Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Item 14 - 48 Buena Vista Ave Appeal filed by Jeff Kraft Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY JEFF KRAFT) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES A HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a single family residence at 48 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby approving the use permit to allow a single family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at 48 Buena Vista Avenue. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant has applied for an Administrative Use Permit to request construction of a single family residence in the Single-family Residential Zone with Special Considerations Overlay (R- 1-S), with exceptions to allow a maximum height of 28 feet from average grade where 25 feet would be allowed, and a 12 foot yard setback where 15 feet would be required. The home and 14 Packet Pg. 275 Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) would be constructed on an existing legal lot. A use permit is required to allow the establishment of any new use within the Special Considerations (S-overlay) zone. The S-overlay is in place at the subject location due to the sensitive nature of hillside development (Attachment H, S-Overlay Ordinance 0755). The project is subject to architectural review by the Architectural Review Commission as a result of its location on a hillside and the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance. On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project. Members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission (PC) to address the concerns of the members of the public for developing a single-family residence at the subject location. On September 23, 2015, the PC reviewed the project and voted to continue the project to a date uncertain to give the applicant the opportunity to revise and address specific concerns including the configuration of the lower level, further evaluation of the roof deck, the height and setback exceptions, and review of the concerns regarding the curve of the street (Attachment I, PC Hearing September 23, 2015, Meeting Minutes). On October 28, 2015, the PC held a hearing to review the revised project that addressed concerns from the hearing on September 23, 2015. The PC voted to deny the project based on the finding that, “The project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity” (Attachment K, PC Hearing October 28, 2015, Meeting Minutes). None of the PC’s concerns related to the height and setback exceptions noted above, which were noted in discussion to be inconsequential because they are minor in nature. On October 29, 2015, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the project (Attachment E, PC Appeal). DISCUSSION The PC’s recommendation for denial of the project is based on the finding that the project will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood (Attachment C). If the City Council chooses to deny the appeal, findings are needed to form an adequate basis for project denial. While the staff recommendation is to uphold the appeal and approve the project, the City Council may choose to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission decision. If the City Council chooses this path, staff has provided additional findings for consideration. The staff recommendation to uphold the appeal is reflected in Resolution A (Attachment A). Resolution B includes findings to deny the appeal (Attachment B). The following discussion provides additional background and analysis of the proposed development. Background The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista Avenue in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The subject property meets all lot size requirements and was legally created in 1990 with access from Buena Vista Avenue. The property is a downward 14 Packet Pg. 276 sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right -of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment F, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 442 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Two stories with a max height at 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure A detailed description of the site, project description, statistics and project analysis can be found in Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION/ACTION At the September 23, 2015 meeting, the PC requested additional information to address concerns that were identified at the public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended the following directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final action on the project: Directional Item #1: Plans should be resubmitted and reviewed for the evaluation of the proposed lower level of the residence that was originally proposed as unconditioned space to be converted to habitable space. Directional Item #2: Plans should be resubmitted that address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy concerns. Directional item #3: Plans should be further evaluated to clarify the need for the requested height exception and setback reduction. Staff Response: Please see PC Staff Report from October 28, 2015 (Attachment K) for the evaluation of the applicant’s response to the PC Directional Items. At the October 28, 2015 meeting, the PC evaluated the applicant’s response and voted 5:1 (Commr. Riggs absent) to deny the use permit, although recognizing that this property is anticipated to be a single family residence in the General Plan, and is consistent with many applicable City standards. The PC did not find that the project was in conflict with any specific City standard, but discussed concerns related to pedestrian and vehicular traffic along the curve of Buena Vista Avenue, which is a narrow street with no sidewalks and no on-street parking available, and concluded that parking for the four-bedroom residence with an SDU may not be sufficient on-site within this neighborhood. The PC also discussed concerns about the roof deck 14 Packet Pg. 277 and views of the property from Highway 101 to be evaluated by the ARC . While the PC was not particularly concerned about the requested exceptions to property development standards, the City Council should carefully consider the proposed exceptions. APPEAL SUMMARY On October 29, 2015, the applicant, Jeff Kraft, filed an appeal of the PC decision to deny the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the Planning Commission’s decision for den ial was not justified because the project is to construct a single family residence on a legal lot that has been evaluated by City Staff and recommended for approval. A letter from the applicant’s attorney addresses the specific concerns that the PC’s delineation was not based on the directional items that were provided by the PC during its hearing on September 23, 2015. The letter also asserts that the PC’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioners themselves found no legal basis to deny the use permit (see Attachment E, Kraft Appeal Letter). STAFF EVALUATION History of the subject site and the S-Overlay zone Before addressing the specifics of the appeal and the PC’s decision, it is important to understand the history of the subject site and the creation and underlying purpose of the Special Considerations zoning overlay within this area. The lot is a legal lot and was created by a lot line adjustment (LLA 90-115), approved on March 26, 1990, that combined three existing lots into two lots, each having acces s from Buena Vista Avenue in compliance with an Initial Study mitigation measure conducted in 1989 (ER 16 -89). In 1983, a study was conducted to establish hillside development areas that included reconfiguring the Urban Reserve Line. The Cal Poly-Cuesta Park hillside, also known as Area #1, was originally proposed to exclude the three subject properties outside of the Urban Reserve Line. After considering public testimony which included letters from certain property owners discussing their right to develop these properties, both the Planning Commission and the City Council determined to include the subject properties within the Urban Reserve Line. The Urban Reserve Line has been established along the north property line of the subject property, rendering the properties south of this line appropriate for residential development. On an R-1 lot, a single family house is allowed “by right,” provided the proposed building complies with the City’s development standards (i.e. setbacks, height restrictions, etc.) and City’s building code. Typically, the review process for a single family home is ministerial. In other words, staff merely reviews the project application for compliance with adopted development standards using no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision, and issues a permit if objective compliance is demonstrated. However, in this case, the property is subject to a “Special Considerations Overlay” zone (“S-Overlay”) which makes a property owner’s right to construct a single family residence conditional, by use permit. Section 17.56 of the City’s Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) sets forth the City’s rules and regulations regarding the processing and implementation of development within a Special Consideration Zone. SLOMC section 17.56.010 states, in pertinent part: 14 Packet Pg. 278 The use permit requirement is intended to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings or conformance with the general plan, or to determine if a proposed development solves problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard, airport hazard, or slope instability which are particularly severe on a given site. Such development review may also be used to protect areas of scenic or ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland fire hazard. The ordinance adopting the S zone will specify the considerations to be addressed, and the ordinance number will be incorporated in the official zone map designation; The S-Overlay zone for this property was enacted in 1978 by Ordinance No. 755 (Attachment H) which requires a use permit for the construction of a single family residence on this property due to special considerations. Specifically, Ordinance No. 755 states that a “…use permit requirement is necessary to enable review of hillside development and adequacy of public utilities and services.” Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 755, the City has adopted hillside development standards, which set forth the specific standards against which hillside projects are to be evaluated. For the reasons described in the City’s previous staff reports (Attachments I and K) and for the reasons discussed below, the proposed project complies with the City’s hillside development standards if the requested exceptions to building height and setbacks are approved. Appeal Analysis During the October 28, 2015 hearing, four Planning Commissioners stated that there was no concern regarding the height and setback exceptions (Commrs. Larson, Fowler, Draze, and Dandekar). The Commission stated that the reason for denial was the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on- street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity. The following evaluation has been provided in response to the Planning Commission’s concerns related to denial of the project. Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic: Public Works Traffic Engineering staff have reviewed the project. Buena Vista Avenue at the subject location is a cul-de-sac neighborhood that provides access to five existing residences. The property is located on the curve along Buena Vista Avenue with a traffic line of sight greater than 150 feet from either direction for oncoming vehicles, with a speed limit of 25 mph. Vehicles approaching the property, driving either uphill or downhill, have sufficient time to stop in order to let a vehicle exit the property from the subject location. The driveway is approximately 33 feet long and provides enough space for a vehicle exiting the property to wait for oncoming vehicles to pass before entering the public right-of-way. The addition of a single family residence with an SDU will not negatively impact traffic safety in this neighborhood because the 14 Packet Pg. 279 proposed project complies with all, access, parking and driveway standards for residential development. In addition, the ability to control the design and improvement of public infrastructure such as public streets is authorized through the subdivision process, not an administrative use permit absent specific and identifiable project impacts to the contrary. Sidewalks & Street Parking: Buena Vista Avenue provides enough space for three on- street parking spaces, the rest of the neighborhood in proximity to the project site is painted with a red curb to provide access for emergency vehicles in the event of a fire on the hillside. Staff has evaluated the neighborhood for on-street parking and has determined that the addition of street parking will not be supported in this location. Additionally, on-street parking is not a requirement for residential development, all required parking for residential development is required on-site. The proposed project provides all required parking for the single family residence and the SDU on-site. The existing neighborhood along Buena Vista does not have sidewalks, but does provide space along the street for pedestrians to walk out of the way of traffic. As conditioned, the city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue to install the required improvements at a later date (Attachment A, Condition #17). The applicant has offered to provide sidewalks at this time, in order to relieve concerns for pedestrians on the street as vehicles pass by. Four Bedrooms: Aside from the general development standards and the City’s Building Code, the City does not regulate the number of bedrooms allowed in a single family residence. A High Occupancy Use Permit1 is required for any residence with six or more adults. In any event, the existing neighborhood has an average size of 2,633 square feet with three bedrooms (ten residences surveyed, excluding garages and SDU’s); the proposed residence has been designed as one of the smallest residences in the neighborhood at 1,921 square feet with four bedrooms. As a requirement for a SDU on the site, the property is required to be owner occupied (Attachment A, Condition #2) which is authorized by State law and consistent with City requirements for single family homes with a SDU. With this narrow exception, a decision on the project or conditions of approval imposed on a use permit cannot be based upon individuals who may occupy the residence absent substantial information included in the record. Secondary Dwelling Unit: SDU’s are allowed by right when accessory to a single family residence so long as they comply with SDU Property Development Standards. The proposed project incorporates the SDU into the design of the residence, the evaluation of the architectural review of the residence has been provided in Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis The administrative use permit cannot be denied because of the inclusion 1 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.93 High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations: Upon approval of an administrative use permit… a high occupancy residential use may be established with occupancy of six or more adults. The purpose of the use permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards described in this section, and to ensure the compatibility of the use at particular locations. 14 Packet Pg. 280 of an SDU. Roof Deck: The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the SDU and providing usable outdoor space on the project site is limited due to slope and grading requirements. The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.21.D.1(g)) allow provision of outdoor space within above ground decks or balconies as long as minimum space requirements are met including a minimum dimension of 6-feet in every direction; the project complies with this requirement. Attachment K provides a detailed analysis regarding the PC’s concern for the proposed roof deck design. The roof deck will be evaluated under the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Height and Setback Exceptions: The PC discussed that the height and setback exceptions were minor in nature and not a concern for the proposed project. See Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis for a full analysis of the height and setback exceptions for consistency with the Zoning Regulations. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow a single-family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit that includes a minor setback reduction of 3 feet and a height exception of 3 feet. The property is a legal lot that is within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address development on the hillside. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit (USE-1520-2015) to allow the construction of single family residence at this location. If the City Council cannot support approval of the requested setback and height exceptions, then changes would be needed to the building design to comply with those standards and hillside development standards. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these departments support the project if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As noted above, in 1989 the project site consisted of three lots approximately 5,000 square feet each that were proposed for a development project of three 3,000 square foot residences with access from Buena Vista (ARC 89-27 & U 1433). An Initial Study was required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of developing the three lots (ER 16-89). The Initial Study identified several mitigation measures requiring that the three lots be reconfigured into two legal lots. In 1990 the existing property was reviewed and approved for a Lot Line Adjustment that reconfigured the three lots into two legal lots (LLA 90-115). The two lots have been vacant since this that time and are individually owned. 14 Packet Pg. 281 The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project b y upholding the PC’s decision and denying the appeal, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations. Staff does not recommend this alternative. Public safety and land use compatibility issues have been addressed through design measures and the conditions of approval. If this action is taken, the applicant would have the ability to redesign the proposed residence and submit a new application for City review. 2. Uphold the Appeal and provide direction to the ARC. The Council may uphold the appeal and approve the use permit, but provide additional direction to the ARC regarding issues it should consider during its review of the project’s design. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution A b - Draft Resolution B c - PC Resolution d - Vicinity Map e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) f - Reduced Project Plans g - Detailed Project Analysis h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) j - Applicant Response Letter k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) 14 Packet Pg. 282 RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015 & SDU-1521-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; and denied the project based on the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on-street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity; and WHEREAS, Jeff Kraft, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on October 29, 2015; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 14.a Packet Pg. 283 At t a c h m e n t : a - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: Special Considerations Overlay 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 single family residence is proposed on a legal lot and has been designed to be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in such that; the proposed project keeps a low profile below the ridgeline and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation, and site grading is kept to a minimum. 3. The project has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. 4. The project design incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside as viewed from Highway 101. 5. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks or height requirements because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. Height Exception 6. The additional three foot height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking space that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. Setback Exception 8. A reduced side yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar access or privacy. The portion of the residence requiring a setback exception is only 14 square feet in area and will cast no greater shadow than the portions of the residence which meet the setback/height requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations. 14.a Packet Pg. 284 At t a c h m e n t : a - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ 9. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS -5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final approval of the application USE-1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The architectural design of the building shall be reviewed separate from this Use Permit. The Architectural Review Commission will review the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and the General Plan. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The minimum setback from the north property line to the proposed structure shall not be less than 12 feet with a maximum wall height of 28 feet from the natural average grade. 5. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 6. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 7. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 14.a Packet Pg. 285 At t a c h m e n t : a - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 4 R ______ 8. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 9. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. (Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 10. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 11. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 13. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A recording fee will be required from the applicant. 14. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 14.a Packet Pg. 286 At t a c h m e n t : a - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 5 R ______ 15. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 16. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 17. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 18. 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. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 20. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 14.a Packet Pg. 287 At t a c h m e n t : a - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 6 R ______ 22. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 23. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 25. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 26. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 27. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 28. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 29. 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 14.a Packet Pg. 288 At t a c h m e n t : a - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 7 R ______ to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 30. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 31. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 32. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 33. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 14.a Packet Pg. 289 At t a c h m e n t : a - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 8 R ______ APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 14.a Packet Pg. 290 At t a c h m e n t : a - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n A ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; and denied the project based on the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on-street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity; and WHEREAS, Jeff Kraft, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on October 29, 2015; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 14.b Packet Pg. 291 At t a c h m e n t : b - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n B ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The design and approach to grading is does not conform to the natural slope of the property in a manner that is consistent with the City’s Hillside Design Guidelines, without creating the need for exceptions to property development standards including building height and setback. 3. Construction of a home on the project site without exceptions to City standards is possible and preferable because of the steep slope of the property and visibility of the lot in the hillside location. 4. The proposed height exception will detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the exception is inconsistent with the way other properties in the neighborhood have been developed. 5. A reduced side yard setback is unacceptable at the subject location because of the steep slope and visibility of the lot on the hillside location, which increases the visual impact of the exception. 6. (Additional findings to be provided by the City Council) 7. (Additional findings to be provided by the City Council) 8. (Additional findings to be provided by the City Council) Section 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final denial of the application USE-1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. 14.b Packet Pg. 292 At t a c h m e n t : b - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n B ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Traci R. McGinley, MMC City Clerk 14.b Packet Pg. 293 At t a c h m e n t : b - D r a f t R e s o l u t i o n B ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) RESOLUTION NO. PC-5630-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 28, 2015 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant, and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted another public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; 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, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. Attachment C 14.c Packet Pg. 294 At t a c h m e n t : c - P C R e s o l u t i o n ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-5630-15 USE-1520-2015 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 2 SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny application USE- 1520-2015. On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Larson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Larson, Multari, Dandekar, Draze, and Fowler NOES: Commissioner Malak REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Riggs The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of October, 2015. _____________________________ Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director Planning Commission Attachment C 14.c Packet Pg. 295 At t a c h m e n t : c - P C R e s o l u t i o n ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) PF C/OS-5 R-1-S R-1 R-1-SR-1-S R-1 R-1 LO O M I S B U E N A V I S T A VICINITY MAP USE-1520-201548 BUENA VISTA ¯ Attachment D 14.d Packet Pg. 296 At t a c h m e n t : d - V i c i n i t y M a p ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 297 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C A p p e a l ( J e f f K r a f t ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 298 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C A p p e a l ( J e f f K r a f t ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 299 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C A p p e a l ( J e f f K r a f t ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 300 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C A p p e a l ( J e f f K r a f t ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 301 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C A p p e a l ( J e f f K r a f t ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 302 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C A p p e a l ( J e f f K r a f t ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 303 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C A p p e a l ( J e f f K r a f t ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment E 14.e Packet Pg. 304 At t a c h m e n t : e - P C A p p e a l ( J e f f K r a f t ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Cover Sheet CS.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING PL A N I N G C O M I S S I O N M E E T I N G S E T Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 305 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Title Sheet TS.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING AB B R E V I A T I O N S "I " J O I S T IN T E R I O R HE I G H T IN C H LI N E A L F O O T LA T E R A L LE N G T H JO I N T JO I S T ID IJIN T INHTHS B LL H LA T LFJTLJS T MA X I M U M MI N I M U M MA X MF R MOMI W MI S C MI N MB LL V LO N G L E G H O R I Z O N T A L LO N G L E G V E R T I C A L IN S I D E D I A M E T E R HI G H S T R E N G T H B O L T MA N U F A C T U R E R MA L L E A B L E I R O N W A S H E R MA S O N R Y O P E N I N G MI S C E L L A N E O U S MA C H I N E B O L T NE W NO R M A L NO M I N A L OV E R H E A D OP E N I N G ON C E N T E R NE A R S I D E NO R M NO M NI C (N ) OP N G OHOFODOCNT S NS PL Y W O O D OP P O S I T E OR I G I N A L PA V E M E N T RA D I U S PPOR I G PL Y W D OP P R o r R A D PV M T PV C PT D F PA R T I A L P E N E T R A T I O N PO L Y V I N Y L C L O R I D E PR E S S U R E T R E A T E D D O U G L A S F I R PE N E T R A T I O N OU T S I D E F A C E OU T S I D E D I A M E T E R NO T T O S C A L E NO T I N C O N T R A C T DE G R E E ATAN D AN G L E NU M B E R PL U S O R M I N U S PL A T E / P R O P E R T Y L I N E PE R P E N D I C U L A R PE R C E N T PA R A L L E L FL O W L I N E DI A M E T E R CE N T E R L I N E BO A R D AN C H O R BE L O W F I N I S H E D F L O O R AV E R A G E AR C H I T E C T / A R C H I T E C T U R A L AP P R O X I M A T E AL U M I N U M AL T E R N A T E AG G R E G A T E AB O V E F I N I S H E D F L O O R AD D I T I O N A L AR E A D R A I N AS P H A L T C O N C R E T E AN C H O R B O L T Ø°@&L ±%#¡AL T AG G AF F ADAC BF F BDAV G ALAB AP P R O X AR C H AN C H AD D L BO T T O M BL O C K CE I L I N G CL E A R CO N C R E T E M A S O N R Y U N I T CH E C K E R E D BE T W E E N BE A R I N G BO T T O M O F F O O T I N G BE A M / B E N C H M A R K BL O C K I N G CE N T E R CO L U M N DO U B L E CO N N E C T I O N DI M E N S I O N DI A G O N A L DI A M E T E R DO U G L A S F I R PE N N Y ( N A I L S I Z E ) CO U N T E R S U N K CO M P L E T E P E N E T R A T I O N CO N T I N U O U S CO N S T R U C T I O N CO N C R E T E BO T BO F BMBL K CJ CM U CL R CL G CI P BR G CP CT R CO L DI M DI A DFDB L dCO N N DI A G CT S K CO N T CO N S T CO N C CK R D BT W N BL K G BU I L D I N G BL D G CO N T R O L J O I N T / CA S T I N P L A C E RE D W O O D RE Q U I R E D RI G H T RA F T E R RE I N F O R C I N G SU B G R A D E SC H E D U L E SA D RW D RTRORF T R RE Q D RE I N F SGSFSE D SDSC H SC D SB SP A C E SH E E T I N G SI M I L A R ST I F F E N E R ST A N D A R D ST A G G E R E D SQ U A R E SP E C SPSM D SI M SH T G ST G D ST I F F ST D SQSP D SH T SH E E T SA N I T A R Y S E W E R SE E P L U M B I N G D R A W I N G S SP E C I F I C A T I O N SE E M E C H A N I C A L D R A W I N G S DR A W I N G S SE E E L E C T R I C A L D R A W I N G S SE E C I V I L D R A W I N G S SE E A R C H I T E C T U R A L D R A W I N G S SQ U A R E F E E T ST O R M D R A I N SO L I D B L O C K RO U G H O P E N I N G SH E A R W A L L ST R U C T U R A L ST E E L TH R E A D E D TO E N A I L TH I C K SY M SWST R U C ST L TCT& G T& B TO A TNTH K TH R D TGTDTC C TI L T U P TY P I C A L TU B E S T E E L TO T A L VE R T I C A L WI T H O U T WI T H TU TY P TSTPTO W TO T W/ O W/ UN O VE R T VI F TO F UN L E S S N O T E D O T H E R W I S E VE R I F Y I N F I E L D TO P O F P A V E M E N T TO P O F W A L L SY M M E T R I C A L TO P O F S T R U C T U R E TO P O F C O N C R E T E C U R B TO N G U E A N D G R O V E TO P O F A L U M I N U M TO P O F F O O T I N G TO P O F C O N C R E T E TO P O F G R A T E TR E N C H D R A I N TO P A N D B O T T O M EA C H DI T T O DO W N EQ U A L EQ U I P M E N T ED G E N A I L I N G EM B E D M E N T EL E C T R I C A L EL E V A T I O N EA C H F A C E EA C H E N D EX I S T I N G DR A W I N G FI N I S H FL O O R FI E L D N A I L I N G FI N I S H G R A D E FI N I S H F L O O R FO U N D A T I O N FL O O R D R A I N EX T E R I O R EX P A N S I O N EX C A V A T I O N / E X C A V A T E EA C H W A Y EA C H S I D E (E ) o r E X I S T EEEADW G DODN EF EQEN FDEX T EX P EX C EW FNFI N FL R FGFFFD N ESEL E C EL o r E L E V EQ P T EM B E D FU T U R E GA L V A N I Z E D GR A D E B R E A K FO O T I N G FO O T / F E E T FA R S I D E / F L O O R S I N K FR A M I N G GA G E / G A U G E FA C E O F W A L L FA C E O F S T U D FA C E O F C O N C R E T E C U R B FA C E O F M A S O N R Y FA C E O F : C O N C R E T E / C O L U M N FA C E O F GY P S U M GR O U N D GR A D E HA N G E R HE A D E R HI G H S T R E N G T H G R O U T HI G H P O I N T HO R I Z O N T A L HO L D D O W N GL U E D L A M I N A T E D B E A M GI R D E R FO W FO M FO S FO C FO GB FU T FT G GA FTFS HDGY P GR D GL B HS G HD R HP HG R GD R GA L V HO R I Z GR N D FR M G FO C C RE F DI S T A N C E DI S T RE F E R E N C E WO R K P O I N T WW F WP WE L D E D W I R E F A B R I C WD WO O D CO N S T R U C T I O N J O I N T TO S T O P O F S T E E L / ST A I N L E S S S T E E L / SSSL A D SE E L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T S ' PE N P L Y W O O D E D G E N A I L I N G / GE N E R A L N O T E S - D I M E N S I O N I N G GE N E R A L N O T E S PR O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N PR O J E C T D A T A SU B M I T T A L R E Q U I R E M E N T S VE N T I L A T I O N S C H E D U L E SP E C I A L I N S P E C T I O N S BU I L D I N G D A T A FI R E P R O T E C T I O N N O T E S ARCHITECTURAL CS1.0COVERS SHEET T1.01TITLE SHEET A1.0SITE PLAN A2.0FLOOR PLAN: ROOF LEVEL A2.1FLOOR PLAN: TOP LEVEL A2.2FLOOR PLAN: MAIN LEVEL A2.3FLOOR PLAN: BOTTOM LEVEL A3.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.1EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.0BUILDING SECTIONS A4.1BUILDING SECTIONS A6.0STAIR PLANS, SECTIONS, AND DETAILS A8.0DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULE CIVIL STRUCTURAL S-3LOWER FOUNDATION PLAN S-4UPPER FOUNDATION PLAN S-5SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN S-6ROOF DECK FRAMING PLAN MECHANICAL M1.0MECHANICAL PLAN M1.1MECHANICAL PLAN ELECTRICAL E1.0ELECTRIC AND LIGHTING PLAN E1.1ELECTRIC AND LIGHTING PLAN PLUMBINGSHEET INDEX ARCHITECT CHRIS PARDO DESIGN:ELEMENTAL ARCHITECTURE 1556 N. PALM CANYON DRIVE PALM SPRINGS, CA SUITE D202 PHONE: 206.329.1654 CONTACT: STEVE TURLEY EMAIL: turley@elementalarchitecture.com CIVIL CANNON 1050 SOUTHWOOD DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE: 805.503.4521 CONTACT: JOHN ROGERS EMAIL: johnr@cannoncorp.us STRUCTURAL DT ENGINEERING 3525 DEL MAR HEIGHTS ROAD, SUITE 331 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 PHONE: 619.940.6257 CONTACT: DAVID THOMAS EMAIL: david@dtengsd.com STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASUL PHONE: 866.898.9209 CONTACT: TIM RUSSELL EMAIL: russell@asul.us A S M O K E D E T E C T O R S H A L L B E I N S T A L L E D I N E A C H H A B I T A B L E R O O M . A S M O K E D E T E C T O R S H A L L B E C E N T R A L L Y L O C A T E D O N E A C H F L O O R . AN A D D I T I O N A L S M O K E D E T E C T O R S H A L L B E I N S T A L L E D I N E A C H L O C A T I O N WH E R E T H E R E I S A C E I L I N G H E I G H T C H A N G E G R E A T E R T H A N 2 4 " . SM O K E D E T E C T O R S T O B E 1 1 0 v H A R D W I R E D , I N T E R C O N N E C T E D , W I T H BA T T E R Y B A C K U P P E R I R C R 3 1 3 WS E C 5 0 1 . 1 A N D 9 0 1 - F R O M T A B L E 9 - 1 - O P T I O N 5 b HI G H E F F I C I E N C Y W A T E R H E A T E R I S R E Q U I R E D T O D E V E L O P O N E C R E D I T . PE R I R C R 3 1 5 . 1 A N D W A C 5 1 - 5 0 - 0 9 0 7 F O R N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N , A N A P P R O V E D CA R B O N M O N O X I D E A L A R M S H A L L B E I N S T A L L E D O U T S I D E O F E A C H S E P A R A T E SL E E P I N G A R E A I N T H E I M M E D I A T E V I C I N I T Y O F T H E B E D R O O M I N D W E L L I N G UN I T S W I T H I N W H I C H F U E L - F I R E D A P P L I A N C E S A R E I N S T A L L E D A N D I N DW E L L I N G U N I T S T H A T H A V E A T T A C H E D G A R A G E S . S I N G L E S T A T I O N C A R B O N MO N O X I D E A L A R M S S H A L L B E L I S T E D A S C O M P L Y I N G W I T H U L 2 0 3 4 A N D S H A L L BE I N S T A L L E D I N A C C O R D A N C E W I T H T H I S C O D E A N D T H E M A N U F A C T U R E R ' S IN S T A L L A T I O N I N S T R U C T I O N S . CO SY M B O L S &A N D ∠ AN G L E @A T ℄ CE N T E R L I N E ⅊ PL A T E O R P R O P E R T Y L I N E Ø DI A M E T E R # N U M B E R X L E T T E R 01 A A4 . 0 4 4 1 X A4 . 0 CO L U M N L I N E R E F E R E N C E DE T A I L N U M B E R SH E E T N U M B E R SE C T I O N / E L E V A T I O N L E T T E R SH E E T N U M B E R EL E V A T I O N I N D I C A T O R DO O R M A R K , R E F E R T O S H E E T A 8 . 0 FO R D O O R S C H E D U L E P WI N D O W M A R K , R E F E R T O S H E E T A 8 . 0 FO R W I N D O W S C H E D U L E WA L L T Y P E - R E F E R T O W A L L T Y P E S S H E E T AX . X KE Y N O T E 10 0 C F M O N T I M E R 50 C F M O N S W I T C H 10 0 C F M O N S W I T C H -W H O L E H O U S E F A N ME C H A N I C A L V E N T I L A T I N G S Y S T E M S I N BA T H R O O M S , L A U N D R Y R O O M S A N D SI M I L A R R O O M S S H O U L D E X H A U S T DI R E C T L Y T O T H E O U T S I D E . T H E P O I N T O F DI S C H A R G E O F E X H A U S T A I R S H A L L B E A T LE A S T T H R E E F E E T F R O M A N Y O P E N I N G IN T O T H E B U I L D I N G . W A C V I A Q 5 1 - 1 3 31 CA R B O N M O N O X I D E A L A R M SM O K E D E T E C T O R S GE N E R A L N O T E S Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 306 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) SI T E P L A N SC A L E : 1 : 1 0 EX . 1 6 " P I N E TR E E RU N O F F D I S S I P A T I O N SW A L E ( 1 2 " D E E P W / LE V E L T O P ) 20 ' S E T B A C K 5.86'(5' MIN. SETBACK) 9.17'(9' MIN. SETBACK) 12.04'(12' MIN. SETBACK) 13.18'(13' MIN. SETBACK) Site Plan A1.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKINGSEE CIVIL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING:1.FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS 2.UTILITY SERVICES (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)3.SITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 4.EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES 5.CONTOURS & SPOT ELEVATIONS 6.FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS 7.RETAINING WALLS 8.PUBLIC WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAINS LANDSCAPE NOTES 1.NO ADDITIONAL SPECIES WILL BE PLANTED.2.THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IS TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.1, SEE SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS 2. ALL PLANTS ARE NATIVE DROUGHT TOLLERANT SPEICES TO BE IRRAGATED BY RAINWATER/GRAY-WATER SYSTEM 3. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN9. DETAILED SET BACK AND ELEVATIONS Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 307 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) A B C D1 FL O O R P L A N : R O O F L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 2X WOOD DECKING 2X W O O D S L E E P E R TPO ROOF MEMBRANE RO O F D E T A I L SC A L E : 1 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Floor Plans Roof Level A2.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E O F FI N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E R E C E S S E D I N WA L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 INCH PE R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " ( R E F E R TO P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R T E M P E R E D GL A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O B E D R O O M S AN D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 308 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) 6 5 43 2 12 11 13 14 F E A 10 Ki t c h e n 12 ' - 0 " x 1 1 ' - 0 " 14 0 F T ² Li v i n g 12 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 20 0 F T ² Be d r o o m 1 9' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 12 5 F T ² Ga r a g e 20 ' - 0 " x 2 0 ' - 0 " 40 0 F T ² En t r y AD U SL O P E T O D R A I N SL O P E T O D R A I N SL O P E T O D R A I N FU T U R E S T A I R FU T U R E R O L L I N G BA R N D O O R FL O O R P L A N : T O P L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 02A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 Floor Plans Top Level A2.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D . 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 309 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Li v i n g 18 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 28 8 F T ² Ki t c h e n 18 ' - 0 " x 1 5 ' - 0 " 26 0 F T ² Ma s t e r B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 4 ' - 0 " 16 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 11 ' - 2 " x 1 3 ' - 3 " 14 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 11 ' - 5 " x 1 3 ' - 3 " 15 1 F T ² FL O O R P L A N : M A I N L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 G H i J K L MN 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 X X Floor Plans Main Level A2.2 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 310 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) P R 24 ME C H A N I C A L RO O M Be d r o o m 9' - 2 " x 1 4 ' - 4 " 13 1 F T ² RE C R O O M 17 ' - 1 0 " x 1 0 ' - 9 " 19 2 F T ² FA M I L Y R O O M 17 ' - 1 0 " x 1 6 ' - 3 " 29 0 F T ² 7' - 5 " 6' - 5 " 13 ' - 1 0 " 7' - 2 " 12 ' - 5 12" 5' - 1 0 12" 4' - 5 " 6' - 0 " 16'-5"5'-3"5'-012"7'-212"13'-312" CL O S E T FL O O R P L A N : B O T T O M L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 29 Q 25 28 27 30 O 26 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 4 A4 . 1 4 A4 . 1 Floor Plans Bottom Level A2.3 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G . 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D 4 WA T E R H E A T E R , S I Z E A N D M O D E L T B D Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 311 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) E F G H A 7 10'-0" +0 ' - 0 " LE V E L 1 +1 0 ' - 0 " CE I L I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 +2 2 ' - 1 1 " CE I L I N G +2 4 ' - 6 " LE V E L 3 +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 1'-0"11'-11"1'-7"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2" +1 5 ' - 9 " LE V E L 2 . 5 +2 4 ' - 8 " CE I L I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 8'-11"1'-10"8'-0"1'-0"4'-2" +0 ' - 0 " LE V E L 1 15'-9" SO U T H E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " NO R T H E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " C +0 ' - 0 " LE V E L 1 +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 +2 4 ' - 6 " LE V E L 3 11'-11" +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G 1'-0"1'-0" +2 4 ' - 8 " CE I L I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L 8'-0"4'-2" J K L 5 6 10'-0" +1 0 ' - 0 " CE I L I N G +2 2 ' - 1 1 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 1'-7"10'-0"4'-2" +1 5 ' - 9 " LE V E L 2 . 5 +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G 8'-11" +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 . 5 1'-0"1'-10" +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 15'-9" O 29 R ML - 3 ML - 3 ML - 4 ML - 4 ML - 4 ML - 1 ML - 1 ML - 1 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 1 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 6 ML - 5 ML - 4 ML - 4 ML - 3 ML - 1 ML - 1 ML - 3 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 1 ML - 2 7' - 5 " 6'- 5 " 7' - 2 " 12 ' - 5 12" 5' - 1 0 12" 27'-10" ML - 2 NO T E S : FO R D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E S E E S H E E T A 8 . 1 ML - 1 ML - 5 COLOR/FINISH EX T E R I O R M A T E R I A L S C H E D U L E TA G MA T E R I A L ML - 2 MAT BLACK ANODIZEDREMARKS AL U M I N U M ML - 4 ML - 3 CLEAR ANODIZED AL U M I N U M 6" T & G MAHOGANY CO N C R E T E BOARD FORMED ML - 6 AL U M I N U M P A N E L CLEAR ANODIZED CAST IN PLACE CO N C R E T E Elevations A3.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING SW I S S P E A R L P A N E L S Carat Onyx 7091-11 ME G W A L L P A N E L S MEG #754 CSAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 312 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) N M D 2 1 10 +1 5 ' - 9 " LE V E L 2 . 5 +2 4 ' - 8 " CE I L I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 8'-11"1'-10"8'-0"1'-0"4'-2" EA S T E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " WE S T E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " +0 ' - 0 " LE V E L 1 15'-9" P +1 0 ' - 0 " CE I L I N G +2 4 ' - 6 " LE V E L 3 1'-7" B i 3 4 9 8 10'-0" +0 ' - 0 " LE V E L 1 +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 +2 2 ' - 1 1 " CE I L I N G +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 1'-0" +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 11'-11"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2" Q 25 ML - 1 ML - 2 ML - 4 ML - 4 ML - 4 1 A4 . 0 1 A4 . 0 +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 4'-6" +3 1 ' - 0 " ST A I R L A N D I N G ML - 1 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 2 ML - 4 ML - 4 ML - 3 NO T E S : FO R D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E S E E S H E E T A 8 . 1 ML - 1 ML - 5 COLOR/FINISH EX T E R I O R M A T E R I A L S C H E D U L E TA G MA T E R I A L ML - 2 MAT BLACK ANODIZEDREMARKS AL U M I N U M ML - 4 ML - 3 CLEAR ANODIZED AL U M I N U M 6" T & G MAHOGANY CO N C R E T E BOARD FORMED ML - 6 AL U M I N U M P A N E L CLEAR ANODIZED CAST IN PLACE CO N C R E T E Elevations A3.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING 12 . 0 7 5 5 f t 13 . 1 0 0 0 f t PR O P E R T Y L I N E A T F R O N T C O R N E R O F H O U S E PR O P E R T Y L I N E A T B A C K C O R N E R O F H O U S E 9. 1 1 0 0 f t 5. 8 6 5 6 f t PR O P E R T Y L I N E A T F R O N T C O R N E R O F H O U S E PR O P E R T Y L I N E A T B A C K C O R N E R O F H O U S E Wo o d p a n e l s M E G # 7 5 4 C S T h i s o n e l o o k e d t h e n i c e s t i n p e r s o n , l o o k i n g a t t h e s c r e e n I a m n o t s o s u r e . He r e i s t h e w e b s i t e ht t p : / / m e g w a l l p a n e l s . c o m / s a m p l e s . h t m l Th e o t h e r c o l o r s I p u t o n t h e c o l o r b o a r d a r e : Bl a c k O p a l 7 0 2 5 Ca r a t O n y x 7 0 9 9 - 1 1 Ca r a t A g a t e 7 2 1 9 Ca r a t O n y x 7 0 9 1 - 1 1 Carat Onyx 7091-11 SW I S S P E A R L P A N E L S ME G W A L L P A N E L S MEG #754 CSAttachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 313 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) LI V I N G R O O M KI T C H E N SE E S T R U C T U R A L 10'-0" +0'-0"LEVEL 1+10'-0"CEILING+11'-0"LEVEL 2+22'-11"CEILING+24'-6"LEVEL 3+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER 1'-0"11'-11"1'-7"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2" 3'-0" 1'-0" 11 3 4"2'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 3' - 1 " 1' - 6 " 2' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 4" 1'-11" 9' - 1 0 12" 6" 1'-4" 4" 5' - 1 12" 10 ' - 4 12" +1 5 ' - 9 " LE V E L 2 . 5 +2 4 ' - 8 " CE I L I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 1'-0"8'-11"8'-0" +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 1'-10" +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 . 5 4'-2"15'-9" AD U K I T C H E N GA R A G E CL O S E T BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N 1 SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " +438.54 Building Sections A4.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 314 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) LI V I N G R O O M ME C H LI V I N G R O O M GU E S T B E D R O O M AD U LI V I N G R O O M BE D R O O M 10'-0"+0'-0"LEVEL 1+10'-0"CEILING+11'-0"LEVEL 2+22'-11"CEILING+24'-6"LEVEL 3+34'-6"CEILING+35'-6"ROOF DECK+39'-8"T.O. STAIR TOWER 1'-0"11'-11"1'-7"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2"+438.54 +1 5 ' - 9 " LE V E L 2 . 5 +2 4 ' - 8 " CE I L I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 1'-0"8'-11"8'-0" +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 1'-10" +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 . 5 4'-2"15'-9" BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N 2 SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Building Sections A4.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 315 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) 3' - 6 " 1'-0"6"8'-0"3'-0"4'-6" 2'-0"1'-0" S1S2 S2 S3 ST A I R 1 : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 ST A I R T O W E R : R O O F L E V E L - 3 5 ' - 6 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 S1 S2 S3 +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 4'-6" +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +2 0 ' - 3 1 / 2 " LA N D I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 4'-6"6'-212"9'-312" +35'-6"ROOF DECK +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 4'-6" +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G ST A I R T O W E R : E N T R Y L E V E L - 2 6 ' - 6 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 3' - 9 " 8' - 0 " 6" 1' - 0 " 8' - 3 " 712" 11 " 3' - 6 " ST A I R T O W E R : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 S4 S4 +2 0 ' - 3 1 / 2 " LA N D I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 9'-312" ST A I R T O W E R : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 ST A I R 4 : L E V E L 3 - 1 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 712" 11 " A6.0Stair Details SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 316 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Wi n d o w s S c h e d u l e Ma r k T- 2 4 MA R K Wi d t h He i g h t Ta l l e s t P o i n t Ar e a S. F . Fr a m e Ma t e r i a l Gl a z i n g Te m p . U- V a l u e He a d J a m b S i l l No t e s De t a i l s A B C D E F G H i J K L M N O P Q 3'- 4 " 18 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 61 Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 37 11 ' - 8 " 3' - 2 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 11 3'- 4 " 3' - 2 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 36 Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 39 10 ' - 1 0 " 8' - 0 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 14 9' - 8 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 4'- 0 " 42 8'- 7 3 / 4 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 6'- 8 " 70 11 ' - 1 1 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 5' - 1 0 " Fi n i s h Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . 21 4'- 0 " 5 ' - 2 " A l u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e Cl r . A n o d . Al u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e Cl r . A n o d . 58 10 ' - 0 " A l u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e 5' - 1 0 " C l r . A n o d . 10 5 10 ' - 0 " A l u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e 10 ' - 6 1 / 4 " C l r . A n o d . 93 11 ' - 7 " A l u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e 8'- 0 " C l r . A n o d . 62 A l u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e 14 ' - 6 " C l r . A n o d . 80 10 ' - 0 " A l u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e 8'- 0 " C l r . A n o d . 11 ' - 7 " 13 1' - 6 " A l u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e 8' - 1 0 " C l r . A n o d . TE M P A S N O T E D 29 7' - 2 " A l u m i n u m L o w - E D u a l G l a z e 4'- 0 " C l r . A n o d . Door Schedule Ma r k T- 2 4 MA R K Wi d t h He i g h t Ta l l e s t P o i n t Ar e a S. F . Fr a m e Ma t e r i a l GlazingTemp.U-ValueHeadJambSillNotesDetails 3'- 0 " 8'- 0 " 24 Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 21 3'- 0 " 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 11 5 11 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 10 8 10 ' - 1 0 " 10 ' - 0 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 12 9 11 ' - 1 1 " Al u m i n u m 10 ' - 1 0 " Fi n i s h Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . Cl r . A n o d . 21 3'- 0 " 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m C l r . A n o d . 17 . 5 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 2- 6 " Cl r . A n o d . 21 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 3'- 0 " Cl r . A n o d . 17 . 5 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 2'- 6 " Cl r . A n o d . 19 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m C l r . A n o d . Al u m i n u m 2'- 8 " Cl r . A n o d . Exterior Doors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e Cl r . A n o d . Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e Cl r . A n o d . 24 3'- 0 " 7' - 1 0 " Al u m i n u m Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e Cl r . A n o d . 12 0 16 ' - 0 " Al u m i n u m 7'- 6 " Cl r . A n o d . Ex t e r i o r D o o r s 17 . 5 Al u m i n u m 2'- 6 " Cl r . A n o d . 7'- 0 " 17 . 5 Al u m i n u m 2'- 6 " Cl r . A n o d . 7'- 0 " 21 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 3'- 0 " Cl r . A n o d . 21 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 3'- 0 " Cl r . A n o d . 19 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 2'- 8 " Cl r . A n o d . 17 . 5 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 2'- 6 " Cl r . A n o d . 19 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 2'- 8 " Cl r . A n o d . 21 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 3'- 0 " Cl r . A n o d . 21 7'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 3'- 0 " Cl r . A n o d . Interior Doors A 7'-0" 3' - 4 " 10'-8" 18'-212" B 3'-2" 7'- 1 1 14" 3'- 4 3 4" 11 ' - 8 " 9'-4" C 3' - 4 " 3'-2" 7' - 9 14" 3'-2" 9'-4" 9'-4" D E F 3' - 0 " 2'-0"8'-0" 4" 9'-8" 4'- 0 " 10 ' - 1 0 " 1'-6" TE M P A S N O T E D TE M P TE M P TE M P 7' - 9 14"3 '-2" TE M P A S N O T E D 3'-11" 6'- 8 " 8'-734"3'-314" G TE M P A S N O T E D H 11'-11" 5' - 1 0 " TE M P A S N O T E D i 4" 11'-7" 8'- 0 " TE M P A S N O T E D 4'-0" J 10 ' - 6 " 1'-6" 11'-7"4"14'-6" TE M P A S N O T E D K 1'-6" 8'- 1 0 " 10'-5" L 7'-2" 4'- 0 " TE M P A S N O T E D 5'-2"3'-0" 4' - 0 " M N 21 4'- 0 " 5 ' - 2 " O P Q 10'-0" 10 ' - 6 14" TE M P TEMP TEMP 1 8'-0" 3'- 0 " 7'-0" 3' - 0 " 2 3 4 10'-0" 11 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 1 0 " 10'-0" TEMP TEMP TEMP TEMP 5 6 21 3'- 0 " 7'- 0 " 21 3'- 0 " 7'- 0 " 3'- 0 " 7'-10" 7 19 1 11 ' - 1 1 " A l u m i n u m 16 ' - 0 " C l r . A n o d . 8 TEMP 8 9 11'-11" 16 ' - 0 " 11'-11" 10 ' - 1 0 " Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e T E M P Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e T E M P 7'-6" 16 ' - 0 " 10 Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e T E M P 11 12 13 14 2' - 8 " 7'-0" 7'-0" 3' - 0 " 7'-0" 3' - 0 " 7'-0" 2' - 6 " 15 7'-0" 2'- 6 " 16 17 7'-0" 2'- 6 " 18 19 20 7'-0" 3'- 0 " 21 22 2'- 8 " 7'-0" 23 24 In t e r i o r D o o r s 7 10'-0" 4'-0" 30 16'-0"25 26 R 7'-0" 4'-10"27 28 5'- 1 0 " 10'-0" 10'-0"29 25 27 30 16 ' - 0 " 21 R Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e 10'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 7'- 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 2'- 8 " Cl r . A n o d . 28 7'- 0 " 7'-4" 3'- 0 " Al u m i n u m 29 2'-8" 26 Al u m i n u m Al u m i n u m 7'- 0 " Cl r . A n o d . Al u m i n u m 2'- 8 " C l r . A n o d . 10 ' - 0 " 19 16 0 TE M P A S N O T E D 7'- 0 " 4'- 1 0 " Cl r . A n o d . 33 . 8 47 Cl r . A n o d . Al u m i n u m Al u m i n u m Cl r . A n o d . Al u m i n u m 2'- 6 " TEMP AS NOTED 17 . 5 TEMP Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e Cl r . A n o d . 4'- 0 " 2'-8" 10 ' - 0 " Lo w - E D u a l G l a z e TE M P A S N O T E D 40 TE M P A S N O T E D SA F E T Y G L A Z I N G N O T E S : GL A Z I N G I N T H E F O L L O W I N G L O C A T I O N S S H O U L D B E S H O W N O N P L A N S A S S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G A S P E R SE C T I O N R 3 0 8 . 4 : A) G L A Z I N G I N D O O R S . B) G L A Z I N G A D J A C E N T T O A D O O R W H E R E T H E N E A R E S T E X P O S E D E D G E O F T H E G L A Z I N G I S W I T H I N A 2 4 IN C H A R C O F E I T H E R V E R T I C A L E D G E O F T H E D O O R I N A C L O S E D P O S I T I O N A N D W H E R E T H E B O T T O M EX P O S E D E D G E O F T H E G L A Z I N G I S L E S S T H A N 6 0 ” A B O V E T H E W A L K I N G S U R F A C E . E X C E P T I O N S : I) G L A Z I N G I N W A L L S O N T H E L A T C H S I D E O F A N D P E R P E N D I C U L A R T O T H E P L A N E O F T H E D O O R I N A CL O S E D P O S I T I O N . II ) G L A Z I N G T H A T I S A D J A C E N T T O T H E F I X E D P A N E L O F P A T I O D O O R S . C) G L A Z I N G I N I N D I V I D U A L F I X E D O R O P E R A B L E P A N E L S T H A T M E E T A L L O F T H E F O L L O W I N G CO N D I T I O N S : I) E X P O S E D A R E A O F A N I N D I V I D U A L P A N E I S G R E A T E R T H A N 9 S Q F T , A N D : II ) E X P O S E D B O T T O M E D G E I S L E S S T H A N 1 8 ” A B O V E T H E F L O O R , A N D : II I ) E X P O S E D T O P E D G E I S G R E A T E R T H A N 3 6 ” A B O V E T H E F L O O R , A N D : IV ) O N E O R M O R E W A L K I N G S U R F A C E S A R E W I T H I N 3 6 ” H O R I Z O N T A L L Y O F T H E P L A N E O F T H E GL A Z I N G . D) G L A Z I N G I N W A L L S E N C L O S I N G S T A I R W A Y L A N D I N G S O R W I T H I N 6 0 ” H OR I Z O N T A L L Y O F T H E B O T T O M TR E A D O F S T A I R W A Y S W H E R E T H E B O T T O M E D G E O F T H E G L A S S I S L E S S TH A N 6 0 ” A B O V E T H E N O S E O F TH E T R E A D . E) G L A Z I N G A D J A C E N T T O S T A I R W A Y S , L A N D I N G S A N D R A M P S W I T H I N 3 6 ” HO R I Z O N T A L L Y O F A W A L K I N G SU R F A C E W H E N T H E E X P O S E D S U R F A C E O F T H E G L A S S I S L E S S T H A N 6 0 ” AB O V E T H E P L A N E O F A D J A C E N T WA L K I N G S U R F A C E . GE N E R A L N O T E S : 1. S E E E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S S H E E T S F O R W I N D O W A N D D O O R M A R K S A N D L O C A T I O N S . 2. S E E F L O O R P L A N S H E E T S F O R E X T E R I O R D O O R T A G S A N D I N T E R I O R D O O R S I Z E S . 3. A L L W I N D O W S A N D D O O R S S H A L L B E N F R C C E R T I F I E D A N D S H A L L B E L A B E L E D W I T H N F R C C E R T I F I E D U - F A C T O R . 4. A L L G L A Z I N G T O B E T E M P E R E D G L A S S I N A C C O R D A N C E W I T H C B C R E Q U I R E M E N T S . 5. C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y W I N D O W A N D D O O R E X I S T I N G O P E N I N G S A R E S Q U A R E , L E V E L A N D P L U M B E F O R E IN S T A L L I N G W I N D O W / D O O R U N I T S . 6. F L A S H W I N D O W P E R A A M A S T A N D A R D S A N D M A N U F A C T U R E R R E Q U I R E M E N T S W I T H S E L F A D R H E R E D M E M B R A N E FL A S H I N G I N S T A L L E D I N " S H I N G L E S T E P " M A N N O R . 7. A L L H A R D W A R E T O B E F A C T O R Y S T A N D A R D U O N . 8. F L A S H & W E A T H E R P R O O F W I N D O W S I N A C C O R D A N C E W I T H M A N U F A C T U R E R ' S R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S . 9. C O N T R A C T O R M U S T V E R I F Y A L L E X I S T I N G O P E N I N G D I M E N S I O N S I N F I E L D P R I O R T O O R D E R I N G W I N D O W S & D O O R S . PL E A S E B R I N G D I S C R E P A N C I E S T O A T T E N T I O N O F T H E A R C H I T E C T . A L L S I Z E S N O T E D I N W I N D O W S C H E D U L E DE S I G N A T E F I N I S H E D O P E N I N G S . A D J U S T U N I T S I Z E T O S U I T M A N U F A C T U R E R ' S I N S T A L L A T I O N R E Q U I R E M E N T S . 10 . E G R E S S W I N D O W M U S T H A V E A N O P E N A B L E A R E A O F A T L E A S T 5 . 7 S . F . W I T H A M I N . O P E N A B L E W I D T H O F 2 0 " A N D M I N . OP E N A B L E H E I G H T O F 2 4 " . T H E B O T T O M O F T H E C L E A R O P E N I N G S H A L L N O T E X C E E D 4 4 " A O V E F I N I S H E D F L O O R . 11 . O P E N A B L E W I N D O W S S H A L L B E L O C A T E D A M I N I M U M O F 1 0 F T F R O M P L U M B I N G V E N T S , C H I M N E Y S , E T C . P E R R 3 0 3 . 5 . A8.0Door & Window Schedule SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 317 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) W/DKitchen12'-0"x11'-0"140 FT²Living 12'-0"x16'-0"200 FT² Be d r o o m 1 9' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 12 5 F T ² Ga r a g e 20 ' - 0 " x 2 0 ' - 0 " 40 0 F T ² En t r y ADU WP WP WP WP G G 22 0 G 220 FU T U R E CA R CH A R G I N G ST A T I O N $$ $ $3 $3 $$$$ $ WPV UP P E R L E V E L : E L E C T R I C A L P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " RO O F : E L E C T R I C A L P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " $3 $3$ S/ C S/C S/ C S/ C 10 0 A M P S U B P A N E L $3 33 AF C I AF C I $$ RE C E P T A C L E F O R G A R A G E DO O R O P E N E R WP M$ 100 AMP SUB PANEL 2 @ 2 0 0 A M P M A I N S E R V I C E PA N E L A N D M E T E R UN D E R G R O U N D S E R V I C E ELECTRICAL LEGEND ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE GFCI RECEPTACLE AFCI RECEPTACLE WEATHER PROOF RECEPTACLE FLOOR MOUNTED ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE QUAD RECEPTACLE 22O RECEPTACLE SWITCH THREE WAY SWITCH FOUR WAY SWITCH DIMMER SWITCH MOTION SENSOR SWITCH PHONE/ETHERNET COAXIAL/DATA ELECTRICAL PANEL THERMOSTAT LED STRIP LIGHT UNDER COUNTERD$$4$3$WPG 220 EPM$CEILING MTD. FIXTURE WALL MTD. FIXTURE FAN / VENTV S/CCARBON MONOXIDE & SMOKE DETECTORAFCIRECESSED CAN LIGHT LOW VOLTAGE DOWN LIGHTTVTV CABLE CONNECTION ELECTRICAL PANELElectric and Lighting Plan E1.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 318 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Me c h a n i c a l Ro o m Be d r o o m 9' - 2 " x 1 4 ' - 4 " 13 1 F T ² Li v i n g 17 ' - 1 0 " x 1 0 ' - 9 " 19 2 F T ² Li v i n g 17 ' - 1 0 " x 1 6 ' - 3 " 29 0 F T ² W/D Li v i n g 18 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 28 8 F T ² Ki t c h e n 18 ' - 0 " x 1 5 ' - 0 " 26 0 F T ² Ma s t e r B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 4 ' - 0 " 16 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 15 6 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 15 6 F T ² W/ D 22 0 22 0 G G G G $$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $4 22 0 G $$ $ $$$ V V V V LO W E R L E V E L : E L E C T R I C A L P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " MA I N L E V E L : E L E C T R I C A L P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " $ $ $ $ $ 3 3 3 $$$ $ S/ C S/ C S/ C S/ C S/ C S/ C S/ C S/ C WP 4 $4 3 WP $ $ $ 3 3 3 TV $ $3 3 AF C I AF C I $ WP $ $ $M AF C I AF C I 10 0 A M P S U B P A N E L 10 0 A M P S U B P A N E L ELECTRICAL LEGEND ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE GFCI RECEPTACLE AFCI RECEPTACLE WEATHER PROOF RECEPTACLE FLOOR MOUNTED ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE QUAD RECEPTACLE 22O RECEPTACLE SWITCH THREE WAY SWITCH FOUR WAY SWITCH DIMMER SWITCH MOTION SENSOR SWITCH PHONE/ETHERNET COAXIAL/DATA ELECTRICAL PANEL THERMOSTAT LED STRIP LIGHT UNDER COUNTERD$$4$3$WPG 220 EPM$CEILING MTD. FIXTURE WALL MTD. FIXTURE FAN / VENTV S/CCARBON MONOXIDE & SMOKE DETECTORAFCIRECESSED CAN LIGHT LOW VOLTAGE DOWN LIGHTTVTV CABLE CONNECTION ELECTRICAL PANELElectric and Lighting Plan E1.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 319 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) W/DKitchen12'-0"x11'-0"140 FT²Living 12'-0"x16'-0"200 FT² Be d r o o m 1 9' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 12 5 F T ² Ga r a g e 20 ' - 0 " x 2 0 ' - 0 " 40 0 F T ² En t r y ADU UP P E R L E V E L : M E C H A N I C A L P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " PO W E R S U P P L Y PH A S E , C Y C L E , V O L T A G E 1 P H A S E , 6 0 H z , 20 8 23 0 V CO O L I N G RA T E D C A P A C I T Y 18 0 0 0 B t u / H ( 5 . 2 8 k W CA P A C I T Y R A N G E 80 0 0 - 1 8 0 0 0 B t u / h ( 2 . 3 - 5 . 3 k W ) TO T A L I N P U T EN E R G Y E F F I C I E N C Y S E E R SE N S I B L E H E A T F A C T O R 21 5 0 W ( 2 . 2 0 0 k W ) 14 . 3 21 5 0 W ( 2 . 2 0 0 k W ) 0. 8 HE A T I N G A T 4 7 ° F RA T E D C A P A C I T Y CA P A C I T Y R A N G E TO T A L I N P U T HS P F ( R E G I O N I V ) 19 0 0 0 B t u / h ( 5 . 6 k W ) 15 4 0 W 1080 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 B t u / h ( 2 . 3 - 5 . 9 k W ) HE A T I N G A T 1 7 ° F CO P 2 . 5 B t u / B t u RE C O M M E N D E D FU S E / B R E A K E R S I Z E 15 A M P E R E RE F R I G E R A N T OI L T Y P E 0. 6 5 ( M E L 5 6 ) [ 2 0 ] TY P E R4 1 0 A CH A R G E 1. 7 [ 3 l b s 1 2 o z EX T E R N A L S T A T I C P R E S S U R E 0. 0 2 - 0 . 0 6 - 0 . 1 4 - 0 . 2 0 I n . W G ( 5 - 1 5 - 3 5 - P a ) AI R F L O W CO O L I N G : D R Y 12 - 1 5 - 1 8 C F M ( 4 2 3 - 5 2 9 - 6 3 5 m ³ / m i n CO O L I N G : W E T 11 - 1 4 - 1 7 m ³ / m i n ( 3 8 1 - 4 7 6 - 5 7 2 C F M ) DI M E N S I O N S H X W X D HE I G H T 7 - 7 / 8 I N C H E S ( 2 0 0 m m ) WI D T H 46 - 7 / 8 I N C H E S ( 1 1 9 0 m m ) DE P T H 2 7 - 9 / 1 6 I N C H E S ( 7 0 0 m m ) 60 l b s . ( 2 7 k g ) NE T W E I G H T 1- 9 / 3 2 I N C H E S ( 3 2 m m ) FI E L D D R A I N P P E S I Z E O . D . FL A R E D / F L A R E D RE F R I G E R A N T P I P I N G CO N N E C T I O N M E T H O D I N D O O R / O U T D O O R OP E R A T I O N C O N D I T I O N S - IN D O O R I N T A K E A I R TE M P E R A T U R E CO O L I N G - M A X I M U M - D B , W B 95 ° ( 3 5 ° C ) D B , 7 1 ° F ( 2 2 ° C ) W B CO O L I N G - M I N I M U M - D B , W B HE A T I N G - M A X I M U M - D B , W B HE A T I N G - M I N I M U M - D B , W B 67 ° ( 1 9 ° C ) D B , 5 7 ° F ( 1 4 ° C ) W B 80 ° ( 2 7 ° C ) D B , 6 7 ° F ( 1 9 ° C ) W B 70 ° ( 2 1 ° C ) D B , 6 0 ° F ( 1 6 ° C ) W B OP E R A T I O N C O N D I T I O N S - OU T D O O R I N T A K E A I R TE M P E R A T U R E CO O L I N G - M A X I M U M - D B , W B 11 5 ° ( 4 6 ° C ) D B CO O L I N G - M I N I M U M - D B , W B HE A T I N G - M A X I M U M - D B , W B HE A T I N G - M I N I M U M - D B , W B 0° ( - 1 8 ° C ) D B 70 ° ( 2 1 ° C ) D B , 5 9 ° F ( 1 5 ° C ) W B 12 ° ( - 1 1 ° C ) D B , 1 0 ° F ( - 1 2 ° C ) W B MO D E L N U M B E R P E A - A 1 8 A A 4 / P U Z - A 1 8 N H A 4 MI T S U B I S H I E L E C T R I C P - S E R I E S H E A T P U P - I N D O O R U N I T S V HV 4" BATH VENT SIDEWALL HOOD VENT MECHANICAL LEGEND MITSUBISHI HORIZONTAL DUCTLESS UNIT MINI SPLIT 220 FAN / VENTV HOOD FAN / VENTHVMechanicalPlansM1.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 320 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Me c h a n i c a l Ro o m Be d r o o m 9' - 2 " x 1 4 ' - 4 " 13 1 F T ² Li v i n g 17 ' - 1 0 " x 1 0 ' - 9 " 19 2 F T ² Li v i n g 17 ' - 1 0 " x 1 6 ' - 3 " 29 0 F T ² W/D Li v i n g 18 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 28 8 F T ² Ki t c h e n 18 ' - 0 " x 1 5 ' - 0 " 26 0 F T ² Ma s t e r B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 4 ' - 0 " 16 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 15 6 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 15 6 F T ² W/ D LO W E R L E V E L : M E C H A N I C A L P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " MA I N L E V E L : M E C H A N I C A L P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " V V V HV V V V 4" B A T H V E N T S I D E W A L L 4" B A T H V E N T S I D E W A L L HO O D V E N T 4" D R Y E R V E N T I N C R A W L SP A C E S I D E W A L L 4" B A T H V E N T S I D E W A L L 4" D R Y E R V E N T I N C R A W L SP A C E S I D E W A L L 4' V E N T W / D A M P E R SI D E W A L L MECHANICAL LEGEND MITSUBISHI HORIZONTAL DUCTLESS UNIT MINI SPLIT 220 FAN / VENTV HOOD FAN / VENTHVMechanicalPlansM1.1 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in San Luis Obispo, CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 109.02.15WORKING Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 321 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Winter Shading Diagram A5.0 SHEET No. 109No.Date Issue1520 11th Ave Suite G Seattle WA 98122 [206] 329-1654 © Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2013 These drawings were prepared for "Kraft House" project in Palm Springs,CA. They are not intended for use on any other project.elementalarchitecture.com Stated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft House San Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA Attachment F 14.f Packet Pg. 322 At t a c h m e n t : f - R e d u c e d P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, approximately 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista Avenue in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R -1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. Project Description The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment F, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 442 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Two stories with a max height at 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure Outdoor space for both units is provided through a combination of decks facing westward and on the roof, keeping all hardscape under 2,500 square feet. The remainder of the site would remain in its natural state. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, reduce glare, and screen freeway views from inside the house. As conditioned, landscaping to undisturbed portions of the site will be limited to native trees and plantings, which will help the home blend into the site. A rain catchment system has been proposed to provide controlled overflow release to maintain historical sheet flow of site drainage. 14.g Packet Pg. 323 At t a c h m e n t : g - D e t a i l e d P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure1) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces Lot 1 3 (1 space for SDU) 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations PROJECT ANALYSIS The project site is located within one of the City’s Hillside Planning Areas (The Cal Poly-Cuesta Park Area) the applicant has designed the project in accordance with the Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development Standards and the Land Use Element 6.4 Hillside Policies. The Community Design Guidelines are intended to assist in implementing General Plan Hillside Policies by minimizing the visibility and other impacts of allowable hillside development. Site Plan: The project has been designed on a legal residential property entirely within the urban reserve line. The proposed residence is located close to Buena Vista Avenue in order to design a driveway that minimizes the amount of grading to access the site (LUE 6.4.3.E). The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% sloped driveway which complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access . As discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, access from Loomis Street has been determined infeasible due to the 60% slope along Loomis Street and all utility connections have been provided for the site from Buena Vista Avenue. Grading: Per the City’s grading standards (MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The project has been designed to avoid a large single elevation graded pad and instead provides a more careful stepped foundation with piers that includes all required grading within the building area. The project complies with the City’s grading standards. Site Access: The residence is located close to the street in order to design a driveway that does minimizes the amount of grading to access the site (LUE 6.4.3.E). The Parking and Driveway 1 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. 14.g Packet Pg. 324 At t a c h m e n t : g - D e t a i l e d P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% slope of the driveway. The driveway complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access2. Height Exceptions: Section 17.16.040 of the zoning ordinance establishes the maximum building height per zone. Any variation from these limits requires the approval of a variance except for buildings within the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone and the Office (O) zone that may be approved through an Administrative Use Permit for a maximum height of 35 feet3. The use permit may be approved upon findings that the exception will be consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood and that the exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum building height from average natural grade4 where 25 feet is normally allowed in the R-1 zone (see Figure 1). From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as less than a single story structure due to the downslope of the driveway. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a relatively small building footprint. The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020, Yards, state that a 20 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone as measured from the right-of-way line to the nearest point of the wall of any building. The Parking and Driveway Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Site Access. Each driveway shall follow natural terrain contours to the maximum extent feasible to minimize both the extent of g rading and the visibility of the driveway… (c) A driveway shall not have a grade steeper than five percent within 10 feet of a garage or carport entry. Driveway finished grade shall not exceed an average of 15 percent. 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit). 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. 14.g Packet Pg. 325 At t a c h m e n t : g - D e t a i l e d P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The maximum slope allowed at this site for the proposed driveway is approximately 14%. The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% slope of the driveway, which places the ceiling of the garage at 28 feet above the average natural grade. The minor height exception of three feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site that limit the location of a required covered parking space in the R-1 zone. Maximum building height per zone has been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed three foot exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size, as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment F, Solar Study. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. Setback Exception: Section 17.16.020 Table 3 establishes the minimum required other yard setback for the R-1 zone. Other yard setbacks, more commonly known as side yard setbacks, are measured from the property line to the nearest point of the wall of any building5. The height of a building in relation to a yard setback is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured from a specific distance from the property line. For reference, a structure with a wall that is 35 feet tall that faces the side yard property line requires a setback of 15 feet in the R-1 zone. Section 17.16.020.E.2 identifies specific exceptions from the setback requirements that are discretionary through the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. These discretionary exceptions have to meet specific findings in order to grant approval. To clarify, these exceptions are not variances and are not required to meet variance findings. Any exception that is not identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2 would require the approval of a variance. The discretionary exception that is being requested for the proposed project is an exception to the other yard setback in relation to building height which may be granted upon finding any of the following circumstances identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2.e.6 5 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. 6 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted i n any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. 14.g Packet Pg. 326 At t a c h m e n t : g - D e t a i l e d P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Upon approval of a use permit, the director (now Planning Commission) may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. The applicant is requesting a 12-foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 12 square feet of the structure would intrude up to 3 feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the sloping nature of the site, and the fact that the setback adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, (open space), this minor setback exception will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access or privacy. Special Considerations Overlay: Chapter 17.56 of the Zoning Regulations stipulates that a property with a Special Considerations (S) zone overlay requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit before any use may be established. The intent of the Permit is to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings and conformance with the General Plan. The Special Considerations zone overlay was added to this location to address development on the sloping site and views from Highway 101. An Administrative Hearing Officer (now the Planning Commission) may establish conditions relating to improvements, building location, or access which are more restrictive than provided in the underlying zone, in order to fulfill the intent of Special Consideration zone overlay. The proposed single-family residence at this location has been designed in a way that minimizes impacts related to development on the sloping site in conformance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and Hillside Development Guidelines. By locating the residence as close to the street as possible, while maintaining adequate street yard setback requirements, significantly reduces the amount of grading (35 cubic yards) that would otherwise be necessary for the driveway. The proposed single-family residence has been designed in a way that keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. In conclusion, the single family residence has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. A full project evaluation for compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the City’s Grading Ordinance will be conducted as part of the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Building Design: The Community Design Guidelines state that the building design of an infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood. The Land Use Element Hillside Development Policies state that development of structures on hillsides shall keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes, avoid large continuous walls, and use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape (LUE 6.4.3). 14.g Packet Pg. 327 At t a c h m e n t : g - D e t a i l e d P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Hillside Integration: The residence has been designed and located on site that does not block views from adjacent properties. There are no privacy concerns from the roof deck as the adjacent property to the north is zoned Conservation Open Space. The property to the south has not yet been developed and can provide adequate room on the site for a building to be designed that includes private outdoor space, due to the odd L-shape of the lot. The structure is also located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101 or Cuesta Park; two existing residences are located approximately 30 feet above the subject property directly on the ridgeline7. All hillside vegetation will be retained to the maximum extent feasible, so not to destroy the natural character of the site. The property can also be viewed from Highway 101 Southbound; the project site is located outside of the State designated scenic corridor as the project site is within city limits. The residence is only prominently visible from Highway 101 for approximately 18 seconds (when traveling at posted speed limits) from a distance of 3,000 feet, prior to this stretch of Highway 101 the hillside that the project site is located on is insignificant when compared to the views of the surrounding hillsides. Views toward the property are also compromised by several billboards and existing residences on the hillside that project above the ridgeline. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories that decrease the mass of the structure when viewed from Highway 101. Required landscaping further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Over time the proposed Oak trees will provide additional screening of the property when viewed from Highway 101 similarly to the two residences at the top of the ridgeline. Form and Mass: The proposed residence is located within an eclectically designed neighborhood with residences ranging in size from 4,230 square feet to 1,500 square feet. The average home size in the neighborhood is approximately 2,633 square feet (excluding the garage). The residence has been designed below the average at 1,921 square feet and is compatible with the neighborhood. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets, recessed windows and entries, balconies, and the slope of the lot to relieve the form and mass of the building. 7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Placement of Structures. Each proposed structure shall be located so that: (c) The silhouetting of a structure against the sky above the nearest ridge or knoll when viewed from a public street is minimized. Figure 1: (Left) rendering from downhill (Right) rendering from Highway 101. 14.g Packet Pg. 328 At t a c h m e n t : g - D e t a i l e d P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Colors and Materials: The design of the residence includes exterior colors that emphasize dark earth tones that blend the structure with the natural appearance of the hillside and emphasizes wood as the primary natural-appearing material. The structure demonstrates consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. All elevations include interesting architectural treatments. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, which reduce glare from the exterior windows. Staff is in support of the proposed colors and materials because they are consistent with the Hillside Development standards for building design. Roof Deck: Per the City’s grading standards (MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the SDU and providing usable outdoor space on the project site is limited due to slope and grading requirements. The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.21.D.1(g)) allow provision of outdoor space within above ground decks or balconies as long as minimum space requirements are met including a minimum dimension of 6-feet in every direction; the project complies with this requirement. Height of Lowest Floor Level: The applicant’s original design of the residence included a third level that was proposed in order to maintain compliance with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development8. In order to address concerns from the Planning Commission Hearing on September 23, 2015 the applicant met with city staff and evaluated removing the third level from the residence and alternatively cantilevering the main floor over the natural grade of the site to exceed a height of six feet on the north-east corner of the residence, see Figure 2. Staff supports the proposal because the removal of the third level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. Staff is in support of the columns below the lowest floor on the downhill side to exceed six feet with an unenclosed design to be an integral feature of the architectural design. 4.3 Secondary Dwelling Unit: The purpose of Chapter 17.21 is substantially served. The proposed project meets all performance standards for Secondary Dwelling Units, set forth by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.21.010). Table 1 below summarizes the performance standards and indicates if each is met, not met, or not applicable. 8 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Height of Lowest Floor Level. The vertical distance between the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure should not exceed six feet. Figure 2: (top) Original three level design (bottom) Revised two level design. 14.g Packet Pg. 329 At t a c h m e n t : g - D e t a i l e d P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Project Analysis – Kraft Residence – File No. USE-1520-2015/SDU-1521-215 Attachment G Table 1: Summary of Performance Standards - Secondary Dwelling Units # Performance Standard Status 1 Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. Complies 2 Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Complies 3 Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. Complies 4 Secondary dwelling units should also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code 9930) Complies 5 The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Unless adequate setbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units that result in two-story construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow for solar access and reduced overlook. Complies 6 Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. Complies 7 Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Complies 8 Significant alterations to landform or removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged. Complies 9 A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate parking areas from adjacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be required for areas between secondary unit and adjacent properties Complies 10 Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district. For two care garages, parking for primary dwelling may be provided in tandem to allow one parking space in the driveway for the secondary dwelling unit. Complies 11 Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property. N/A The project is also consistent with Purpose “4” (Section 17.21.010) for Secondary Dwelling Units because the project expands housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. The project is also consistent with Housing Element Program 6.109 because it increases residential density at an appropriate location and the incorporation of Assembly Bill 1866 (2003) which encourages creation of Secondary Dwelling Units. 9 General Plan Housing Element Program 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. 14.g Packet Pg. 330 At t a c h m e n t : g - D e t a i l e d P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 331 At t a c h m e n t : h - S - O v e r l a y O r d i n a n c e 0 7 5 5 ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 332 At t a c h m e n t : h - S - O v e r l a y O r d i n a n c e 0 7 5 5 ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 333 At t a c h m e n t : h - S - O v e r l a y O r d i n a n c e 0 7 5 5 ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 334 At t a c h m e n t : h - S - O v e r l a y O r d i n a n c e 0 7 5 5 ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 335 At t a c h m e n t : h - S - O v e r l a y O r d i n a n c e 0 7 5 5 ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 336 At t a c h m e n t : h - S - O v e r l a y O r d i n a n c e 0 7 5 5 ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 337 At t a c h m e n t : h - S - O v e r l a y O r d i n a n c e 0 7 5 5 ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Attachment H 14.h Packet Pg. 338 At t a c h m e n t : h - S - O v e r l a y O r d i n a n c e 0 7 5 5 ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Meeting Date: September 23, 2015 Item Number: #2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-overlay zone that includes a height exception and a setback exception, with a categorical exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2390 Loomis Street & BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner 48 Buena Vista Avenue Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1520-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) to allow development of a single-family residence with exceptions to property development standards, subject to findings and conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines BACKGROUND The applicant has applied for an Administrative Use Permit to request to allow construction of a single family residence in the Single Family Residential Zone with Special Considerations overlay (R-1-S) zone, with exceptions to allow a maximum height of 28 feet from average grade where 25 feet would be allowed, and a 12 foot yard setback where 15 feet would be required. The home and secondary dwelling would occupy an existing legal lot and also be subject to architectural review. A use permit is required to allow the establishment of any new use within the Special Considerations (S-overlay) zone. The S-overlay is in place at the subject location due to the visibility of Highway 101 and the sensitive nature of hillside development. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 339 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 2 On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project, members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address the concerns of the members of the public for developing a single-family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at the subject location. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW At the discretion of the Community Development Director, an Administrative Use Permit may be referred to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director has referred this review to the Planning Commission given the public controversy of developing the site. The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The design review of the proposed house and secondary dwelling unit will occur separately from this Use Permit through a minor architectural review permit SDU-1521-2015. Secondary dwelling unit regulations state that all requests shall be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and no additional application fees for architectural review shall be required (Zoning Regulations 17.21.010). Because the secondary dwelling unit is attached to the residence, the architectural design of both the residence and the secondary dwelling unit will be reviewed through the application SDU-1521-2015. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, approximately 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) Lot Coverage Existing: 0% Proposed: 12% Allowed: 40% The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade of approximately 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 340 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 2.2 Project Description The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,802 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 438 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Three stories with a max height at 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure Outdoor space for both units is provided through a combination of decks facing westward and on the roof, keeping all hardscape under 2,500 square feet. The remainder of the site would remain in its natural state. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, reduce glare, and screen freeway views from inside the house. As conditioned, landscaping to undisturbed portions of the site will be limited to native trees and plantings, which will help the home blend into the site. A rain catchment system has been proposed to provide controlled overflow release to maintain historical sheet flow of site drainage. 2.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure 1) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces Lot 1 3 (1 space for SDU) 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations 1 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 341 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 Other Yard Building Height Exception: Upon approval of a use permit, the director may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure 2. The applicant is requesting a 12 foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 17 square feet of the structure would intrude up to three feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site, and the yard adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, a setback exception at this location is warranted to allow for a logical floor plan for the residence that will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access. Height exception: The applicant is also requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum height from average natural grade 3 where 25 feet is normally allowed (See Figure 1). With the approval of an administrative use permit an exception can be requested in the Low Density Residential zone for a maximum height of up to 35 feet 4. From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as a one story building due to the steep slope of the site. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a smaller building footprint. The steep slope of the site in this location means that the average height calculates to 28 feet instead of 25 feet above the average natural grade. The height exception for the additional 3-feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site including topography, setbacks, and grading requirements. The additional 3 feet will not deprive the adjacent lots of any solar exposure as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment 3 Project Plans page A5.0. 2 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit) Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 342 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 Secondary Dwelling Unit: The purpose of Chapter 17.21 is substantially served. The proposed project meets all performance standards for secondary dwelling units, set forth by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.21.010). Table 1 below summarizes the performance standards and indicates if each is met, not met, or not applicable. Table 1: Summary of Performance Standards - Secondary Dwelling Units # Performance Standard Status 1 Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. Complies 2 Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Complies 3 Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. Complies 4 Secondary dwelling units should also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code 9930) Complies 5 The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Unless adequate setbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units that result in two-story construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow for solar access and reduced overlook. Complies 6 Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. Complies 7 Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Complies 8 Significant alterations to landform or removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged. Complies 9 A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate parking areas from adjacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be required for areas between secondary unit and adjacent properties Complies 10 Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district. Parking for secondary dwelling units may be provided in tandem to allow one parking space in the driveway for the secondary dwelling unit. Complies 11 Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property. N/A The project is also consistent with Purpose “4” (Section 17.21.010) for secondary dwelling units because the project expands housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 343 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 3.2 Consistency with the General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element Residential Project Objectives (LUE 2.3.11) because the project includes adequate usable outdoor area, allows for pleasant views towards the project, and adequate parking is provided. The project design is consistent with the Land Use Element policy for Compatible Development (LUE 2.3.9) because the project continues the rhythm of development that reflects the existing development in the area including front yard setbacks, street orientation, and architectural design. The project is also consistent with Housing Element Program 6.10 5 because it increases residential density at an appropriate location and the incorporation of Assembly Bill 1866 (2003) which encourages creation of Secondary Dwelling Units. 4.0 CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow a single-family residence with a minor setback reduction and a height exception of 3 feet. The additional 3 feet will not deprive the adjacent lots of any solar exposure. The setback reduction is warranted due to the abnormal lot lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site, and the adjacent land designation C/OS-5, that will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access. The property is a legal lot that is within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address development on the hillside. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Administrative Hearing August 27, 2015 (Staff Report) 4. Project Plans 5. Solar Study 5 General Plan Housing Element Program 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 344 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES A HEIGHT EXCEPTION AND A SETBACK EXCEPTION WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The 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 proposed addition will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will not constitute a grant of special privilege due to the constraints of the site that include an increasing average slope along the rear property line. 3. The adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar access because the portion of the residence requiring a setback exception will cast no greater shadow than the portions of the residence which meet the setback/height requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations. 4. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 345 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) 5. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in such that; the proposed project keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slopes, and site grading is kept to a minimum. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application USE- 1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The proposed secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed separate from this Administrative Use Permit per Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.21.010. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The minimum setback from the north property line to the proposed structure shall not be less than 12 feet with a maximum wall height of 28 feet from the natural average grade. 5. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 6. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 7. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 8. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 9. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 346 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. (Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 10. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 11. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 13. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 14. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 15. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 347 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 20. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 22. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 23. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 348 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) 24. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 26. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 27. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 28. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 29. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 349 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of September, 2015. _____________________________ Steven, Secretary Planning Commission Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 350 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 351 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 352 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 353 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 354 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 355 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 356 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 357 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 358 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 359 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 360 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 361 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 362 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 363 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment I 14.i Packet Pg. 364 At t a c h m e n t : i - P C H e a r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) PROJECT MODIFICATION OUTLINE FOR OCTOBER 28TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 48 Buena Vista (approximate) | San Luis Obispo, CA | APN# 052-136-045 1. Use Permit a. R1 S zone (requires use permit) b. Requesting 2 minor exceptions 2. Secondary Dwelling Unit Applications After two public meetings I have made some major changes and additions to address the concerns and comments of the public, and the commissioners’ feedback. 1. A lower level was originally added to the house to meet the Hillside Design Guidelines: lowest level floor should be within 6’ of grade. As this lower level was met with a great deal of concern both on the long term use of the space and the overall mass of the house, we have eliminated it. The result is a 38% reduction of mass from the Eastern elevation, view from 101. The house now floats on the hillside with no large foundation wall. The subtle support system will fade into the shadow of the house and the natural landscape that goes under the house will blur the actual height of the house from grade as it will only be seen from 600 feet away and 150 feet below from 101 or from Loomis. This was our initial design and think it will be brilliant. 2. We have reduced the upper deck by 60% based on the neighbors’ and commissioners’ comments, however the SLO General Plan specifically encourages front porches and front yards to promote community connectivity. The space that was formerly deck will become the front yard with irrigation free turf. After learning from all of my neighbors how dangerous the road in front of my house is, I am sure the neighbors, the city, and I, do not want my grandchildren to have to play in the street on what is known as Dead Man’s Curve. The slope of the lot does not allow for a rear yard so this solution meets the intention of the general plan and keeps my grandchildren safe. Additionally, the upper deck is like a front porch, as it is only 6’ above the road, that may encourage community connectivity. As one of the speakers pointed out, she rarely got to talk to her neighbors; maybe the neighbors will join us for a glass of wine or at least a chat as they pass by in the street. Asking for this to be removed would go directly against the city’s General Plan. I believe the noise attenuation aspect of the use permit would be more of an issue if you had different zones/uses, in this case it is all residential and the noise caused by a deck is within the allowable decibel levels for a residential zone. In addition, the closest neighbor to the deck is 110’ away and 20’ above the deck. 3. There were a lot of concerns expressed about the safety aspects of this particular location. So to increase neighborhood safety we have added a very space efficient rolled curb and gutter with sidewalk along our entire property to help get pedestrians off of the street on what is reported to be a dangerous curve. Additionally, I am Attachment J 14.j Packet Pg. 365 At t a c h m e n t : j - A p p l i c a n t R e s p o n s e L e t t e r ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) proposing to install five speedbumps, one before my driveway and four coming down the hill toward the curve to help control the speed of the cars coming down the hill. I am sure the neighbors will support this to improve the safety of pedestrians, particularly those walking their dogs in the neighborhood. Even though we have more than the required line of site in both directions on the curve to our driveway, the speed bumps will insure we will not have speeding cars coming down the hill when we are backing out of our driveway. 4. The concern over parking does not take into account that with the length of the driveway and the garage we have room for up to six cars. The Secondary Dwelling Unit is less than 450 square feet, a studio apartment sized for one person, a couple at most. I would hardly describe the house as a multifamily situation. The SDU requires the house or SDU to be owner occupied so the concern of this being a student rental has no basis. One of the Commissioners kept referring to my request for variances. I am not asking for any variances. I am asking for two minor exceptions, both of which are addressed in the ordinances and I meet the guidelines for being granted both exceptions. Per 17.21.010 Secondary Dwelling Units, D. 1. b. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. The recommendation by one of the planning commissioners to not grant me any (variances) exceptions because I am asking for a Secondary Dwelling Unit, is not appropriate or understanding of why SDUs are allowed by rights per the state of California. The two requested exceptions to the City’s Property Development Standards are in the first case absolutely necessary to build the house, and the second case is well within the guidelines for granting such request for exceptions. No one is affected negatively by either one. 17.16.040 Height Maximum height R1 residential 25 ft. (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit) 1. Requesting 28’ Maximum Height exception. This exception is required based on the maximum allowable driveway slope and height needed for the required garage. Due to the slope of the property and the above stated facts the minimum height based on average slope is 27’10”. This height is set back the required 12’ from the property line. This exception is below the maximum allowable exception of 35’ and is necessary to meet the covered parking requirement. Please note that even with this exception, the highest point on the house is only 6’ above the street level and does not affect the view of any neighbor. Attachment J 14.j Packet Pg. 366 At t a c h m e n t : j - A p p l i c a n t R e s p o n s e L e t t e r ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) 17.16.020 Yards 2. Requesting a 12’ yard setback on less than 1% portion of the structure, when a 15’ is required. On the Northeast corner I am asking for an exception on the required yard setback due to the extreme slope. If I use the average grade dimension, I meet the setback but my understanding is you must use the most restrictive method. In this case I have a very small area that is less than the required yard based on the existing grade. The corner of the building measures 35’ from existing grade which requires a 15’ setback and I am proposing a 12’ setback. The area in question equates to .79%-- less than 1% of the total building square footage. In support of this request the bordering property is zoned COS 5. This zoning allows for 1 house per 5 acres. In addition, it requires a 20’ minimum yard, so that means that if someone chose to build a house as close as they could to mine, which is unlikely given their large 5-acre parcel and this is the steepest part of their property, the closest it could be is 32’. Additionally, there is a property line between two lots splitting my house so no one will build there. This exception is a total of less than 13’ over a 240’ common property line or less than 1 %. I believe this clearly meets the criteria outlined below. Director may allow exceptions to the standards provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5 of subsection C2 of this section. Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances, but in no case shall exceptions be granted for less than the minimum yard required: (Ord. 1365 (2000 Series) (part)) i. When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning; ii. When the exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. My request meets both of these findings and therefore should be granted. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of my request as well as your input on ways to improve my project. Please call or email me with any questions or additional information you may require. Jeff Kraft 503-575-5320 jkraft503@gmail.com Attachment J 14.j Packet Pg. 367 At t a c h m e n t : j - A p p l i c a n t R e s p o n s e L e t t e r ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) a p p e a l ) Meeting Date: October 28, 2015 Item Number: #1 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Second review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-overlay zone that includes height and setback exceptions, with a Categorical Exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2390 Loomis Street & BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner 48 Buena Vista Avenue Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1520-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving height and setback exceptions for the development of a single-family residence, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines SUMMARY The applicant has requested to construct a single-family residence in the R-1-S zone that includes height and setback exceptions on a sloping lot. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on September 23, 2015, and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the project to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6). Staff has reviewed the applicant’s response to Planning Commission direction items and finds the modified project plans and supporting information in compliance with Planning Commission direction. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 368 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) project based on findings, and subject to conditions. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission continued the project on September 23, 2015, to a date uncertain with direction (discussed in Section 3.0 below). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) and architectural design of the residence will be reviewed through a separate application SDU-1521-2015. The SDU regulations state that nothing prohibits an applicant from requesting exceptions or variances from any other section of the Zoning Regulations 1. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Background On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project. Members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address public concerns over site development. On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a hearing to review the proposed project and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6). Specific Planning Commission directional items to be addressed by the applicant included: 1) Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 2) Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. 3) Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. 2.2 Site Information/Project Description/Project Statistics A detailed description of the site, project description and statistics can be found in the September 23, 2015, Planning Commission staff report which is Attachment 5 to this report. 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS At the September 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting the following directional items was provided to the applicant prior to taking final action on the project; 3.1 Directional Item #1: Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 1 Zoning Regulations 17.21.010.D.1; Performance Standards: Design Standards: Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 369 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) The applicant has revised project plans to remove the lower level of the residence and cantilever the middle floor (now, the lowest level) over the existing slope. The applicant has expressed that the intent of the residence was not to include a third level, however, a third level was provided to satisfy the Hillside Development Guidelines (Attachment 8, Applicant Response Letter). Conclusion #1: Hillside Development Guidelines state that the lowest floor level should not exceed a vertical distance of six feet from the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure. To meet this requirement a third level was originally proposed. To determine compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines a finding will have to be made through the architectural review application SDU -1521-2015 that the removal of the lowest level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides for a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. This evaluation will occur following the Planning Commission’s review and action on the project. 3.2 Directional Item #2: Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. Due to the steep slope of the site there is limited space to provide private usable outdoor space for the residence. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the Secondary Dwelling Unit. In order to meet this requirement and maintain consistency with the Hillside Development Standards, the least impactful location on the site to provide this outdoor space is through the use of the roof and balconies. The size of the roof deck has been designed as the primary outdoor area for the primary residence. A balcony has been provided for the SDU that meets required private outdoor space. Absent adequate usable outdoor space on the site, the applicant has expressed concerns that his children may choose to play on the street. The applicant has revised the roof deck design to include artificial turf for a portion of the space (Attachment 8, Applicant Response Letter). Conclusion #2: The closest existing residence to the property is located approximately 20 feet in elevation above the roof deck and over 110 feet away. It is not anticipated that noise generated from use of the roof deck will negatively impact adjacent neighbors more than any other usable outdoor area on any neighboring property, due to its location in relation to neighboring properties. In addition, the proposed roof deck does not generate any overlook concerns because the immediate adjacent properties are undeveloped. The property to the south that may accommodate future development has sufficient developable space that will not be affected by this project because the project complies with all applicable setback requirements along the adjoining property line shared between these two properties. The property to the north is designated as permanent open space that is over two acres in size; the project proposal will have no effect on this property. For these reasons staff is in support of the roof deck as proposed. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 370 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) 3.3 Directional item #3: Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. Conclusion #1: Staff has provided additional information to further clarify the requested exceptions and findings to support their approval consistent with the Zoning Regulations, please see sections below; Special Considerations Overlay: Chapter 17.56 of the Zoning Regulations stipulates that a property with a Special Considerations (S) zone overlay requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit before any use may be established. The intent of the Permit is to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings and conformance with the General Plan. The Special Considerations zone overlay was added to this location to address development on the sloping site and views from Highway 101. An Administrative Hearing Officer (now the Planning Commission) may establish conditions relating to improvements, building location, or access which are more restrictive than provided in the underlying zone, in order to fulfill the intent of Special Consideration zone overlay. The proposed single-family residence at this location has been designed in a way that minimizes impacts related to development on the sloping site in conformance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and Hillside Development Guidelines. By locating the residence as close to the street as possible, while maintaining adequate street yard setback requirements, significantly reduces the amount of grading (35 cubic yards) that would otherwise be necessary for the driveway. The proposed single-family residence has been designed in a way that keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right- of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. In conclusion, the single family residence has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. A full project evaluation for compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the City’s Grading Ordinance will be conducted as part of the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Height exception: Section 17.16.040 of the zoning ordinance establishes the maximum building height per zone. Any variation from these limits requires the approval of a variance except for buildings within the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone and the Office (O) zone that may be approved through an Administrative Use Permit for a maximum height of 35 feet 2. The use permit may be approved upon findings that the 2 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit). Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 371 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) exception will be consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood and that the exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum building height from average natural grade 3 where 25 feet is normally allowed in the R-1 zone (see Figure 1). From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as less than a single story structure due to the downslope of the driveway. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a relatively small building footprint. The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020, Yards, state that a 20 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone as measured from the right-of-way line to the nearest point of the wall of any building. The Parking and Driveway Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The maximum slope allowed at this site for the proposed driveway is approximately 14%. The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% slope of the driveway, which places the ceiling of the garage at 28 feet above the average natural grade. The minor height exception of three feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site that limit the location of a required covered parking space in the R-1 zone. Maximum building height per zone has been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed three foot exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right- of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 372 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size, as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment 4, Solar Study. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. Other Yard Building Height Exception: Section 17.16.020 Table 3 establishes the minimum required other yard setback for the R-1 zone. Other yard setbacks, more commonly known as side yard setbacks, are measured from the property line to the nearest point of the wall of any building 4. The height of a building in relation to a yard setback is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured from a specific distance from the property line. For reference, a structure with a wall that is 35 feet tall that faces the side yard property line requires a setback of 15 feet in the R-1 zone. Section 17.16.020.E.2 identifies specific exceptions from the setback requirements that are discretionary through the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. These discretionary exceptions have to meet specific findings in order to grant approval. To clarify, these exceptions are not variances and are not required to meet variance findings. Any exception that is not identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2 would require the approval of a variance. The discretionary exception that is being requested for the proposed project is an exception to the other yard setback in relation to building height which may be granted upon finding any of the following circumstances identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2.e.5 Upon approval of a use permit, the director (now Planning Commission) may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. The applicant is requesting a 12-foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 12 square feet of the structure would intrude up to 3 feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the sloping nature of the site, and the fact that the setback adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, (open space), this minor setback exception will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access or privacy. 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. 5 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 373 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 1989 the project site consisted of three lots approximately 5,000 square feet each that were proposed for a development project of three 3,000 square foot residences with access from Buena Vista (ARC 89-27 & U 1433). An Initial Study was required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of developing the three lots (ER 16-89). The Initial Study identified several mitigation measures requiring that the three lots be reconfigured into two legal lots. In 1990 the existing property was reviewed and approved for a Lot Line Adjustment that reconfigured the three lots into two legal lots (LLA 90-115). The two lots have been vacant since this that time and are individually owned. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Project Plans 4. Solar Study 5. PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report) 6. Draft PC Hearing Minutes 7. Applicant Response Letter Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 374 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 28, 2015 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; 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, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: Special Considerations Overlay 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 single family residence is proposed on a Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 375 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) legal lot and has been designed to be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in such that; the proposed project keeps a low profile below the ridgeline and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation, and site grading is kept to a minimum. 3. The project has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. 4. The project design incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside as viewed from Highway 101. 5. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks or height requirements because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. Height Exception 6. The additional three foot height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking space that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. Setback Exception 8. A reduced side yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar access or privacy. The portion of the residence requiring a setback exception is only 14 square feet in area and will cast no greater shadow than the portions of the residence which meet the setback/height requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations. 9. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 376 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application USE- 1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit and architectural design of the building shall be reviewed separate from this Use Permit per Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.21.010, through the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The minimum setback from the north property line to the proposed structure shall not be less than 12 feet with a maximum wall height of 28 feet from the natural average grade. 5. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 6. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 7. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 8. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 9. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 377 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. (Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 10. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 11. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary or permanent changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 13. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 14. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 15. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 16. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 378 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 17. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 18. 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. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 20. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 22. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 379 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) 23. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 25. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 26. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 27. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 28. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 29. 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. Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 380 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Utilities Department 30. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 31. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 32. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 33. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of October, 2015. _____________________________ Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director Planning Commission Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 381 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 382 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 383 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 384 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 385 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 386 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 387 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 388 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 389 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 390 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 391 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Attachment K 14.k Packet Pg. 392 At t a c h m e n t : k - P C H e a r i n g O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 ( S t a f f R e p o r t , R e s o l u t i o n , & M e e t i n g M i n u t e s ) ( 1 2 3 0 : 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e ( U S E - 1 5 2 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) THENewspaper of the Central Coast TMBUNE P JA.N2016 C'L' 3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 -0112 • (805) 781 -7800 In The Superior Court of The State of California TACHEO SECONDARY DweLUNQ uNn In and for the County of San Luis Obispo HE S- OV TF.i1 LAY 2UNi =, THAT IN IN THE A HEIGHT ND aA ft lex AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION �' CITYOF all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned . MIS was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AD # 2196322 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO The San Luis Obispo City Council Invites OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK all interested persons to attend a public at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was hearing on Tuesday, January 19, 2015, at published in the above -named newspaper and not in any 6:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Cham- supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit; ber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, STATE OF CALIFORNIA California, relative to the following: ss. 1. 49 BUENA Vl8TA AVENUE . REVIEW County of San Luis Obispo OF AN APP FILED BY JEFF KRA.7]L ThE PLANNING COMMIS.'I I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the TACHEO SECONDARY DweLUNQ uNn County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not HE S- OV TF.i1 LAY 2UNi =, THAT IN IN THE A HEIGHT ND aA ft lex interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at CEPTIOt� all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned A public hearing to consider an appeal o was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of the Planning Commission's decision to de ny the construcilon of a singie- famiiy rest THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation, Bence with an attached Secondary Dwell. printed and published daily at the City of San Luis Ing Unit in the S- Overlay zone. The Plan. nfng Commission considered the matter or Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice October 26, 2015. at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was Th1s application is on file at the City of LUIS published in the above -named newspaper and not in any Oblapo Community Development Depart. ment, 919 Palm Street. For more Informa. supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit; tion, you are Invited to contact Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner, at (805) 781-7524-or by JANUARY 8, 2016 that said newspaper was duly and email regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of The City Council may also discuss other general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior hearings or business items before or after Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on the items listed above. if you challenge the proposed project in court, you may be limit- June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code ad to raising only those issues you ar someone else raised at the public hearing of the State of California. described In this notice, or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the Reports for this meeting will be available foregoing is true and correct. for review in the City Clerk's office and on- lfne a1 www-s 09ly.drgon Wednesday, Jan- uary 13, 8016. Pleaw call the City Clark's Office at (805) 781 -7100 for mare informs. Ilon. The City Council meeting will be tale. (Signat - of Principal Clerk) vised live tin Charter Cable Channel 20 DATED: JANUARY 8, 2016 and live streaming on www.slocity.ora. AD COST: $167.20 Jan Ansolabehere Interim City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo [M )A. _8. 2016 2196322 48 Buena Vista Avenue USE-1520-2015 (PC Appeal) Review of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a new single family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-Overlay zone that includes a height and setback exception. January 19, 2015 Appellant: Jeff Kraft Recommendation 2 Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a single family residence at 48 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby approving the use permit to allow a single family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at 48 Buena Vista Avenue. Site Description Previous Review 1983 Hillside Planning Program Phase 2 Project site included within Urban Reserve 1990 Lot Line Adjustment Reduced the number of lots from three to two Both lots shown with Buena Vista access 2005 Street Abandonment Unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes 4 Previous Review Planning Commission's review due to: At the discretion of the Community Development Director, an Administrative Use Permit may be referred to the Planning Commission when it involves policy issues and/or public controversy 5 Previous Review 6 Admin Review August 27, 2015 PC Review September 23, 2015 PC Denial October 28, 2015 PC Appeal October 29, 2015 ARC Review January 11, 2016 CC Review January 19, 2016 Review elevated to PC Review continued with direction Use Permit Denied Use Permit Appealed Design Review and Recommendation to Council Planning Commission Action On October 28, 2015, the PC voted to deny the project based on the finding that; “The project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.” 7 Planning Commission’s Concerns Concerns that were identified at the hearing included: Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic Sidewalks & Street Parking Number of Bedrooms Secondary Dwelling Unit Roof Deck 8 Appeal Filed Appeal Letter (Kraft): On October 29, 2015, the applicant, Jeff Kraft, filed an appeal of the PC’s decision to deny the project, because the denial; Was not based on the directional items PC’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence Commissioners stated that they found no legal basis to deny the use permit 9 Project Description 10 The project will be reviewed separately for the Secondary Dwelling Unit and design through the architectural review process - application SDU-1521-2015. The proposed project includes: Two -story, 1,921 square-foot residence 442 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit Two -car garage Maximum height of 28 feet Project Description Project Description Project Description Pedestrian and Vehicle Traffic 14 The proposed project location includes: Maximum speed limit 25 mph Traffic line of site greater than 150 feet in each direction 33 foot long driveway No sight obstructions in the public right of way Uphill Line of Sight Downhill Line of Sight Sidewalks & Street Parking Street parking: Street parking is not required for residential development. All required parking is provided on site. Sidewalks: No existing sidewalks on Buena Vista. Sidewalks deferred to be installed at a later date per conditions of approval. 17 Project Description Number of Bedrooms & SDU Bedrooms: SFR – 4 bedrooms proposed SFR – High Occupancy Use Permit required for 6 or more persons. SDU: Studio layout Allowed by right when accessory to SFR Requires the property to be owner occupied Complies with all Property Development Standards 19 Project Description SDU Evaluation The proposed exception for the height and setback is allowed because; Setback Reduction of 3-feet •The exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. Building Height exception of 3-feet •The adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure considering the adjacent property is zoned Conservation Open Space. 21 Evaluation As currently proposed, the project complies with the City’s Hillside Grading Ordinance - •SLOMC 15.04.020.II.J101.6 •The topography of the site shall remain substantially in its natural state. 22 Recommendation Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a single family residence at 48 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby approving the use permit to allow a single family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at 48 Buena Vista Avenue. Height Exception Average Natural Grade 14% maximum driveway slope 3’ 25’ 8 foot maximum ceiling height Setback Exception 15’ 12’ Parking 13’ 20’ Solar Study Winter Solstice 8:00 am 12:00 (noon) 3:00 pm Property to the North is zoned Conservation /Open Space Glass Reflection Loomis Street Property Description Property Description Property Description Property Description Initial Study LLA 115 -90 ER 16-89 U 1433-89 MS 84-78 Initial Study Additional Environmental Findings Exceptions A.Location: where a project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. B.Cumulative Impact: successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. C.Significant Effect: significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. D.Scenic Highways: project which may affect environmental resources within a scenic highway. E.Hazardous Waste Sites: project located on a site with HW F.Historical Resources: project may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. 36 1. W h o w e a r e 2. D i f f i c u l t l o t , d e s i g n e d t o h a v e mi n i m a l i m p a c t 48 B u e n a V i s t a A v e n u e Ap p l i c a n t s : J e f f K r a f t + A n g e l a S c h m i e d e SL O C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g , J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Ab o u t O u r F a m i l y • J e f f – C a l P o l y a l u m n u s ; g r e w u p i n t h i s a r e a • A n g e l a – P h D f r o m S t a n f o r d i n H i g h e r Ed u c a t i o n ; c u r r e n t l y d e a n a n d h i g h e r e d co n s u l t a n t • 4 a d o p t e d d a u g h t e r s a n d 2 g r a n d c h i l d r e n ( 1 da u g h t e r c u r r e n t l y w o r k s i n S L O ) • J e f f ’ s 8 1 y e a r o l d m o t h e r w h o l i v e s n e a r b y an d p l a n s t o l i v e i n p r o p o s e d S D U • H o u s e d e s i g n e d f o r m u l t i - g e n f a m i l y a n d ag i n g i n p l a c e ( S D U + e l e v a t o r ) 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Th e P r o j e c t M e e t s A l l O r d i n a n c e s an d H i l l s i d e D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s • T h i s i s a l e g a l l o t , w i t h l e g a l a c c e s s o f f B u e n a Vi s t a • P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t r e c o m m e n d s a p p r o v a l ba s e d o n r e v i e w b y P l a n n i n g , B u i l d i n g , Po l i c e , F i r e , P u b l i c W o r k s , a n d U t i l i t i e s S t a f f • P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t pr o j e c t m e e t s a l l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( h o m e 27 0 s q f t s m a l l e r t h a n n e i g h b o r h o o d a v e r a g e in c l u d i n g S D U ) 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g 1 0 / 2 8 / 1 5 Co m m i s s i o n e r M a l a k : “I r e a l i z e a l o t o f p e o p l e d o n ’ t w a n t t h i s b u t I ca n ’ t f i n d a r e a s o n l e g a l l y o r w i t h i n t h e c i t y gu i d e l i n e o r o r d i n a n c e s , s o I w o u l d v o t e t o ap p r o v e t h i s . ” 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g 1 0 / 2 8 / 1 5 Co m m . D r a z e : “I c a n ’ t s e e a w a y t o d e n y t h i s p r o j e c t . ” 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g 1 0 / 2 8 / 1 5 Co m m i s s i o n e r D a n d e k a r : “V e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r m e t o f i n d a r e a s o n t o w h y we s h o u l d s a y n o b e c a u s e f r o m a u s e pe r m i t a n d f r o m m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r he i g h t a n d e x c e p t i o n s , i t i s d o i n g i t . ” 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g 1 0 / 2 8 / 1 5 Co m m . C h a i r L a r s o n : “ I d e a l w o r l d , t h e n e i g h b o r s w o u l d l i k e t o k e e p th i s v a c a n t a n d I d o n o t t h i n k t h a t i s p o s s i b l e . T h i s i s a l e g a l l o t . ” 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g 1 0 / 2 8 / 1 5 Co m m i s s i o n e r M u l t a r i : “S i n c e I a m i n t h e m i n o r i t y I t h i n k s o m e o n e el s e s h o u l d m a k e a m o t i o n . I c a n b u t I d o n ’ t th i n k i t w i l l p a s s . ” 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g 1 0 / 2 8 / 1 5 Co m m i s s i o n e r M u l t a r i : “M o t i o n t o d e n y . I t w i l l e n c o u r a g e t o o m a n y pe o p l e i n a d i f f i c u l t s i t e . F u n d a m e n t a l l y i t …i s n o t 1 9 0 0 i t i s 2 3 6 0 . P a r t o f t h e c o n c e r n - -n o d i n i n g r o o m , n o s t u d y . D e s i g n e d t o ho u s e l a r g e n u m b e r o f p e o p l e i n a d i f f i c u l t si t e . ” 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n “L a r g e n u m b e r o f p e o p l e ” • M o t i o n t o d e n y d i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t o u r la r g e f a m i l y Vi o l a t e s D e p t o f F a i r E m p l o y m e n t & H o u s i n g Co d e s : To d i s c r i m i n a t e t h r o u g h p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e la n d u s e p r a c t i c e s , d e c i s i o n s a n d au t h o r i z a t i o n s b e c a u s e o f … f a m i l i a l s t a t u s … 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n SL O H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 2 0 1 5 “L a r g e f a m i l i e s a r e i n c l u d e d a s a s p e c i a l ne e d s g r o u p b e c a u s e t h e y t y p i c a l l y r e q u i r e la r g e r d w e l l i n g s w i t h m o r e b e d r o o m s t h a n ty p i c a l l y n e e d e d b y m o s t h o u s e h o l d s . ” 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n He a l t h + S a f e t y 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n No s a f e t y i s s u e s o n r e c o r d • C i t y a p p r o v a l o f 2 l o t s r e d u c e d f r o m 3 , b a s e d on a c c e s s o f f B u e n a V i s t a . F i n d i n g s : “ … n o t li k e l y t o c a u s e s e r i o u s h e a l t h p r o b l e m s . ” • S L O c i t y s t a f f r e c o m m e n d e d p r o j e c t ap p r o v a l : “ Th e p r o j e c t h a s b e e n r e v i e w e d b y po l i c e , b u i l d i n g , f i r e , p u b l i c w o r k s , a n d u t i l i t i e s st a f f … ” • D e s p i t e d e n i a l , s e v e r a l c o m m i s s i o n e r s n o t e d no s a f e t y c o n c e r n s 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Pe r c e i v e d S a f e t y C o n c e r n s b y Ne i g h b o r s • “ D e a d M a n ’ s C u r v e ” – N o r e c o r d s o f a c c i d e n t s w i t h p o l i c e d e p t – N o s a f e t y c o m p l a i n t s o n r e c o r d u n t i l 2 0 1 5 – C u l d e s a c ( m i n i m a l t r a f f i c , s l o w e r s p e e d s ) – P e d e s t r i a n s c a n u s e e x i s t i n g w a l k i n g p a t h – O f f e r e d t o m i t i g a t e a n y p e r c e i v e d i s s u e s : sp e e d b u m p s , m i r r o r s , d e c o m p o s e d g r a n i t e al o n g en t i r e c u r v e of e x i s t i n g w a l k i n g p a t h 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Sa n t a Y n e z v s . B u e n a V i s t a Ra d i u s 6 0 % g r e a t e r t h a n m i n S L O r e q u i r e m e n t s No s i d e w a l k s St r e e t p a r k i n g b o t h s i d e s N o s t r e e t p a r k i n g 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w s + S i t i n g o f H o m e 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n CA S c e n i c H i g h w a y s • No t w i t h i n O f f i c i a l l y D e s i g n a t e d Sc e n i c H i g h w a y C o r r i d o r • Wi t h i n c i t y l i m i t s a n d n o t w i t h i n El i g i b l e S c e n i c H i g h w a y Co r r i d o r • Do e s n o t b l o c k t h e v i e w o f a n y ex i s t i n g s u r r o u n d i n g h o m e Vi e w f r o m 1 0 1 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Vi e w f r o m B u e n a V i s t a 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Ci t y C o u n c i l D e n i a l o f A p p e a l Me a n s … • L a n d u s e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t l a r g e f a m i l i e s • B l a t a n t d i s r e g a r d o f C i t y o f S L O e x p e r t re c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o a p p r o v e • N o t a d h e r i n g t o s m a r t g r o w t h p r i n c i p l e s : “G e n e r a l P l a n p o l i c i e s e n c o u r a g e i n f i l l de v e l o p m e n t t o a v o i d s p r a w l ” • R e l y i n g o n e m o t i o n a l N I M B Y o p i n i o n s a n d po l i t i c s i n s t e a d o f f a c t s , e v i d e n c e , a n d ex p e r t s 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Re b u t t a l 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Ha v i n g a d r i v e w a y a n d ad d i t i o n a l p a r k e d c a r s “has a t r a f f i c c a l m i n g e f f e c t . ” Ha l H a n n u l a Ci t y o f S L O S u p e r v i s i n g E n g i n e e r Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Pl a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n • D r a z e : “ T r a f f i c i s e x t r e m e l y l o w v o l u m e . ” • M u l t a r i : “ S o m e o f t h e c o n c e r n s t h a t h a v e be e n v o i c e d a r e n o t t h a t e s p e c i a l l y co m p e l l i n g . ” • M a l a k : “ C o n c e r n o f t h e r o a d ? M r . K r a f t h a s be n t o v e r b a c k w a r d , s p e e d b u m p s , si d e w a l k s s a t i s f y i n g t h e s a f e t y t h a t m e e t th e S o v e r l a y . I a m s t i l l i n f a v o r o f t h e pr o j e c t . ” 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n Lo o m i s s i t i n g n o t p o s s i b l e • S a n t a Y n e z p a p e r s t r e e t a b a n d o n e d • A c c e s s o f f B u e n a V i s t a i s a l e g a l r i g h t ba s e d o n S u b d i v i s i o n M a p A c t • W o u l d r e q u i r e a b o u t 3 0 0 f t o f d r i v e w a y • L o n g d r i v e w a y w o u l d i n c r e a s e h e i g h t • B a s e o f l o t d r o p s o f f a n d w o u l d r e q u i r e ex t e n s i v e g r a d i n g , i n v i o l a t i o n o f G r a d i n g Or d i n a n c e 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n De s i g n G u i d e l i n e s • C o m p a t i b l e w i t h d i v e r s i t y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e i n ne i g h b o r h o o d • S e v e r a l n e a r b y h o m e s w i t h f l a t r o o f a n d mo n o l i t h i c w a l l s • 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a p l a n p r o v i d e s a r t i c u l a t i o n an d b r e a k u p o f m a s s t h r o u g h d e c k s , p o p - ou t d e t a i l s , a n d d i f f e r e n t m a t e r i a l s 1/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 I t e m 1 4 - Ap p e l l a n t p r e s e n t a t i o n CITY COUNCIL 19 JANUARY 2016 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation 01-19-2016, Item 14 Cochran - Public Comment Presentation