ft (\I /\ (. ---.___\\ \( '----/ j \\ \ '. \ '---,.// \\\ \\ \\/ PARCEL MAP SLO 09~0074 \ \\ \ V "Y,~~!~~~r orth8thStreet,SulteB PhOM-(805)481-1223 Box432 .Fax-(805)481-1323 BeachCA93483-0432 A SUDIVISON OF LOT 1, TRACT 1272 (13 MB 55) City of San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo, California OCTOBER 2016 SHEET30F4 FIRSTAMERICANTIT1.EC0.4001-3332719(LI} Page 331 of 332 SECTION 2, Condition, and Code Requirements. The denial of the appeal of the Planning Comm.i~ion's decision, Application No. MS 78-09, is subject to the following conditions and code requirements llpplicable to the subdivision approval: I. The Community Deve!OJ)lllent Director has designated Paree ls One, Two and Three as "sensitive sites". This status ensures that future infill development will respect existing site constraints, privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, provide for adeqnate parking, and be compatible with the scale l!Ild cliaracter of the existing neighborhood. An application for architectural review will be required for all three parcels in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.48.050. Development applications for Parcel One must be reviewed by 1he Architectural Review Commbision. 2. Applications submitted. for architectural review on Parcel One shall include housing designed not to exceed a 406-foot elevation at the highe& point of the roof, topieserve pleasant views from and towar4s the property (LUE 2.2.12), and remain consllltent in character with the neighborhood. 3. The building fooqxint shown on Parcel One shall be reduced in size so that eventual housing development of the parcel will be setback tit least 10 feet from the northeast property line. The driveway shall not be allowed withln this required IO foot setback. 4. Future development of Parcels One & Three shall provide one (1) additional on-site guest parking space per lot, subject to the.approval of the Commwiity Development Director. 5. Grading and site disturbance on all parcels shall be limited to that required for providing access, utilities, and drainage improvetnents to these parcels until complete development plans are submittedfcwreview. 6. Grading associated with development of new structures shall be minimiwd to the smallest practical area of land for development on each parcel. 7. Existing ~head utility lines serving the house on Parcel 2 shall be undergroonded. Undergrounding of all wire utilities serving this subdivision shall be achieved without a !)et increase in the number of utility poles unless specifically approved by the city and serving utility companies. 8. The existing driveway approaches shall qt abandoned. New cmb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed per City F.ngineering Standards. 9. The ptoposed northerly approach shall be inslalled per City Engineering Standar4 #2111. The subsijvision improvement plan submittal shall include a !in!H)f-sight analysis of ·pedestrians located on 1he public sidewalk and/or ADA sidewalk for exiting vehicles. 10. The ~ubdivision improvement plans and map ,shall show and honor the existing sump lllld berm area located at the northeast camer of proposed Parcel 2 that se~ the upslope lots of Tract 1272. The fina1 map sb,all include an additional drainage -emeirt if the existing containment area lllld safe "overflow for the storm drain system are not located within 1he existing easement area. Otherwise, the applicant shall demonstrate that 1he existing grading improvements are not necessary and shall propose a ~sed soluiion for the safe overflow. 11. It is highly recommended that a common driveway be provided to serve this development lllld the underdeveloped parcel to the north (2374 Johnson). The applicant shall exhaust all Oppol;tµnity to provide and develop 11 common driveway with 2374 Johnson for the mntual benefit of both properties. Development costs shall not be considered as a reasoo. to not pursue a commOn driveway unless it can be shown that the common improvements would be excessive in coroparison to a driveway dedicated to serve the parcels wjthin 1hill subdivision. 12. Within the City right-of-way sewer laterals proposed to serve Partels 1 and Parcel 2 must be no less than 16" on center. 13. A CC1V inspection of the existing sewer lateral proposed to serve P111Cel 3 shall be submnted to the Building Division during the buil4ing permit process. Grading & Drainage 15. The preliminary soils report prepared by Geosolutions, Inc with Report No SL06905-l, dated Mey 19, 2009 shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations. /\ 16. All elevations must be based on a City Bench.Mark and noted per City datwn elevations. The plans shall note the benchmll!'k number, location and elevati' ~Jude a clear description of the benchmark referenced on the plans. Clarify whether the NGVD 29 or NA VD 88 datum is being used. ' ' 17. The subdivision improvements lllld/or building plans shall include provisions to minimi7.e the amount of any collected groundwater~ that would~.~ to the gutter at the public street in accordance with City Engineering Stan~ IOto.B. _ ~ ~ \ \ 18. Development of the proposed parcels shall comply with the l!TQ\lioncontro\ provisiOllll oftheW*1"',vayManagement Plan,...~Desig1f~ "'~\ \ 19. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drajnage, or, appropriate easements/blanket easements, and drainagefatjlifies shall beprovjded, to~mcti ?{the'fu. blic ~WorksDirectorandBuHdingOfficial. /\ / /~---~ "' ~, \ 20. The subdivision improvement plans shall clarify where the existing dnrlnage filcilitie·s are located and w~ey''are ~scharged. \\, ~', \ Trees and Landscape Requirements \ \ \ \ \ 21. Streettreesarerequiredasaconditionofsubdivision. Streettreesshal. I generally be planted. Jt-thli~=0~S-ga1\~treefore.~.h3S)in~,,:feetofproperty~tag/:, 22. The subdivision improvementphw.s shall coIJeetly show the BU.e mid location of all~~· ~ie ~, an~~~ _saiiop;A-epictions shall ~)Vrt and notedforreference. -_ , 1 \ \ / 23 Tree protection measures shall be implemented to,)he';;~~ ~;;'eyity Arbodst n;'e City Arborist shal~~ and ~,~-;.;osedtree protection measures prior to commencmg with any demolition, ~or ~ion ~ Arlxirist shall~prove any safety~ the Of tutl rootli, or grading within the driplmeoftrees Acity-approvedarboristfill~Pietesafetyprwµng Anyreqmred1ree~tectionmeasuressha1lbeshownor tedo thebuildingplans 24 The subdiviswn improvement plans shall provjde clarificanon on the existing and ~pe an~pe nnganon nn~~ts on the proposed undeveloped ~l ~· Landscape irrigation s~all ~.PfO~df!d to the existing ~cape~ ~IJle~ nece by tlie-P~Di~on. The Ian~ irrigation shall be separate from the remammg parcels. A new landscape ung\tion \etermay be required for this 7se:,,1Water Ini fees-Will be ~quired for any additional water meters, F1a,1~bdwbron \ ~ ) j 25. The -J'inai'lpRP ~l include any required e~ re · for the reaso~ devJopment of the affected properties. Easements may include but are not limited to grading, drainage, =;· wer, storm drainage, access, vdlwle -;l!_?~;_].DCf'uti!itiJS. Any maintenance agteeJnents shall be completed and reCQJ:ded before or coocurrent with finalmapap val. ~ -/.,-...__,-~// 26. The proposed a~s e ent for~Parcel I, 2, and 3 shall coiii.ply With the City's parking and driveway standards for slopes and maneuverability. These standards require " ad~~ area to al~ "cles to exit from all legal parking spaces and garage.I! in a forward direction in not more th@ two.maneuv=. /.;;;;..._~~ ..... ~ .. , ~ / .V-~e sob~1sion \nprov~ts~be completed to the satisfitction of the Commwuty Development Director anQ. City Engineer pnor to fmal mspeetion approvals and/or ~ f th~ap A ~l n guarantee shall be provided per city standards if the map 1s approved for recordation pnor to completion of all reqttlred subdivision ~v~ t\ \ 1 Any reqwred buildingpermtts for utility installations, relocat!Olls, or budding alterations shall have all work completed and receive final inspection approvals to the satisfaction of the Buildmg \ / / '.. 1 Code Requirements 1'he following code requirements are included for reformation purposes only They sen1e to:gn,e the applicant a general idea of othu City retpnrements that will apply to the proJect Th,s ,.s not mtended to be an exhaustrve /,.st as other requrrements may be identified durmg the plan check procesa Official pnor to recordation of the map \\ 28./The quired pu~lic and private subdivision miprovements may be completed with a separate subdiv11non/pubhc lll!provement plan submittal processed through the Public I 1 s Dep~ent '4iiir" altemat.e, the building plan submittal may be 11sed to show all required Jmprovements Improvements located within the public nght-of-way will 2 TheShareddrivewayandthefiretrucktum-aroundshallbeconsp1cu01U11yposted''NOPARKING-FIRELANECVC22500" /,.,/ -~ \ I re~~a~,.encroachmentpennftandassoclft~ct10nfees 3 A separate exhibit showmg all existing public and pnvate utilities shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Commuruty Development Director mid PubJic W9Jkspirector pnorto ~~-"-.._,/ \9 \-A separate ~View fee payable to 1he Public Works Department may be required for the Public Works Department review of subdiv1S1on m:iprovements assoclftted with the of the map Theutili(yplanshallmcludewater,sewer, stormdrams,stte draiQage,gas, electric1ty, telephone, cable TV, waterwells/spnngs, ,andanyutip~\~~meterB forea9hpru;¢el if btnlding phw. submittal Srud review fee shall be m accordance with the subdivision improvement plan review fee resolution m effect at the time of the building pertn1t :i=~ =~~;P~~~~:us:=::~~~=======~curr:;~::~:::0~~==~::d~£:ess I~k:t;:~::= \/\ \ \ apphcationsubmittal serving utility companies. ,~ 1 \ _,.30. Subd1v1s1on IIllprovemeiit. plans ~all be submitted to the cny fi.ir=ew and approval. The plans shall be approved pnor to map reoordation. Public unprovements shall comply (,-,:\. '\ \ / 1 ' \ , ' withtheCityEngineeringStandardsandStandardSpeci:licatiogsineffectat~timeofsubmittaloftheimprovementplans. The=tstandanlsaredatedJanuary2009. 4. FinallotlinelocationsandbuildingsetbacksshallconSide:rbuildingallowableareaanalysis, exteriorwallprotection.prajections, ~:n~buil~~ce~~ tin~ / / :-..,:,::;:'::,;.''otho ...,faction of tho BuildmgDivbioo oodPlmmin, Div•ioo.Anynroo>s,zym,ly,i, md/o, e,,bi\ \h~.,~~ md•"'('.~: \ ve ~:-:.,,/ Mnpping,nd Mbo,U,noom R,qn;~mont, 5. ~ building penmts i~ed for woik required to satisfy the conditions of the subdivision ship! receive final inspection appro. vltls, or shal_J,.hlive su0 · \~ompleted s:w~ to the 31. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Cm,trol Network. At least two control points shall be , ffi / ~'~ \ used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City roordinate system. A satisfactionoftheBuilding0 cialpriortorecordationofthemap. ( \ 3 computer ,disk. containing 1he appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) fur Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be 6. A separate building permit shitll be o~ for the upgrade, alteration, and/or relocation of any on-site utilities or structures. Ally~· im ts shaJi11,ave woik comp d and submitted to the City Engineer. ~ finalinspectionsapprovedtothesatisfactionoftheBuildingOfficialpriortorecordationofthemap. ,/--------~ ~ \ \ = '-.._ \ \ 32. The pprcel map preparation and monumentation shall be iJi4ccon.tance with the city's Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The 7. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, drainage, co . ~liys, ~.~o ~ s . shall be sh~ the fina1 map or parcel map shall use E~ Units in acco~ce with'the current City Engineering Standards. All record-data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric recorded separately Jml)r to map recordat:ion if applicable. A private waterline easement shall be provided for , e wo/"' services cro~ ~13 to~ ls l and 2. translations should be in perenthesis if applicable. / ' ' \ \ \ l \ \ \ / PablicRight-of-Way -----~, \ \ : J P£'«11fM8U NQ1E; ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 78 s. AJJY seeti.ons m damaged or displacOO curb, gutter & si~ or driveway ap~~~rep~ to~ati~. ~thr'i>ubnC Worlaf Director prior to recordation of the CONSTRUCTION OF OFFSITE AND ONSlTE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED UPON m,p, ( \ /\j ( \ ~ --/ DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL 9. Additional public right-of-way or public pedestrian eas~nts ~ be. o,S:..·s•ary to\actommodate ~v ents reqmd-fer-Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, to the PARCEL MAP S LO, 09-007 4 ,.ti,fio<,tiooofthoPw>H,WorlaD""'°', \ ~ \ - s,.._w,1,,,s.wu&Utllltl~ • \ · · \ \ A SUDIVISQN Of 10. 1heproposeddriveway,shall sho tocomp~ywiththePIU'k:ini'and eway~''siopingdriv~ays. 11. Theimprovementplansshallsh the, ·onoftheproposedp~~estos~the~di?velopedParcel2inaccordancewiththezoningregulationsandtheParkingand LQT 1, TRACT 1272 (13 MB 55) DrivewayStandards. \ .\\ \ \ . V ' 12. Sepm1rte11tilities,includingwater,sew gas,e~. · ity,telephone,aiid~ble'ifvshalibeservedtoea~parceltothesatisfactionofthePubiicWorksDirectorandservingutilitycompanies. William R. er City of San Luis Obispo A private sewer main may be proposed to iii sari ·on of the Building}ffiic7.· Utilities Enginee,-, and Public Works Director. Clv/1 En11._lll6Brln11_-Land Sutvey_fnQ 13. If proposed, an on-site sewer main will be ·vare~awned ~maintained by the Homeowner's Pr:operty ~s Association and shall be covered in the CC&R's or comparable ~:.:.street,SuiteB ~~i!:i!~~~:; County of San Luis Obispb, California maintenance agreement. -:---~ /' / _ ~ , BeachCA93483-0432 OCTOBER 2016 14. The existing Wflter service shown to serve the pr<iposectParcel 3 shall be shown to comply with current dty standards and be capable of providing adequate fire service to anew residence. Otherwise, the service shall be abandoned at the public main in favor of a new 'meter manifold designed to serve all three parcels. SHEET40F4 WRElSPE13101 FIR$TAMt:Rl/11TlEC0.4001-3332779-(LI) Page 332 of 332