HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/1993, 3 - TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 2112, A TEN-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BLVD, WEST OF FERRINI ROAD. �I�N�NII�IIIII�III�I�I��III`I "1 r MEETING DATE:
I�Y'gll I Cl Or SdT1 SUIS OB1Sp0 -�-a•
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
. r
O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planned_
SUBJECT: Tentative map for Tract 2112, a ten-unit residential condominium project located on
the north side of Foothill Blvd., west of Ferrini Road.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution to
Approve the tentative map for Tract 2112, subject to findings and conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed the tentative map for this project on January 13, 1993; their
recommendation for approval is reflected in the attached draft Council resolution. The Architectural
Review Commission granted schematic approval to the project on January 19, 1993; a hearing to
consider final ARC approval is.tentatively scheduled for March 15, 1993.
Data Summary
Address: 680 Foothill Blvd.
Applicant: Richard H. Porter
Representative: APS Architects - Randy Rea
Zoning: R-4
General Plan: High Density Residential
Environmental Status: Mitigated negative declaration approved by Director
Project Action Deadline: March 2, 1993 (for Council consideration of tentative map)
March 18, 1993 (for ARC final approval)
Site Description
The site is a rectangular lot with 99 feet of frontage on Foothill Blvd., and 20,690 square feet of
area. A house and triplex, with paved parking, are located on the site. Several mature trees are
located on the site, which slopes up from Foothill Blvd. at approximately 2%. The project site'is
surrounded by houses and apartments, as shown on the attached vicinity map.
Application Description
The proposed project consists of ten two-bedroom units in two clusters. Part of the larger cluster
would be three stories in height (two floors above the parking level). There would also be a
detached, one-story carport structure at the rear of the lot. Access to.the site would be via a
3-I
Tract 2112
Page 2
driveway along the east property line to Foothill Blvd. The house and triplex which currently
occupy the site would be demolished.
The project complies with the minimum requirements of the City's Condominium Development
Regulations, with one exception: the subdivider has reqested an exception to the requirement to
provide solar water heating, and proposes alternative energy conservation measures to compensate.
The project complies with minimum Zoning Standards for the R-4 zone (parking, setbacks, height,
coverage).
The plans submitted for Council consideration show the second version of the project proposed by
the subdivider, and are consistent with the version approved by the ARC and Planning Commission
in January. The current plans reflect extensive revisions to the original concept, which were made
in response to ARC and Planning Commission direction at earlier hearings.
EVALUATION:
Issues considered by the Planning Commission and ARC - including those raised by the neighbors -
are summarized below.
1. Development Intensity
The revised project has fewer units than the previous proposal (two one-bedroom units deleted), with
a density of 21 equivalent units per acre. R-4 regulations would allow a maximum of 24 units per
acre.
Complete statistics are not provided, but it appears that total floor area, and coverage of the site by
buildings and paving, have been slightly reduced.
As noted in the attached letters and petitions, neighborhood representatives believe that an R-4
project is too dense; they request that the City initiate R-2 rezoning.
2. Solar Access and Views
The revised project would have less impact on solar access of adjoining lots. Shading diagrams
included with the revised plans indicate that the project would comply with solar access standards
for low and medium density residential uses (Energy Element excerpts attached).
The project's effect on views from neighboring properties would also be reduced. Diagrams
showing view angles toward Cerro San Luis will be presented at the Council hearing.
3. Parkins
25 parking spaces would be provided, three more than the minimum required by Zoning regulations.
Five uncovered spaces would be designated for "guest" parking, or one-half guest parking space
per unit.
3a
Tract 2112
Page 3
The City has required between 0.2 and 0.5 guest parking space per unit for other condo projects in
the neighborhood:
Tract 1119, 480 North Chorro, approved 1983: 0.2 space
Tract 1123, 385 North Chorro, approved 1983: 0..3 space, plus extra bike parking
Tract 1652, 305 North Chorro, approved 1990: 0.5 space
The ratio of guest parking is consistent with the approvals for the previous condo projects, although
some curbside parking was available adjacent to those sites.
3. Usable Ogen Space
As noted above, the plans comply with minimum area requirements for private and common open
space. Private yards are provided for Units 1-5 and 10; second floor decks are provided for Units
6-9. Although the decks are not ideally suited for solar access, the amount and location of open
spaces are appropriate for a high density residential project. Access to private open space areas is
much improved over the previous submittal.
4. Coordination with Neighborhood Representatives
At the October 14, 1992 hearing on the earlier version of the project, many residents testified in
opposition to the project. The Planning Commission continued consideration of the tentative map
and directed the subdivider to revise the plans to address various issues raised by neighbors and
Commission members.
As indicated in the attached letter from the subdivider, the project architect met on two occasions
with a committee of four concerned neighbors; the letter states that the revised plans attempt to
address the neighbors' concerns.
Also attached is a letter from the neighborhood committee dated 12/8/92, indicating that the revised
plans "do not solve any of the problems that concern the neighbors". The neighbors' concerns are
listed in their 9/29/92 letter, also attached. The earlier letter recommend that the Commission deny
the project and initiate rezoning of the project site and adjoining properties to R-2.
Several neighbors also testified.in opposition to the revised project at the January Commission
hearing. Minutes from both Planning Commission and both ARC hearings are attached.
5. Environmental Review
The Community Development Director approved a negative declaration for the project, which
included mitigation measures regarding noise levels generated by Foothill Blvd. traffic. Minor
revisions to the initial study have been made to reflect the revisions to the project. The ARC and
Planning Commission have reviewed and approved the revised initial study and mitigated negative
declaration.
�-3
Tract 2112
Page 4
6. Solar Water Heating�Reguirement
The condominium regulations require new or converted residential units to have solar water heating
facilities. The subdivider has requested that he be allowed to substitute other measures which would
provide equal or greater savings in energy use. This approach has been approved by the Council
for several recent condominium projects, and appropriate findings for approval are included in the
draft resolution.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No other department has submitted comments which would significantly affect the design of the
project. Fire Department staff notes that the applicant must install an additional fire hydrant on
Foothill Blvd., near the west side of the site. The City Arborist recommends that the Liquidambar
tree near the entrance driveway be preserved, and that the ash tree near the west property line be
preserved if possible as shown on-the revised plans.
CONCURRENCES
As noted above, the Planning Commission have reviewed the project, and recommend approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval and construction of the project are not expected to significantly affect City revenues or
expenditures.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may also deny the propsed tentative map, if findings required for approval cannot be
supported. The Council may not continue consideration of the tentative map, due to State and local
processing deadlines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council adopt the attached draft resolution approving the tentative map for
Tract 2112, subject to findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Attachments: Resolution approving
Resolution denying
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Tentative Map
Subdivider's Statement, Letters
Initial Study
Petition and Letter from Neighbors
PC Minutes - 10/14/921 1/13/93
ARC Minutes - 9/21/92, 1/19/93
Energy Element Excerpts gtsL:TR2112CC.wp
3-�f
Approving
RESOLUTION NO. .• (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2112
LOCATED AT 680 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of the tentative map of Tract 2112 and the Planning
Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports
thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the general
plan.
2 . The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-4 zone.
3 . The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious
health problems, substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with
easements for access through (or usage of property within)
the proposed subdivision.
5. The Council has determined that the proposed subdivision
will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
approves the negative declaration filed by the Community
Development Director.
SECTION 2 . Exception. The following exception to Section
17. 140 (H) of the Condominium Development and Conversion
Regulations is hereby approved,based on the following special
findings:
A. The subdivider shall not be required to provide solar
water heating facilities for each unit.
1. The shape of the site makes it infeasible to provide
individual solar collectors for water heating systems.
V�V
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2112
Page 2
2 . The exception will not constitute a grant of special
privilege, because the applicant will be required to
provide alternative energy conservation measures.
3 . No feasible alternative to authorizing the requested
exception would satisfy the intent of City policies.
SECTION 3 . Conditions. The approval of the tentative map
for Tract 2112 be subject to the following conditions:
1. Subdivider shall mitigate potential noise impacts on future
residents of the project by constructing all units in
accordance with State standards for maximum interior noise
levels, as recommended by Initial Study ER 118-92 .
2 . The project's overall energy efficiency shall exceed
applicable State standards by an amount equal to or greater
than the energy savings which would be attributed to
provision of solar water heating.
3 . Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation.
4 . Subdivider shall provide individual water services and other
utilities for each unit. water meters shall be clustered in
the public sidewalk, to the approval of the City Engineer.
5. Final map shall note a blanket easement over the common lot
area, except under structures, for underground public
utilities serving the site, to the approval of the City
Engineer and affected utility companies.
6. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and
restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney
and Community Development Director prior to final map
approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions:
a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the
CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual
maintenance of all common areas including private
driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and
fences, lighting, and landscaping.
b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if
the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to
assess the homeowners' association for expenses
incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site
3-�
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2112
Page 3
at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's
and final map are being met.
C. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a
complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized
places.
e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or
trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles.
f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in
designated storage areas.
g. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's
without prior City Council approval.
h. Homeowners' association shall file with the -City Clerk
the names and addresses of all officers of the
homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in
officers of the association.
i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and
red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the
City Fire Department.
j . CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes
drying facilities in private yards which are
substantially screened from view.
7. Subdivider shall install a unit identification plan with
directory at the project's entrance, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
On motion of
seconded by and on '
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1993 .
3-7
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2112
Page 4
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A ministrative Officer
t" tto ney,//r /
Community Devel p ent Director
3-$
Denying
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2112
LOCATED AT 680 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of the tentative map of Tract 2112 and the Planning
Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports
thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the subdivision is not consistent with
neighborhood design policies of the General Plan Land Use
Element.
2 . The site is not physically suited for the type and density
of development allowed in the R-4 zone.
3 . The design of the subdivision may cause significant adverse
environmental effects by increasing traffic congestion and
hazards.
SECTION 2 . Denial. The Council therefore resolves to deny
the tentative map for proposed Tract 2112 .
On motion of
seconded by and on '
the following roll call vote: '
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1993 .
Mayor
97
%7
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
AcT ct 2112
P e 2
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Ad 'nistrative Officer
t " t0 014
Community Devel ent Director
3.10
PF g o
N O
Q -1p4
u V1,
e.`
S �
r+
N
Al 1.84
ROMAUL.DO 6,5 AVE. K
537 539 547 eses G�3 �S7(s7s col.5 le91 (v93
s- ,� A101•eT
�n..GT 960
0 0 0 GR40 O 0 ti
J
V
6/5 629
7 •3 17-1 ARC B:•:eDn
ILZI
N-1:0r-I'= ;R• a,<c7G� AZc84-M65LL
12
d ki.7 To
yy
IN
0 R Lr
ARC bl-O
4-10
3oC tr7
C45 0
ms 2m
(390)530 55! 372 - C z co Cv50 632 (070 reso G8+ G9 c
FOOTHILL BLV[3 _ -.
G5l (707) 711
A16l-94 LL-A-.-ms4-'GRAPHIC SCALE:
Aft-gs-III z Is43
ER 57-es 0 50 100 200 . .. 300
AIS:-b5
VICINITY MAP TRACT 2112 NORTH
680 Foothill
I ,
3• '
r * '
I
I ,
I ,\
1 ® 1
1 `
, � 1
1 1 '
1_
'/
1
I ,
I
1 _ ,
' � I
I S
I:
1
l\ J 1
� 1
1 `
1
iF�• i ! a let
1
grill Ij r � � , - •J 1 -
`. �l • r � � I f L �J � M/ SII � 1
1 � J
• ! x F sit ireia , P
eeeee �' ' � ! � t Lje �FIm 1 :— I• a.� � � l
01.
iu
eoo
F a O T H I L I 13 L V 7 g}• `
3 A Arn
i�i•' lil i`il ,
sun Pde PorUr 12 .am :0
_ ` y Gr�pp
_-2• -'' w-- .1 C3LM
��� -/
:�
w, f0
C m LL
p O h
8
� Ce J < m
Q :� Y Y Y a Y Y 6 • Y a
U.LL m O
t 2 i j CL
IL Z O O M
• `� Z0
�, s. �s Y Y Y a s • Y Y o
2
r
m C J
eS a s Y a Y Y a a a a H Y!
ui
F en 6 r q
a L
Z WW s Y Y Y a a a s a a V to p o !
ar. _ G >
h S t: z
o O Ir o O
6 6 < O
_
e
f W .
c ! , 09
3 it
. .. m•ae sm.taJr � ( L W ...
g I F
p W < < t 8 <e a
i
1lu
lb
8 rf—
z !f: $ q .. W 0 •� Il m
uh
•1 0
l►
e u
m
i
O I = \ I I
m
(
ILff
0 Z r
—T—=-- —
Q
N Z. y v
O o ° 00
Z W
fez
CS
o O IL y O
d z O Y. wm
O
O }
Co F L j cc
C W J m C ..�..`
PA IL
V Q 0Oq
Qto
tL
0
fq,1 O
F C C != z
0 cc
71
CL
- _ I c
Ou
Lli
I
'i
.............---— — i
• f
3-14
R.H. PORTER CO.-
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
January 4, 1992 `
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Commrs. Brett Cross, Gilbert Hoffman, Fred Peterson, Charles Senn, Allen K. Settle. Dodie
Williams, and Chairman Barry Karleskint
RE: Tract 2112 (TR 118-92): 680-684 Foothill Blvd., San Luis Obispo.
Dear Commissioners:
I am deeply concerned with the progress of my proposed development located at 680-684
Foothill Boulevard and I request your consideration and understanding. Please accept this
summary of events
1. Development plans were drawn over a 6 month period that, when completed, met all codes
and requirements for the City. City Planners were involved and consulted throughout the
conception and design process. These plans exceeded parking requirements, as well as open
space and set back limits. A positive City Planning staff report resulted from these original
plans.
2. An ARC meeting was held to review these plans. After a positive recommendation by City
Planning Staff, the ARC continued the project for further study.
3. A Planning Commission meeting was then held to review the plans and at that time I was
asked by the Commission to try to rework the design to be more accommodating to the
neighborhood's concerns. This I agreed to regardless of the conformity, appropriateness and
legality of the original plans.
4. The plans were then virtually redrawn to meet with the neighborhood's concerns. These
revised plans also appeared to meet all City codes and requirements and as well exceeded parking
requirements, open space and set back limits and received positive staff input
S. A meeting was then held with the "neighborhood committee" to review these new plans.
Additional neighborhood input was collected and reviewed and numerous additional changes were
suggested to further meet with the neighborhood's concerns.
6. The plans were altered once again. Changes were completed to be more sensitve to the
neighborhood concerns. These plans then further exceeded typical codes, requirements and
limitations of the City.
7. A second meeting was then held with the "neighborhood committee" to review the newly
redrawn plans. Here again, additional comments, input and su6gestions were taken and reviewed
to more closely reflect the neighborhood's concerns.
iiECEIVED
JAN 0 51993
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
'XWMUWY DEVELOpWW
RICHARD H. PORTER, SRPA, MAI
1026 Chorro St., Suite 2, San Luis Obispo, CA-93401 • Z805) 543-5408 3-/45
R.H. PORTER CO.-
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
8. Again, further changes and modifications were made to produce the final set of plans. These
also will meet or exceed all City codes, standards, setbacks and requirements and were
specifically redrawn to address as many of the neighborhood's concerns as possible. Specific
oranges included:
1. Lowering the density of the project by 17% (from 12 to 10 units).
2. Significantly lowering the overall height of the project and reducing the
building massing.
3. Increasing the parking per unit, which now includes one guest
space for every two units, as suggested by Commissioner Settle.
4. Increasing all view and solar access corridors to the neighboring
properties and virtually eliminating all solar shading of
neighborhood properties.
S. Increasing all building setbacks, including a SO+J- foot rear
setback to the adjoining R-1 properties.
6. Substantially increasing open space and retaining additional
existing trees.
7. A further refinement of the building architecture, design and detail.
I respectfully request your consideration of these factors on my behalf, for I believe that I have
gone well above and beyond all the requirements of the zoning codes, the City standards and the
concerns of the surrounding area in order to design a project that can both satisfy most parties
involved and create a reasonable and workable solution for all.
In closing, I again ask for your sincerest consideration for I would feel wronged if a
neighborhood group could negate a City's standards, codes, zoning, general plan and staffs
recommendations. I trust your best judgement on my behalf. Thank-you very much.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Porter
RICHARD H. PORTER, SRPA, MAI
1026 Chorro St.. Suite 2, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • C8051 543-5408 —1
ARCHITECTURAL
PRODUCTION
5 E R V I C E 5
January 4, 1993 RECEIVED
APS Architects Inc.
1088 Higuera Suite #200 JAN 0 71993
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
1X MMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
San Luis Obispo, CA
RE: Tract 2112 (TR118-92) : 680-684 Foothill Blvd. , SLO
Dear Members of the Commission,
We were asked to meet with the neighborhood committee and to
attempt to come up with a new design scheme that addresses the
concerns of the neighbors. After two meetings with the neigh-
borhood's group and consultation with the planning department,
we are resubmitting a completely redesigned project that not
only meet all city codes and requirements, but also addresses
and incorporates solutions to the neighborhoods concerns.
The neighbor's had 13 main concerns. The following is our
response and actions taken to accommodate their concerns.
1. Incompatible Zoning: The project is situated in an R-4 zone
which was allowed a density of 43 units per acre between the
years of 1955 through 1980. In 1980, the property was down
zoned to 24 units per acre. However, in response and respecting
their request to the neighbors, we have further reduced our
allowed density by 17% (12 units to 10 units, which is the
equivalency of 20 units per acre) . Our proposed project, which
is in accordance with the City's General Plan, is not asking
for a variance or an exception, but only for what is within
allowable guidelines.
2. Population Impact Because of High Density: The project
density have been reduced by seventeen percent ( previously
submitted 12 units, revised to 10 units) . We feel that this
reduction in density will result in a lessening of the actual
number of people. It is also the city's General Plan that
mandates high density along Foothill Blvd.
3. Diminished Privacy: The privacy of the neighbors have been
maximized by reducing the building heights adjoining the R-1
properties, and by careful building massing and relocation of
windows within each unit. The revised design has located all
APS ARCHITECTS , INC .
1088 Higuera Street.Suite 200 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Tel:(805)541-6294 Fax:(805)541-2739
Architects: Randolph L Rea.ALA•Mark D. Rawson.AIA•Michael Peachey 3-17
entry doors, and living rooms towards the center landscaped
area instead of onto the adjoining properties where possible
conflicts could occur. When• discussing diminished privacy
caused by a neighbors views into a site, one must consider that
even in a R-1 zone a two story building may be built next to
and behind a single story residence.
4. Objectionable Noise: Due to the introverted design, the
majority of the activities will occur at the center of the
project. Objectionable noise that could be heard by the neigh-
bors will be Diminished. The arrangement of the buildings
within the project will also act as a noise barrier to the
adjacent residences. For added protection and at the request of
the neighborhood group, the project will include a concrete
block sound wall between adjoining R-1 properties.
5. Blockage of views: The redesigned project will minimize the
blockage of views for all neighboring properties due to the
overall reduction of building heights, and the increase in
distance (setback) from R-1 properties. The careful orientation
and placement of the rectangular buildings forms also creates
view corridors of Cerro San Luis for the R-1 properties located
at the rear of our project and facing Cerro Remauldo.
6. Excessive Height and Minimal Setback: The proposed project
has lowered building heights and eliminated all but a small
three story portion even though our initial submittal met all
city codes and guidelines. The setbacks have also been in-
creased, including a 50 +/- feet rear setback adjoining R-1
properties.
7. Diminished Solar Access: The solar studies, which have been
included in the planning commission package, indicates minimal
impact in both winter and summer on all neighboring properties.
However, the east wall of the residence located to the west of
the project will be in shade in the morning hours of December.
The garage of a R-1 property located at the rear will also be
in shade in the mornings and afternoons of December. Even in an
ideal suburban setting, shading caused by neighboring houses
will always occur.
S. Poor Ratio of Built and Paved Areas to Open Space: The
project has increased the ratio by replacing previously pro-
posed 26' wide "Private Street" with an 18' wide driveway, and
by increasing the overall landscaped area. The landscaped areas
have been located to maximize separation and privacy from the
adjoining R-1 properties and to maximize the esthetic qualities
of the project.
9. Excessive Building Volumes and Poor Massing: The building
volumes have been reduced and redesigned to create a sense of
variety and interest without being offensive, or oppressive to
the neighborhood.
3-/'8
10. Incompatible Character: The, proposed project recognizes the
character apd .issues_of the single family properties (located
at the rear, a sorority house located to the east and a single
family residence zoned R-4 located to the west of our project) r
by redesigning the massing scheme and building heights. This
project will be harmonious with its adjoining neighbors and
minimize its impact.
11. Negative Impact on Traffic and on-Street Parking in the
Neighborhood: The project has addressed the impact of on-
street parking by further increasing the on-site parking per
unit ratio, which includes one guest space for every two units
as suggested by Mr. Settle. We feel the twenty five provided,
three more than required by city codes, will be more than
adequate for the residents and guests of our project.
12. Drop in Property Values: The redesigned project will not
diminish the property values of the single family residences
located at the rear. one must consider the rise or fall in
property value is caused by many forces and not just neighbor-
ing development as seen during this recession.
13. Cart Before the Horse: We feel that .47 acre lot which
includes ten condominiums does not automatically constitute an
architectural and environmental monster. In fact,through care-
ful attention to the issues involved, a very livable, pleasant,
and economically feasible environment can be created and
sustained. We feel that the proposed project will achieve
these goals with the least impact on its R-1 neighbors.
Our new design is a direct result of two meetings with the
neighborhood group. We feel that we have incorporated the best
solutions to our design in respect to all the property owners
that are involved. We have been sensitive, accommodating, and
respectful to the R-1 property owners. The proposed revisions
meets or exceeds all codes, parking, open space, and setback
requirements.
Please consider that our client has expended considerable time
and effort to present a project that has addressed all of the
neighbor's concerns, exceeds all minimum guidelines of the city
zoning ordinances and pays equal attention to creating an
environment that will be pleasant for those who will live there
and the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Randolph Rea AIA
3-/9
• city o� san lues osispo
• INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION '
PPLICATIONNO.
PROJECT DES RIPTION
APPLICANT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
-EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
4_1
PREPARED BY C bra DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTIO DATE
Mm �v
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.........................................I Y
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ...............................................
a
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................. F
F. UTILITIES.......................................................................... 4 •---
G. NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .....................�
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................
K. PLANT LIFE ......................................................................
LANIMAL LIFE......................................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ...................................................
N. AESTHETIC ......................................................................
O. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE ..........................................................
P. OTHER ..........................................................................
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
•SEEATTACHEDREPORT 35
ER 118-92
Page 2
Note: Sections .revised to reflect the amended project description are
in italic type.
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicant proposes to demolish a house and a triplex, and to
construct 10 residential condominium units. Including carports, the
proposed structures would have a total floor area of approximately
10, 000 square feet. The units would be located in one two-story
building and one three-story building; the carports would be located in
a separate one-story building. Private and common open space areas would
be provided, as required by City regulations.
The site is a 20, 690 square foot parcel with 99 feet of frontage on
Foothill Blvd. The site slopes up from the street at about 2%. Several
mature trees are located on the site; no other notable vegetation is
present. The site is surrounded by houses and apartments, most of which
are one or two stories in height.
In addition to environmental review, the project includes review by the
City's Architectural Review Commission, and review of a condominium
tract map by the Planning Commission and City Council.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
The proposed project is consistent with City land use policies and
regulations. No significant effects will occur.
B. Population Distribution and Growth
The project will be consistent with adopted City policies and
regulations relative to residential growth management. No significant
adverse effect will occur.
C. Land Use
The site adjoins low-density residential development at the rear of the
site. Although there is some potential for noise conflicts, this is not
judged by staff to constitute a significant land use compatibility
impact.
D. Transportation and Circulation
The project will have access to Foothill Blvd. , a four lane arterial
street, via a centrally located driveway. The driveway would be located
approximately 100 feet from the nearest intersection, Ferrini Road. A
sign would be posted at the driveway for exiting traffic indicating
"Right Turn only" .
City Engineering staff has concluded that no significant traffic hazards
or congestion problems will occur as .a result of the project.
3-�I
ER 118-92
Page 3
E. Public Services
Existing public service capacities are adequate to handle the project,
with the exception noted below under utilities. No significant adverse
impact will occur.
F. Utilities
The safe annual yield from all sources of municipal water supplies has
been exceeded in recent years, and an extended drought period has
reduced the City's available reserves of water. In response to this
situation, the City has adopted water conservation regulations for users
currently connected to the municipal water system, and has adopted
allocation/retrofitting regulations which are intended to compensate for
increased demand from new connections. These regulations are expected
to fully mitigate cumulative effects on municipal water supply which
might otherwise occur.
Existing utility infrastructure appears adequate to serve the proposed
project, with one exception: an additional fire hydrant will be
required at the project's street frontage. Mitigation of this
deficiency is required by City ordinance as a condition of permit
issuance, and no significant impact will occur.
G. Noise Levels
Noise levels at the front half of the site exceed the level considered
normally acceptable for residential use by the City's Noise Element.
the attached acoustical study indicates that relatively simple
mitigation measures will provide noise levels which are consistent with
those standards, for both interior and private outdoor areas.
Noise impacts are potentially significant. Refer to the attached report
dated 12/21/92 for additional analysis and recommended mitigation:
measures.
H. Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications
No significant effects are expected.
I. Air Quality and Wind Conditions
No significant effects are expected. The project is smaller than the
threshold identified by the County Air Quality Management District for
special studies or mitigation measures.
J. Surface Water Flow and Quality
No significant adverse effects are expected.
K. Plant Life
Removal of several mature trees from the site is not judged to
constitute a significant adverse effect. The trees to be removed do not
3-aa
ER 118-92
Page 4
appear to constitute significant wildlife habitat, and greater number of
trees wjIll be replanted.
L. Animal Life
No significant effect is expected.
M. Archaeological/Historical
No historic or prehistoric sites have been identified in the immediate
vicinity of the project site. No significant effect is expected.
N. Aesthetic
Construction of the proposed three-story structure will affect the views
from nearby houses and apartments. Approximately 12 houses and
apartments are located within 100 feet of the site, where the effect
will be the greatest.
Mid-range to long-range views of Cerro San Luis or Bishop Peak slopes
and ridgelines will be affected, depending on the location and
orientation of the affected units. Short-range views of nearby trees
and structures will be affected for all nearby units.
Views of the site from Foothill Blvd. and other nearby streets will also
be affected. The effect on these views will be lessened by several
factors:
- The three-story sections of the structures are set back 100 feet
or more from Foothill Blvd. , and more than 100 feet from other
streets.
- Other structures are located between the other streets and the
proposed structure, providing partial screening.
- The mid-range and long-range views of hillsides are relatively
wide. Attractive views on either side of the structures will
remain from locations 100 feet or more away from the structures.
No formal policies or objective tests have been adopted by the City for
evaluating the level of impact on view blockages which should be
considered a significant adverse effect on the environment. Nor is it
clear that there will be serious public controversy regarding the level
of significance, as referenced in Section 15604 (h) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
At least five public hearings will be conducted on this project. These
hearings will provide public opportunities for presentation of testimony
regarding the significance of aesthetic impacts, and allow the
commissions and Council to require preparation of further environmental
studies.
The project's impact on view blockages does not constitute a significant
effect on the environment, in staff's judgement.
3-a3
ER 118-92
Page 5
O. Energy/Resource Use
The project will be required to meet d ergy efficiency standards
established by State law. No significant adverse effect is expected.
P. Other
No other adverse effects are expected.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Director approve a mitigated negative
declaration for the proposed project, incorporating the recommended
mitigation measures from the attached noise analysis.
gtsl:ER11892 .wp
a
3-a�
ORRO= - .
December 21, 1992
RECEIVED
Architectural Production Services
1088 Higuera St. DEC 2 1 M
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
CITY OF SAN LUIS 091SP0
CO MMff Y OEVEI.OPUMT
ATTN:Mr. MarkRawson
SUBJECT: Noise Investigation, for 680 Foothill Blvd., City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Mr. Rawson:
At your request,we have conducted an investigation of the levels of noise at the site from traffic on
Foothill Blvd. Noise measurements were trade during the late afternoon on July 29, 1992 at two
locations on the property(Figure 1). Three 5-minute Leq's were measured at Station 1 at the edge
of the sidewalk at the front of the lot, and three 5-minute Leq's were measured at Station 2 located
near the westerly front corner of the existing residence, 75 feet northerly from Station 1.
Instrumentation used in the measurements and terminology used in this report are summarized in
Attachment A.
1. Existing Noise Levels
The day-night weighted level (Ldn), the standard scale used in the City's draft Noise Element,is
essentially the same as the average noise level(Leq)during the peak-hour of traffic. The procedure
used in this evaluation has been to measure 5-minute Leq's, count the number of vehicles passing
the meter during the period of measurement, and adjust the measured Leq to the peak-hour Leq
using the ratio of the hourly traffic volume during the measurement to the peak-hour volume.
The City's draft Noise Element, Technical Reference Document, Appendix A, lists the existing
average daily traffic on Foothill Blvd. as 21,000 trips. Assuming 10% of trips occur during the
peak hour, this value equates to 2,100 vehicles per hour or 175 vehicles in a 5-minute period This
procedure avoids the problem of seasonal variations in traffic that are probably significant in this
area because of Cal Poly traffic. The results of the measurements are summarized as follows:
Noise Levels (dBA) Number Adj. to Peak-Hour
Station Period L&Q Max. Min. of Vehicles Peak Hour L&q(dBA)
1 4:20-4:25 69.2 78.8 50.4 82 +3.3 72.5
4:26-4:31 69.6 80.1 52.7 99 +2.5 72.1
4:32-4:37 68.7 80.3 48.8 85 +3.1 lu
Average 72.1
2 4:39-4:44 56.8 69.2 42.0 83 +3.2 60.0
4:45-4:50 59.4 74.6 41.6 109 +2.1 61.5
4:51-4:56 57.6 70.4 40.7 81 +3.3 §-U
Average 60.8
Environmental Services P.O. Box 6297, Los Osos, CA 93412 805/528-2187
3-aS
-- vRP sc
Cq
1 'T� `I�171 L n•�' i.•'. a
Xap
to
wl
09
V] to
i s d
en
52
- - --4-L._ =-j .
cZ:l o ;,
1 O
j ...••.1 .1 I ... .. I, a. ,_ O U
i G o q 0 5
fig $ �z
,l
Of the noise levels reported above,the peak-hour Leq's, which are equivalent to Ldn,are the levels
' used in the remainder of the analysis: The maximum and minimum values are recorded by the
meter,and are reported as a matter of interest.
2. Future Noise Levels Without Project Structures
Noise levels at the site will increase with future increases in traffic on Foothill Blvd. The draft
Noise Element,Technical Reference Document,Appendix A,lists the future average daily traffic
on Foothill Blvd. as 34,000 trips. This increase of 62% in traffic will increase noise levels by 2.1
dBA_ Based on this information, the future,peak-hour noise levels at Station 1 and Station 2 are
estimated as follows:
Station Noise Level(dBA)
1 74.2
2 62.9
The level at Station 1 is at the edge of the sidewalk adjacent to Foothill Blvd., and it is unaffected
by existing features such as landscaping and adjacent structures (i.e., free field conditions). The
level at Station 2 is affected by existing features,primarily on adjacent properties that will remain
with project implementation.
Measurements at other locations on the frontal portion of the property were not made because of
the effects of existing features that will be removed. However, it should be noted that noise levels
near the east property line will be reduced by up to 3 dBA by the barrier effect of the sorority house
on the adjacent lot. The effects of this structure have been estimated in contouring future noise
levels on Figure 1.
The noise levels shown on Figure 1 are for future, peak-hour levels of traffic (Leq). They may
also be considered Ldn levels, as, for typical hourly traffic distributions as one would expect on
Foothill Blvd.,the Ldn is essentially the same as the peak-hour Leq.
3. Future Noise Levels with Project Structures
a_ Proposed Structures
The effects of the structures to be constructed at the site are summarized as follows:
• Increased Height: Noise levels tend to increase with increasing height because of
decreased ground attenuation and increased effect of reflectivity off the road surface.
Based on the range of increase in Table 2-1 of the draft Noise Element, Policy
Document, of 3 dBA and our past experience with measurements, increased noise
levels with increased height are estimated as follows:
Structural Level Increased Noise Level (dBA)
Ground Level(garages) 0
Second Level(residential) +2
Third Level(residential) +3
• Barrier Effects of Structures: The structures themselves will block about half the traffic
noise along the west and east walls of the units. This will reduce the noise levels from
the contoured(free field)values by 3 dBA.
3
3-a7
The resulting future noise levels (Lin) at the outside walls of the structures within the 60 dBA
contour(free field) are shown on Figure 1 for each structural level. Values for other points along
these walls can be interpolated or extrapolated from the values shown.
b. Outside Activity Areas
The future noise level at the westerly boundary of the common recreational area without the
proposed structures is 62 dBA. The proposed structures will reduce the sound pressure level at
this point in half which results in a noise level of 59 dBA,just within the standard of 60 dBA
(Ldn). Noise levels in the central and easterly portions of the common recreational area will be
less, generally in the range of 54 to 58 dBA with the lowest levels being close to the north wall of- -
Unit 3 where barrier effects are at a maximum
The yard areas for Units 1,2, 3 and 10 will exceed the standard of the draft Noise Element of 60
dBA, and mitigation will be required
4. Noise in the Carport Area
a.Regulatory Standards
The City's draft Noise Element (p. 1-5) defines stationary noise sources to include "..... vehicle
movements on private property (e.g.,parking lots, truck terminals ......... However, in the public
hearings during the County's adoption of the Element,the distinction between vehicles moving on
public streets and those moving in parking lou was questioned. County staff responded that the
primary concern is noise generated by loading and unloading operations, and passenger vehicles
moving in parking lots are specifically excluded from the definition of stationary noise sources in
the adopted Noise Element.
Since it is not known if the City will also make this change, noise in the area of the carport is
addressed both as transportation noise and as a stationary source. Standards as a transportation
noise source as affecting adjacent residential uses are 45 dBA (L.dn) in interior spaces and 60 dBA
in outdoor activity areas. The standards for stationary sources are:
Daytime Nighttime
Parameter 7 am to 10 pm 10 pm to 7 am
Hourly Leq,dB 50 45
Maximum level,dB 70 65
b. Noise Levels
Existing ambient noise levels in the carport area were measured at approximately 51 dBA at 8:15
am on December 17, 1992. This value is consistent with future noise levels.as shown on Figure 1.
Future vehicle noise in the driveway is estimated by measuring the noise characteristics of one
vehicle (1992 Blazer, 4-wheel drive) passing the meter at a distance of 20 feet. These
characteristics are: average (Leq) of 53.5 dBA for a duration of 30 seconds; maximum of 70.6
dBA; and a minimum of 44.6 dBA.
4
3-d�
1)As Transl=tion Noise Source t
Computation of the future noise level(Ldn)in the carport area is based on 10 condominium units
generating an average total of 80 trip-ends per day,of which 60 trip-ends occur in the daytime and
20 trip-ends occur in the nighttime as defined above. The computation is as follows:
Equivalent Total
Q=nent L&4 (dBA) Sound Pressure Number Duration Mrs) Sound Pressure
Daytime vehicles 53.5 223,870 60 0.5 111,935
Nighttime vehicles 63.5* 2,238,700 20 0.125 279,837
Ambient 51.0 125,890 23.375 2.942.678
24-hr total: 3,334,450
Adjusted to 1-hr. 138,935
Ldn (dBA): 51.4
• Nighttime vehicle noise level increased by 10 for Ldn computation.
Based on the above,vehicle noise in the carport area will increase the Ldn by only 0.4 dBA above
ambient because the noise from the vehicles in the driveway and carport area will be low and the
durations will be relatively short. Therefore, vehicle noise in the carport and driveway will not
exceed the standard of 60 dBA (Ldn) for outside activity areas, nor will it exceed the standard of
45 dBA(Ldn) for interior spaces even with windows open.
2) As a Stationary Noise Source
The maximum hourly Leq can be estimated from the computation above by making the common
assumption that peak-hour traffic is 10% of total traffic,and dividing the 24-hour total noise by 10
instead of 24. This results in a peak-hour sound pressure of 333,445 which equates to a peak-
hour Leq of 55.2 dBA. This exceeds the daytime standard by 5.5 dBA. The nighttime peak-hour
noise level would be expected to be approximately 10 dB less than the daytime level, of about 45
dBA. This would be at or slightly above the nighttime standard.
In the test of a single vehicle passby at 20 feet, the maximum(1-second average) noise level was
70.6 dBA. Since adjacent residences are located 10 feet from the property lines adjacent to the
driveway and the carport, and 20 trip-ends are assigned to the nighttime hours, the 65 dBA
standard cannot be met without mitigation.
3)Reflected Noise
The letter from the City mentions reflected noise from traffic on Foothill Boulevard. Reflected
noise is included in the measurement at Location 2 near the front wall of the existing residence,and
in the later measurement at the rear of the property. These measurements. do not suggest a
significant component of reflected noise. Also, conditions at and in the vicinity of the site are
relatively "soft" (i.e.,walls are wood or stucco, they are oriented in various directions, and there is
considerable vegetation), and we would not expect reflected noise to be significant.
5
3-n.9
S. Mitigation Measures
r•
a.Measures Included in Pmim Design
1)Lbj3Tmy and Cnort
It is our understanding that block walls,6 to 8 feet in height,will be constructed around the carport
and along the driveway. Walls 6 feet in height would be adequate to mitigate vehicle noise if this is
considered as a stationary source. Walls 8 feet in height will provide additional noise reduction. If
the vehicle moving in the driveway and the carport are considered transportation noise, no
mitigation would be required.
2) Outside Activity Areas
Future noise levels in the common recreational area are expected to remain within the requirements
of the City's Noise Element, and no mitigation measures are mgirired for this area.
It is our understanding that block walls 6 feet in height will be provided around the yard areas.
This will bring noise levels within the 60 dBA standard for Units 1,2, 3 and 10.
b.Additional Mitigation Measures
Standard mitigation measures are provided on pages 1-4 and 1-5 of the Acoustical Design Manual
(copies of pages are enclosed) of the Noise Element for 5 dB increments beginning at 60 dBA.
The application of these measures can be determined by comparing the values shown on Figure 1
for each structural level to the requirements for the increments in the Design Manual.
Should you have any questions please call me at 528-2187. The Noise Element was only recently
adopted by the County, and it has not yet been adopted by the City. Some clarifications may be
required as we gain experience in implementing its requirements.
Sincerely,
Donald O. Asquith
6
330
Dec 8, 1992 RECEIVED
• DEC 1 51992
N(lY LpEyEL016WMT
Arnold B.Jonas,Director
Community Development
City of San Luis Obispo
Subject: Tract 2112(City file No. TR 118-92)
680 Foothill Boulevard
Dear Mr.Jonas:
As per directives by the Planning Commission,we the representatives of the
neighborhood group have meet for the second time with W. Richard Porter on
Thursday Dec 3, 1992 and discussed various issues on the project.We were unable
to reach any agreement on any of the 13 issues that were raised by some 50
neighbors(see theme Sep 29,1992 letter that was presented to the Planning
Commission on Oct 14, 1992).We also had an opportunity to see the alternative
design studies that were presented by his architect Those design options also do
not solve any of the problems that concern the neighbors.
Thank you.
Since y,
Anna Barbosa
Ofilbr Faruque `
Diane Gla, J
Tom t7hner
cc: all members of the neighborhood group
3-31
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission September 29, 1992
San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Commissioners:
We, the neighbors of 680 Foothill Blvd. had the opportunity to examine the 12-unit condominium
proposal on this less-than-half-an-acre property. We are deeply concerned, disappointed and
offended by this proposal.We strongly oppose it. Reasons for our opposition are many—and they
are from the planning and design viewpoints. Of these reasons, we present you the following
thirteen-teach of them by itself, we believe, is a compelling reason to deny this project:
1 Incompatible Zoning The project is situated in an R-4 zone that abruptly adjoins R-1
residential properties.This a zoning anomaly that needs urgent correction. One does not have
to be planner to realize that this is a zoning blunder. In fact those of us who have lived in this
neighborhood for many years—as many as ten, twenty, thirty, or even forty years—are
surprised and baffled at how this zoning change to R-4 took place without our knowledCY
ge or
input.
2 Population Impact Because of High Density The project proposes the maximum density
possible under R-4 zoning. Given the fact that this site abruptly adjoins R-1 residential
properties, the number of units are extremely high. It will result an unreasonably high
population—as many as 50 people in a tiny lot.
3 Diminished Privacy The proposed three-story buildings with their minimal setback will
seriously and adversely affectthe level of privacy that is absolutely necessary for our properties
and the neighborhood—especially when all of us have families and children.Some of the stairs,
windows,entrances at the second story level and the balconies of the proposed units look right
into to the bedrooms, kitchens, dinning and living rooms of the adjoining single family
properties--something that is absolutely unacceptable for any residence in R-1 zone.
4 Objectionable Noise Given the type of units,their size and character,this project,if built,will
attract a segment of population that have been characteristically noisy and chronically
disruptive to peace.We are all familiar with the kind of nuisance baggage they will bring about.
There are enough precedence of this during the recent years in this city and we do not need to
create any more.
5 Blockage of Good Views The project will drastically diminish and,in certain cases,eliminate
the good views—especially those of the Cerro San Luis Obispo(from residences on Ferrini and
Cerro Romauldo) and of the Santa Lucia (from 650, 652 and 670 Foothill). This will have
drastically negative impact on the views not only for the adjoining properties but also for the
entire neighborhood.Let us not forget that this project proposes six three-story,densely-packed
buildings!
6 Excessive Height and Minimal Setback The proposed three-story buildings simply do not
belong to the modest character of this neighborhood.Together,they are arrogant,imposing,out
Page of 7
pages
of proportion, and will stick-out as a sore thumb--especially when you consider the minimal
setback,rigid alignment,minimal spacing and the poor height-width-depth relationship of the
buildings.
7 Diminished Solar Access The buildings will cast long shadows on the existing single family
homes (in R-1 zone)as well as the adjoining residences on Foothill Blvd.—especially during
the colder months when you need the sun most.After all,year-round access to sun in the rooms
and yards is essential for wholesome living and it is an unalienable right for the owners of these
homes.
8 Poor Ratio of Built and Paved Areas to Open Space This proposal has very little open space
whereas buildings,driveway,parking basically cover almost the entirety of the site. If built,it
will be a harsh and bleak environment.Proposed landscape plan is a token,cosmetic gesture,
and will not remedy even the a small fraction of the damage it will bring about.
9 Excessive Building Volumes and Poor Massing The proportion of the total volume of the
buildings to the land is extraordinarily high and out of scale.Their massing is also uninteresting.
Such inhospitable environment will breed frustration and nuisance, and thereby seriously
impact our community.
10 Incompatible CharacterThe proposed project fails to recognize the character of the adjoining
single family properties and the neighborhood.Instead it proposes to build the most harsh and
oppressive environment that will systematically destroy the character of our neighborhood.It
will also set a precedence that will bring about a backlash in the quality of life in this
neighborhood and the city.
11 Negative Impact on Traffic and On-Street Parking in the Neighborhood As it is, both
Ferrini and Cerro Romauldo is over crowded with on street parking. Given the population AF#40&
added by this project,it will seriously affect the parking and traffic condition on Broads.Also
this project will create additional unsafe conditions on the already-overburdened Foothill Blvd.
12 Drop in Property Values Given the above reasons, one wonders what motivates someone to
propose a project like this.Whatever be the motivation,it is imperative to ask,"at what expense
will the aim of this project be accomplished?". It will be at the expense of the diminished
property values of the adjoining single family (R-1)residences.
13 Cart Before the Horse Allowing this lot to divide into 12 tiny condominium lou will
automatically,by default,create an architectural and environmental monster—and will bring
about every single problem we have thus far discussed.It only takes simple arithmetic to figure
that out Any tentative continuance on this will be a disaster.
The Staff Report raises some of this issues but their recommendations are token,faint and inadequate
in dealing with the problems that we have discussed. If the project is allowed to continue even by
accommodating all the recommendations by the staff, we are convinced that it will fail to address
these serious problems.
Page Z 01"gea
3-33
The Staff Report keeps reminding us about the legal ramification of not,allowing the maximum
density. But what it fails to recommend or even remind us about is that the zoning of this property
along with the adjoining ones on the Foothill Blvd.can be and should be changed.The planning staff
has indeed missed an opportunity to initiate such a recommendation.
Considering all these problems and ramifications,we the neighbors petition to the San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission to:
i Deny the proposal for 12-unit condominium complex on 680 and 684 Foothill Blvd.
and
ii Initiate the process to change the zoning of the properties on this same block on Foothill Blvd.—
or at least the'properties:650,652,670,680,684 and 696 Foothill Blvd.and 135 Ferrini—from
R-4 to R-2. R-2 zoning allows 12 units per acre.Therefore,it will allow five units for this lot
on 680 Foothill Blvd.—and that is about the maximum damage this lot and this neighborhood
can take—provided that the site planning and architectural character of them is in line with the
adjoining low-profile R-1 properties.We believe,it is within the jurisdiction of this Planning
Commission to seek authority from the City Council to study this problem and then recommend
such a zoning change to the City Council. y�
Respectfully submitted by: �D 9P ��"
(p� i 73 �--
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
6170 - X747-6•
Name Address Date
Jo4l 1
Name Address ate
Name .c 1 Address Date
Fc ,u- 61-13 dZo MJ I,tiO 5�1°t�9 9
Name Address Date
Page 3 of 1pages
3-3�
1
4Ne Address Date
t
Name Address Date
,- zCt z
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
�te
Nam Address Date
Name Address Date
anz2Ldv4)o
N Address Date
ef F
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Ai, S�o - z Z
s, _3� r�-�uvrc,C,
Names Address Date
e Address Date
Name Address Date
Pagel of pages
3.35
2qZ F' 2R1�i SL.o tr7 z9 2�
N Address Date
c
Name Address Date
e Address Date
N Address Date
?a c� —,cq
�9 Z
Name Address DateriISI/
/ , , ,sic o q - o -
Name Address Date
1
iso 9 � aJ 9-.36
N Address Date
47 -
v
Address Date
Name Address Date
c2a$ Cuo514 (2h. 9 .30 .91
Nle Address Date
—A°z�,
ame Address Date
NamcV Address Date
Page 5 ot7pagee
53y rz WAi 9 e Z
ame Address Date
Name Address Date
d gOfzl rLUxl. 0 �c:4 Q- 30 -9L
Name Address Date
ame Address Date
a � a -y�cvt c cam— .31�'
Nard Address Date
Name R/ Address Date
Namp Address Date
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Page 6 o7pages
3-37
Name Address Date
Name Address Date Q
Name Address / Date -
S O 7 ` �—V ri7 4 L 2—
ame Address Date
tpy r!z:> 0 80
N;2e Address Date
xi
1
e Address Date
Name Address Date
av-cAl_ cl)
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Name Address Date
Page 701 Pages
3-3'8
}
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SAN_ LUIS OBISPO
OCTOBER 14, 1992
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENT: COM RS.BRETT CROSS, GIRT ROFFMAN,FRED PETDZSM, CHARLES SM,
Allen K. Settle, Dodie Williams, and Chairman Barry Karl eskint
ABSENT: None
Others
PRESENT: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; Whitney
Mcllvaine, Associate Planner; Cindy Clemens, Assistant City
Attorney; and Kathleen Fryer, Recording Secretary.
PUEL IC
COMMENT: There were no public comments.
The minutes of the regular meeting of August 26, were amended to show
Commr. Senn was absent when the vote was taken on Item 2, Resolution No.
5106-92.
Item. 1
Tract 1885: A request to create a 16-unit air-space office condominium
conversion; 0 Lone; 1411 Marsh St.; Jay Farbstein, subdivider.
Upon request of Jay Farbstein, Applicant, Commr. Settle moved to continue
this Item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously by a voice vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2.
Tract 2112:
Tentative tract map request to create a 12-unit airspace residential
condominium; 680 Foothill Blvd. R-4 Lone; Rick Porter, subdivider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3-39
Whitney Mc114aine presented`the"'staff report and recommended that the
Commission continue consideration of tentative tract map application 118-
92, with direction regarding further environmental studies, and parking
ratio and other site planning issues.
Staff also noted for the record that a letter was recieved from Laura
Kirschner who stated several concerns about the project.
Commr. Senn asked for direction from Counsel as to which issues the
Commission should be concerning themselves with.
Cindy Clemens replied it was within the pervue of the Commission to
review the environmental study and the issue of land use compatibility.
Also, the Commission can make recommendations to the ARC.
Commr. 'Williams had a question about the solar access issue.
Ms. Mcilvaine stated that this was still a concern with this project.
Chairman Karleskint declared the public hearing open.
Mark Rossen, 1088 Higuera St., representing the project for APS Architects
and Rick Porter. He explained they have been working with Staff for the last
few months, recieving favorable support from them. Changes have been
made to the design of the project upon request of Staff and the ARC. At this
point they are looking for direction from the Commission for the
construction of the 12 Condominium Units.
Commr. Hoffman asked Mr. Rossen about the trees on the property and also if
there would be 1 guest parking space for two units.
Mr. Rossen replied that the trees would remain. With regards to the parking
they are willing to comply with whatever the Commission required.
There was also a question of the height of the buildings which they were
trying to work out.
Commr. Senn asked about the communication and discussion between the
developers and the neighbors.
Mr. Rossen replied they had met with the neighbors only once and they did
not realize there would be so much opposition.
3-40
f
Commr. Hoffman asked about the solar water heating that is usually_
required with Condominium Units.
Mr. Rossen said this has been looked into.
Tom Weatherman, 650 Foothill, expressed his concern about the value of. his.. r
land decreasing from this project; the problem with increased water usage
and access to these units if parking was not adequate.
Frank Ziek, 141 Cuesta Dr., said he felt this development was out of
character for this neighborhood, especially if the buildings are three stories
high.
Omar Faruk, 643 Cerro Romauldo, spoke for 50 homeowners in the vacinity
of the project. (See attached)
c erl% S nz.z C nl P'i t'•Pd her main concern was adding s..e menti
Annu B�, uJ 5, -, Ferri„ .u, a
more people to an area that is already over crowded. She also felt the
developer should have consulted with the neighbors before purchasing this
property for such a purpose. She also had concerns with the Staff report
which did not show any consideration for the homeowners in the area.
She is primarily concerned with putting more students where there have
already been so many problems with the student population.
Mary Parker, 539 Cerro Romauldo, wishes there was some way they could
work out some of the problems with the developers. She feels the
homeowners in the area have not been given proper notice of the meetings,
nor consulted with when they should have been.
Chairman Karleskint reminded her that the meetings are always publicise.
Tom Kirschner;615 Cerro Romauldo, wanted the Commission to know that
his house and adjacent houses were designed to be heated with solar
heating: If this project was allowed to go through it would block the sun
and not allow the solar system to work.
Tom Isreal, 657 Cerro Romauldo, is opposed to this project. He felt their
neighborhood is disturbed enough by the noise from all the apartment
buildings that exist now. Parking is another main concern.
Bernie Hazencamp, 169 Ferrini Rd., his objection is with the height and
density of the project. He is also concerned that no sound barrier has been
shown in the plans.
Victor Barbosa, 234 Ferrini Rd., does not feel Greg Smith represented the
neighbors correctly on page 2 of the environmental report. The site is not
surrounded by two story apartment buildings, but by single story houses.
He also stated that he felt safety.-;gas. a factor with this project because of
the increased traffic.
AI Bonin, 272 Del Mar Ct., owns the Lanai Apts. on Ferrini Rd. His main
concern is with off street parking. With students there are always more
cars with vistors than there are parking spaces and Foothill Blvd. is,too
crowded.
John Mitchell, 3211 Broad, came in support of the project developer. The
developer has created his project within the regulations of the City zoning.
He felt these type of projects can help keep housing costs down.
Helen Zanoli, 543 Cerro Romauldo, is opposed to this development. She said
there is already too much traffic.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cross asked about the rezoning of this area to R-4.
Arnold Jonas replied it was probably done with the City wide rezoning in
1977.
Commr. Williams expressed her concern that adequate parking would be
provided and that she did not like the three story buildings.
Commr. Settle felt that this project did not meet the approvals for the
subdivision map act. It has fundamental problems of parking, the
circulation within the neighborhood, and the noise factors that were raised.
Commr. Hoffman said he was concerned with project in regards to the
density. He felt there was room for more creativity. The trees were an
issue as well as the solar access. He felt there needed to be corrections to
the project particularly for parking. He felt visitor parking at the rate of 1
visitor space per two units was too low because of.the lack of parking on
the street.
Commr. Senn felt Mr. Porter had designed his project within the regulations
of the City zoning and City guidence. The neighbors, on the other hand are
justified in their frustration because they had not been communicated with.
3-Ala
He suggested the neighborhood group select 2 or 3 reasonable
representatives to meet with Mr. Porter and resolve some of the issues and
come to a compromise.
t
Commr. Peterson stated he agreed with Commr. Senn, that communications
had broken down. He is mostly concerned with the parking and the density of
the project.
Commr. Cross.felt the project needed to be reevaluated for density, parking,
solar shading, private open space, and circulation problems.
Chairman Karleskint stated his concerns were with the use of open space,
trees, parking, need for a fire lane, storage, shading study, solar heating,
neighborhood compatibility, three story buildings and communication with
the neighbors.
f'nmmr. Settle (nnved to continue the tentatiYe tract man with the r!irartinn
of the Staff and the subdivider regarding the following issue:
1. A focused EIR that will address the issue of parking, visitor parking at 1
space for 1 1/2 units and a fire lane.
2. Concerns relative to the height with a possibility of a two story
maximum and impact on shading, impact on solar uses in the neighborhood.
3. The open space aspects, what is usable and what is common.
4. Neighborhood circulation impacts..
5. Specific noise impacts.
6. Loss of trees.
7. The applicant meet and work with the neighbors to determine feasibility
of this project.
No second.
Commr. Senn moved that the Commission would continue this matter subject
to the following:
1. The reciept of a letter by Nov. 6, 1992 which has been signed both by the
developer and the neighborhood representatives that they have come to an
agreement as to who the representatives from the neighborhood will be.
2. A letter to be recieved by the City by December 15, 1992 which
addresses the issues which have been resolved and those which remain open.
3. A letter to be recieved by January 15, 1993 of the remaining issues
which are unresolved. The item would be reagendized at that point.
3,wg3
Commr. Williams seconded.
Added to the motion was the 13 issues on Mr. Faruk's letter to be addressed
in discussion with the neighbors.
Mr. Porter was asked if he was agreeable to meeting with the neighbors for
discussion of the 13 issues in the letter.
He said he would do this. He pointed out there were certain items he could
not change on the list such as who would live in the building.
Commr. Hoffman asked if the motion could be amended to ask the developer
to submit a letter waiving his time limit of 50 days for approval of this
project.
With regard to the neighbors questions about notification of the meeting.
Mr. Jonas explained the City's policy of notification.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Senn, Williams, Hoffman, Settle, Cross, Peterson,
and Karl eskint.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3.
Use Permit U 1484:
Review of approved use permit allowing a f ternity; 1304 Foothill Blvd.;
R-3 zone; Sigma Nu Fraternity, applicant.
----------------------------------------- -------------------------
Whitney Mcilvaine presented the Staff report and ecommended that the
Commission approve continuation of the use permi with elimination of two
of the original conditions:
1: Condition *6, allowing the fraternity to paint their emblem on the
parking lot;
^. Condition *13, discontinuing an annual review, sinc ,the permit is
subject to revie-,-r anytime there is a complaint filed %-yit� the police
department. There have been no complaints since the use hermit was
granted in 1990. \
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMIbSION
City of San Luis Obispo, California
January 13, 1993
PRESENT: Commrs . Brett Cross, Charles Senn, Gilbert Hoffman, Dodie
Williams, and Chairman Barry Karleskint . (one vacancy)
ABSENT: None.
OTHERS
PRESENT: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; Greg Smith,
Associate Planner; Ron Whisnand, Development Review
Manager; Cindy Clemens , Assistant City Attorney; and
Diane Wright , Recording Secretary.
PUBLIC
COMMENT: There were no public comments .
------------ --- ---------------------------------------------
Item 2 .Use Permit A 101-88: An appeal of the Hearing Officer' s
action approving the continuation of a home occupation permit
allowing landsc4e maintenance; 3057 South Higuera #220 ; R-2 zone;
Lawrence Stabler;, applicant ; Chumash Village Homeowners Association
(Harold Heidler) , appellant : (appeal withdrawn)
----------------- -----------------------------------------------
Chairman Karleskint announced to the audience that Item 2 . Use
Permit A 101-88 ha been withdrawn from the agenda by the
applicant .
The minutes of the regular meeting of November 18 , 1992 were
approved as submitted aid the minutes of the regular meeting of
September 30, 1992 were approved as amended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 1 . Tract 2112 (City File No. TR 118-92) . A request to
create a twelve-unit air-space residential condominium;
680 Foothill Boulevard; R-4 zone ; Rick Porter,
subdivider. (Continued from September 30 , 1992)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commrs . Karleskint , Peterson, Williams , Hoffman, Cross , and Senn
said they talked with Mr . Porter and had seen the revised drawings .
Greg Smith presented the staff report and explained that the
project had been reduced in scope thereby reducing impacts on views
and shading. He said that the City Engineer had determined that
the project will not significantly impact traffic on Foothill
Boulevard. He explained a continuance would not be appropriate
because of time limits of local and state subdivision regulations.
He said staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the
City Council approval of the tentative tract map with findings and
conditions . In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Greg Smith
said the right turn only sign at the exit on Foothill Boulevard was
indicated on the site plan.
3-�S
P.C. Minutes -
January 13, 1993
Page 2
f
Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing.
Randy Rea, 575 Stoneridge Drive, applicant ' s representative and
architect for the project , explained that after several meetings
with neighbors, a new design that complied with zoning ordinances
was being submitted. He said an attempt was made to address all
the concerns of the neighborhood. He said that some of the
concerns, such as who might live in the project were not-under the
architects ' control . He said that 24 units per acre are allowed,
but the project will have only 10 units. He explained all
buildings along the property line have been reduced to two-story
buildings except for two units that have attics adjacent to the
neighboring sorority. He said an attempt had been made to mitigate
noise by placing buildings toward the interior of the property with
windows located toward the center courtyard. He explained that
solar shading would be minimal and increased on-site parking was
_- proposed. He said under the General Plan, the site has been
designated as high density R-4 to act as a buffer to R-1 behind the
property.
In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Randy Rea explained that
the right turn only sign at the exit on Foothill Boulevard had been
included to accommodate the neighbors ' request , but he preferred it
not be required. In answer to a question by Commr. Karleskint ,
Randy Rea said four existing trees would remain on the property.
Anna Barbosa, 234 Ferrini Road, representing homeowners in the
neighborhood, said changes the applicant had made to the project
have been an improvement, but the neighbors were still concerned
about traffic, parking and density. She explained that the parking
problem is already difficult for some elderly residents . She said
the neighbors would like to see a buffer between R-1 and R-4 . She
asked that the Commission carefully consider the impacts of the
project on the neighbors .
Commr . Cross suggested that a parking district might alleviate some
of the parking.
Mrs . Barbosa said a parking district might be worth looking into,
but that some parking would have to be available to the public
because of Teach School .
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross , Mrs . Barbosa said she felt
the meetings the neighbors had with the developer were awkward, and
didn' t feel decisions should be put in the neighbors ' hands . Staff
gave Mrs . Barbosa a copy of the applicant ' s latest design .
In answer to a question by Commr . Senn, Mrs . Barbosa explained that
although all the homes in the area have driveways , some of the
driveways are not large enough for two cars and residents have to
park their second cars on the street . She said sometimes driveways
are blocked by parked cars .
P.C. Minutes -
January 13 , 1993
Page 3
Al Bonin, 272 Del Mar Court, owner of the Lanai Apartments
expressed concern about parking due to the number of students that
usually live in individual units of apartments and the frequency of
visitors .
Vic Barbosa, 234 Ferrini Road, said the future of San Luis Obispo
depends upon the Planning Commission. He felt a three-story unit
was not appropriate for San Luis Obispo. He expressed concern
about San Luis Obispo becoming another Los Angeles.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
Chairman Karleskint reopened the public hearing.
Rick Porter, 1026 Chorro Street , the subdivider, explained since
the last meeting with the neighbors , an attempt was made to make
the project look more residential by separating. units that were
formerly connected to other units , and by proposing 10 units in the
larger building.
In answer to a question by Commr. Williams, Mr. Porter explained
the third story would be similar to attic space or a dormer.
Chairman Karlesk.int closed the public hearing.
Commr. Williams felt the applicant had made a good faith effort to
work with the neighbors . She said the new design addressed her
earlier objections about height and the proximity of the project to
the property line. She said she could support the project.
Commr. Hoffman said he thought the original proposal was a lacked
imagination, but he felt the new design was imaginative. He said
he was pleased the developer and the neighbors had met together.
He said he did not support condition 1 . He felt residents should
have designated covered spaces . He said he could not support a
sign mandating right turns only, because it would add to traffic in
the neighborhood because of people driving the block and because at
times it is possible to safely make a left turn on to Foothill
Boulevard. He explained that the applicant bought the property
with the designated density, and should be allowed to develop the
property.
Commr . Senn said he .agreed with Commr. Hoffman about condition 1
and the_ right turn sign. He said he thanked the neighbors and Mr.
Porter for meeting together.
Commr. Cross said he agreed with Commrs . Hoffman and Senn.
Commr . Karleskint said a right turn only sign could cause as many
problems as it would solve and it should not be required. He said
he had never seen a project changed to this extent between two
meetings in an attempt to meet the requests of the neighbors .
3- All
P.C. Minutes
January 13, 1993
Page 4
Commr. Senn moved to approve the application, with the deletion of
Condition 1 and the deletion of the reference to the right turn
only sign.
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Senn, Hoffman, Cross , Williams, and
Karleskint .
NOES - None.
ABSENT - Commr. Peterson.
The motion passed.
Greg Smith announced that the Architectural Review Commission would
be considering this project on Tuesday, January 19, 1993 .
Chairman Karleskint asked that anyone who did not receive a notice
for this meeting to call the Community Development Department .
Commr Hoffman moved to request that staff work with the Engineering
Department on a proposal for a parking district on Ferrini Road and
on Cerro Remauldo Avenue from Ferrini Road to Cuesta, on the side
of the street not adjacent to Teach School .
Commr . Williams seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Hoffman, Williams, Senn, Cross, and
-Karleskint.
NOES - None.
ABSENT - Commr. Peterson.
The motion passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3 . Use Permit A 217-92: An appeal of the Hearing
Officer ' s action approving a request to allow more
than�,one dwelling unit ; 300 Grand Avenue; R-1 zone;
Albert and Caryl Cooper, applicants ; Robert and
Margaret Sigerson, appellants .
--------------------- ------------------------------------------
Greg Smith presented �\the staff report and recommended the
Commission approve the project subject to the conditions adopted by
the hearing officer and deny the appeal .
Chairman Karleskint opened\the public hearing.
Margaret Sigerson, 1840 Hope Street , appellant , felt that
neighbors ' feelings are not a top priority when the City considers
development . She expressed concern about a tree that was 250-300
years old. She made two corrections to the minutes of the
administrative hearing: That Mr. Rosenthal , Mr . Cooper ' s father-
. 3-�8
ARC Minutes
January 19, 1993
Page 5
The motion passed.
3. ARC 118-92: 680 Foothill Boulevard. A request for schematic review of plans to
demolish an existing house and triplex and construct ten residential condominium
units; R-4 zone; Rick Porter, applicant.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
commission grant schematic approval with direction to modify the parking layout,
preserve trees, and enhance landscaping along the east property line.
Randy Rea, architect, responded to the staff report and noted that the project had been
substantially revised in response to neighbor and commission concerns. He felt this new
design was more attractive and was supported by the Planning Commission. He noted
that this plan would preserve the ash and liquidamber trees.
Ernie Kim showed how the decks and stairs access the courtyard.
Commr. Cooper indicated that while he was absent the last time the commission
reviewed the project, he had reviewed the tapes. He liked the plan and project massing.
He was concerned with the structure to support Unit 6 and 7. He felt that guest parking
was acceptable as shown. He suggested providing common landscaping in the private
yards.
Commr. Combrink felt the project had been nicely redesigned, but felt that bicycle
parking areas were needed. He could support schematic approval.
Commr. Gates suggested installing a trellis or similar structure at the entry.
Chairman Underwood thought the project looked nice and had come a long way. He
suggested providing a focal point at the courtyard. He also thought that a project ID or
entry element was needed. He wanted to see lighting shown on the plans and the
ridgeline at the third-story units modified.
Commr. Cooper moved to grant schematic approval to the above project with direction
to provide on-site bicycle parking, and restudy mailbox location, driveway views, entry
element, courtyard element, and perimeter landscaping.
ARC Minutes
Janizary 19, 1993
Page 6
Commr. Combrink seconded the motion.
AYES: Cooper, Combrink, Gates, Underwood
NOES: No
ABSENT: Homer, Illingworth, Sievertson
The motion passed.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
The commissioners endorsed the annual work pr rams and goals as listed by staff.
Chairman Underwood expressed appreciation for the support for the ARC shown at the
recent quarterly meeting of the Mayor and advisory ody chairpersons. He indicated
that the Council may be interested in expediting review of ARC projects, such as revised
ARC Guidelines.
Commissioners proposed that a 45-minute dinner brea be provided.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. to a regular meeting f the Architectural Review
Commission scheduled for February 1, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. i the Council Hearing Room
(Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Smith
Recording Secretary
3-60
33 (con't) * structures on protected properties have an insignificant probability of
being modified or replaced, and likely collector locations are sufficiently
protected in spite of shading that would normally be unacceptable,
or such structures already have adequately protected collectors.
* the shading is between lots in a subdivision for which a customized
system of solar access easements will provide an equivalent level of
protection;
* use of solar energy is infeasible due to topographical conditions.
- To these ends, additional permit information such as shadow plans may be
required as part of building permit or architectural review.
SOLAR ACCESS STANDARDS
Land-use and Site Conditions Desirable Solar Access
Agriculture/conservation and residential All south walls and all roof areas should
uses up to about six units per acre, on be unshaded during midday on the winter
sites of one acre or more. solstice.
Agriculture/conservation and residential Most south walls and all roof areas should
uses up to about six units per acre on be unshaded during midday onrthe winter
sites of leis than one acre. solstice.
Residential uses between six and 12 units All roof areas and most second-story south
per acre, office uses, and neighborhood walls should be unshaded during midday on
commercial uses, on sites of one acre or the winter solstice.
more.
Residential uses between about 6 and 12 Most roof areas should be unshaded and some
units per acre, offices, and neighborhood second-story south walls should be unshaded
commercial uses, on sites less than one acre. during midday on the winter solstice.
Residential uses at:densities greater than All roof areas and same south walls should
12 units per acre, public facilities, be unshaded during midday on the winter
general commercial and industrial areas, solstice.
in suburban and newly subdivided areas.
Residential uses at densities greater Most roof areas and some south walls on
than 12 units per acre, public facilities upper floors should be unshaded during
and general commercial and industrial midday on the winter solstice.
areas within downtown and other locations
previously subdivided into relatively
snmli lots.
Q 34. Solar water heating will be required for new swimming pools and hot tubs,
except where solar exposure is insufficient due to circumstances beyond the
control of the water user.
Note: Anyone proposing conventional heating of such facilities must pro-
vide an insulating cover and must obtain a bid from an installer of
solar hot-water systems, including a life-cycle cost comparison
(Title 24, Cal . Admin. Code) .
Q 35. Shading by vegetation will be controlled by the California Solar Shade
Control Act. The City will prosecute substantiated violations brought to
its attention pursuant to that Act (Public Resources Code Section 25980 and
following). Those seeking permits for solar systems will be advised to
establish documentation of vegetatioq existing at the time of their solar
construction or installation.
tE1�