San Luis Obispo City Council
January 11, 2022

/LYLQJ

[

6HFRQG)ORRU
64)7
)LUVW)ORRU

64)7
3ODQ
%HG%DWK
1HW64)7





/DX
.LWFKHQ
:,&
3ZGU
0DVWHU%DWK
0DVWHU
%DWK /LQ
3
&RDW
:,&
:,&
0%HGURRP

[






%HGURRP

[

0%HGURRP

[

%HGURRP

[

%DWK
/LQ
'LQLQJ

[


'Q 8S
3RUFK
3ULYDWH2SHQ
6SDFH9DULHV
$GMDFHQW3ODQ
6((/$1'6&$3(
3/$16)25',0(16,216
$$ 81,73/$16   %81*$/2:
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


3ODQ
%HG%DWK

1HW64)7








)LUVW)ORRU

64)7
6HFRQG)ORRU

64)7
0%HGURRP

[

%HGURRP

[

%HGURRP

[

0DVWHU
%DWK
%DWK
:,&
:,&
/DX
/LYLQJ

[

'LQLQJ


[


.LWFKHQ
3
3ZGU
0%HGURRP

[

0DVWHU
%DWK
&RDW
/LQ
/LQHQ
'Q 8S
3RUFK
3ULYDWH2SHQ
6SDFH9DULHV
$GMDFHQW3ODQ
6((/$1'6&$3(
3/$16)25',0(16,216
$$ 81,73/$16   %81*$/2:
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$% 675((76&(1( 176 /,9(:25.
6LWH3ODQ176
$%

$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$% 3(563(&7,9( /,9(:25.

)URQW(OHYDWLRQ





0D[LPXP


/HIW(OHYDWLRQ
5LJKW(OHYDWLRQ 5HDU(OHYDWLRQ
 678&&2
 678&&275,0
 &(0(17,7,2866,',1*
 &(0(17,7,28675,0
 6721(9(1((5 :22'&2/801
 :22'5$,/,1*
 $/80,1806725()5217
 '(&25$7,9(&25%(/
 '(&25$7,9(287/22.(5 :22'$:1,1* 67((/$:1,1* *$5$*('225 /,*+7),;785( 3276+(/) 0$7(5,$//,67
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$% (/(9$7,216     /,9(:25.

6HFRQG)ORRU
)LUVW)ORRU
7KLUG)ORRU








 

 

 3F 3F 3F 3E 3E 3E 3D 3D 3D 3E 3E 3E 3D 3D 3D 3E 3E 3E 3D 3D 3D 3E 3E 3E (OHF &DELQHW /RZ 9ROWDJH )LUH 5LVHU $% %8,/',1*3/$16     /,9(:25.
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


6HFRQG)ORRU
64)7
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7
3ODQD
%HG%DWK
1HW64)7

64)73ULYDWH2SHQ6SDFH
/DX
.LWFKHQ
:,&
0DVWHU
%DWK
3
%HGURRP

[

/LQ
*UHDW5RRP

[

%DOFRQ\

[


64)7
8S












7KLUG)ORRU
64)7
%HGURRP

[

0%HGURRP

[

%DWK
'Q
8S
3ZGU
3ZGU
5HWDLO

[

64)7
*DUDJH

[

64)7
)$8
/LQ
'Q
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$% %8,/',1*3/$16   /,9(:25.

6HFRQG)ORRU
64)7
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7
3ODQE
%HG%DWK

1HW64)7
64)73ULYDWH2SHQ6SDFH
.LWFKHQ
:,&
0DVWHU
%DWK
3
%HGURRP

[

/LQ
*UHDW5RRP

[

%DOFRQ\

[


64)7
8S













7KLUG)ORRU
64)7
%HGURRP

[

0%HGURRP

[

'Q
8S
3ZGU
3ZGU
5HWDLO

[

64)7
*DUDJH

[

64)7
/DX
%DWK
)$8
/LQ
'Q
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$% %8,/',1*3/$16   /,9(:25.

6HFRQG)ORRU


64)7
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7
3ODQF
%HG%DWK
1HW64)7
64)73ULYDWH2SHQ6SDFH
.LWFKHQ
:,&
0DVWHU
%DWK
3
%HGURRP

[

/LQ
*UHDW5RRP


[

%DOFRQ\

[


64)7
8S

 
 

7KLUG)ORRU
64)7
%HGURRP

[

0%HGURRP

[

'Q
8S
3ZGU
3ZGU
5HWDLO

[

64)7
*DUDJH

[

64)7
/DX
%DWK
)$8
/LQ
(OHF
/RZ
9ROW
(OHF





'Q
)LUH
5LVHU
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$% %8,/',1*3/$16   /,9(:25.

$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$& 3(563(&7,9( 322/5(&5($7,21

$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$& 3(563(&7,9( $3$570(176

$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$& 3(563(&7,9( $3$570(176

5HDU(OHYDWLRQ
/HIW(OHYDWLRQ )URQW(OHYDWLRQ
5HDU(OHYDWLRQ 5LJKW(OHYDWLRQ
/HIW(OHYDWLRQ )URQW(OHYDWLRQ
5LJKW(OHYDWLRQ
“

“






2IILFH

[

:RPHQ
V
5HVWURRP
0HQ
V
5HVWURRP
3RRO
(TXLSPHQW %LF\FOH
6KRZHUV
3RRO%XLOGLQJ

64)7
5HFUHDWLRQ%XLOGLQJ
64)7
/HDVLQJ

[

)LWQHVV

[

$FWLYLW\

[

6WRUDJH
8WLOLW\
5HVWURRP
(QWU\3RUWLFR










  678&&2
 678&&2 29(5)2$075,0
 '(&25$7,9(:528*+7,521
 *$5$*('225
 /,*+7),;785( '(&25$7,9(7,/(
 &21&5(7(67,/(522)
 %$<:,1'2:
 9,1</:,1'2:
 ),1,$/
 '(&25$7,9(.,&.(5 %5,&.9(1((5
0$7(5,$//,67
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$& 3/$16$1'(/(9$7,216     322/5(&5($7,21

/HIW(OHYDWLRQ )URQW(OHYDWLRQ
5LJKW(OHYDWLRQ 5HDU(OHYDWLRQ
 678&&2
 678&&229(5)2$075,0
 0(7$/5$,/,1*
 '(&25$7,9(:528*+7,521
 *$5$*('225
 /,*+7),;785(
 '(&25$7,9(7,/(
 6+877(56
 &21&5(7(67,/(522)
 %$<:,1'2: 9,1</:,1'2: :22'$:1,1* '(&25$7,9(0(7$/$:1,1* :22'&25%(/ %5,&.9(1((5 325&+ */$666281':$// 0$7(5,$//,67



 


0D[LPXP
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$& (/(9$7,216     %8,/',1*$$3$570(176&+(0(

)URQW(OHYDWLRQ

0D[LPXP
 678&&2
 678&&229(5)2$075,0
 0(7$/5$,/,1*
 '(&25$7,9(:528*+7,521
 *$5$*('225
 /,*+7),;785(
 '(&25$7,9(7,/(
 6+877(56

 &21&5(7(67,/(522)
 %$<:,1'2: 9,1</:,1'2: :22'$:1,1* '(&25$7,9(0(7$/$:1,1* :22'&25%(/ %5,&.9(1((5 325&+ */$666281':$// 0$7(5,$//,67



 

%DOFRQ\6HFWLRQDW*ODVV6RXQG:DOO
6FDOH
 







*ODVV6RXQG:DOO
0HWDO5DLOLQJ
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$& (/(9$7,216     %8,/',1*$$3$570(176&+(0($7/276

)URQW(OHYDWLRQ





0D[LPXP


/HIW(OHYDWLRQ
5LJKW(OHYDWLRQ 5HDU(OHYDWLRQ
 678&&2
 678&&229(5)2$075,0
 0(7$/5$,/,1*
 '(&25$7,9(:528*+7,521
 *$5$*('225
 /,*+7),;785(
 '(&25$7,9(7,/(
 6+877(56
 &21&5(7(67,/(522)
 %$<:,1'2: 9,1</:,1'2: :22'$:1,1* '(&25$7,9(0(7$/$:1,1* :22'&25%(/ %5,&.9(1((5 325&+ */$666281':$// 0$7(5,$//,67
%XLOGLQJ%%XLOGLQJ%
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$& (/(9$7,216     $3$570(176&+(0(

)URQW(OHYDWLRQ

0D[LPXP
/HIW(OHYDWLRQ
5LJKW(OHYDWLRQ 5HDU(OHYDWLRQ
 678&&2
 678&&229(5)2$075,0
 0(7$/5$,/,1*
 '(&25$7,9(:528*+7,521
 *$5$*('225
 /,*+7),;785(
 '(&25$7,9(7,/(
 6+877(56
 &21&5(7(67,/(522)
 %$<:,1'2: 9,1</:,1'2: :22'$:1,1* '(&25$7,9(0(7$/$:1,1* :22'&25%(/ %5,&.9(1((5 325&+ */$666281':$// 0$7(5,$//,67
%XLOGLQJ%;DWORWV%XLOGLQJ%;DWORWV



 

$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$& (/(9$7,216     $3$570(176&+(0(

*
**
%XLOGLQJ$
64)7














3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7
6HFRQG)ORRU
*URVV64)7
7KLUG)ORRU
*URVV64)7
)LUH
5LVHU
(OHF
&DELQHW
/RZ
9ROWDJH
$& %8,/',1*3/$16     $3$570(17
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


*
*****
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7














3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3 3 3
6HFRQG)ORRU

*URVV64)7
7KLUG)ORRU

*URVV64)7
%XLOGLQJ%


64)7
3RUFKRQ%XLOGLQJ
%;DWORWV
(OHF
&DELQHW
/RZ
9ROWDJH
)LUH
5LVHU
$& %8,/',1*3/$16     $3$570(17
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


6HFRQG)ORRU
64)7
3ODQ
%HG%DWK

1HW64)7
64)73ULYDWH2SHQ6SDFH









7KLUG)ORRU
64)7
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7



:,&
0DVWHU
%DWK
0%HGURRP

[

/DX
3
.LWFKHQ *DUDJH 
[

64)7
83 3DWLR

[

64)7
8S
'Q
*UHDW5RRP

[

$& 81,73/$16   $3$570(17
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


6HFRQG)ORRU
64)7
3ODQ
%HG%DWK
1HW64)7
64)73ULYDWH2SHQ6SDFH
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7








 :,&
0DVWHU
%DWK
*UHDW5RRP

[

0%HGURRP

[

/DX
3
*DUDJH

[

64)7
3DWLR

[

64)7
8S
'Q
.LWFKHQ
$& 81,73/$16   $3$570(17
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


/LQ




6HFRQG)ORRU
64)7
3ODQ
%HG%DWK
1HW64)7
64)73ULYDWH2SHQ6SDFH
7KLUG)ORRU
64)7
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7









:,&
0DVWHU
%DWK
%DWK
3ZGU
%HGURRP

[

*UHDW5RRP

[

0%HGURRP

[

/DX
3
.LWFKHQ
*DUDJH

[


64)7
'Q
3DWLR

[

64)7
8S
8S
'Q
(96(
$& 81,73/$16   $3$570(17
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$




:,&
0DVWHU
%DWK
%DWK
3ZGU
%HGURRP

[

*UHDW5RRP

[
 %HGURRP

[
 0%HGURRP 
[

/DX
3
.LWFKHQ
*DUDJH

[


64)7
%DOFRQ\

[

64)7
'Q
8S
6HFRQG)ORRU
64)7
3ODQ
%HG%DWK
1HW64)7
64)73ULYDWH2SHQ6SDFH
7KLUG)ORRU
64)7
)LUVW)ORRU
64)7






%DWK
:,&
'Q 8S
(OHF&DELQHW
(96(
/LQ




/LQ
/RZ
9ROWDJH
$& 81,73/$16   $3$570(17
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


$ &$/,)251,$0,66,21'(7$,/6
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


,URQZRUNDW*DEOH(QG ,URQZRUNDQG7LOH
&KLPQH\ &ROXPQ
7LOH:LQGRZ6XUURXQG
,URQ5DLOLQJLQ$UFKHG2SHQLQJ
*DUDJH'RRU
'HFRUDWLYH6KXWWHUV
(DYH
5HFHVVHG:LQGRZZLWK+HDGHU &ROXPQVDW%DOFRQ\
7LOH
5HFHVVHG:LQGRZ :LQJZDOO $UFKHG%ULFN6XUURXQG
6RIILW6FDOORS

$ 0,66,215$1&+'(7$,/6
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


'RXEOH&ROXPQ 6LQJOH&ROXPQZLWK'LDJRQDO.LFNHU
%ULFN:LQGRZ7ULP
*DUDJH'RRU
:RRG5DLOLQJDQG2SHQLQJ
*DEOH(QG'HWDLOZLWK6LGLQJ
%D\:LQGRZ
)LEHU&HPHQW6LGLQJ
5HFHVVHG:LQGRZZLWK6KXWWHUV )URQW'RRU(QWU\
5HFHVVHG:LQGRZ

$ )$50+286('(7$,/6
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ

9RQ.DUPDQ$YH
6XLWH
,UYLQH&$




NWJ\FRP
%8//2&.5$1&+
6$1/8,62%,632&$
&21&(37'(6,*1
6(37(0%(5

%XOORFN5DQFK//&6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\
/RV$QJHOHV&$


:RRG5DLOLQJRQ:UDSDURXQG3RUFK
*DEOH(QG'HWDLOZLWK6LGLQJ
7UHOOLVRYHU%DOFRQ\ )LEHU&HPHQW6LGLQJDQG6WDQGLQJ6HDP5RRI %UDFHLQ*DEOH(QG (QWU\'RRUV 3RW6KHOYHV
*DUDJH'RRU :LQGRZ7ULP 6WRUHIURQWZLWK5HFHVVHG6LJQDJHRQ6WRQH 6WRUHIURQWZLWK,%HDP6LJQDJH

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\/RV$QJHOHV&$

 6$1/8,62%,632&$  
%XOORFN5DQFK 0$7(5,$/%2$5'
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
9RQ.DUPDQ$YH6XLWH,UYLQH&$


NWJ\FRP
$

BRICK VENEER
SUMMIT BRICK - 850-5 NUTMEG
STUCCO 1 - SW 7568 STUCCO 2 - SW 6037 SIDING - SW 7016 TRIM - SW 9171 ACCENT 1 - SW 6452 ACCENT 2 - SW 6529 ACCENT 3 - SW 7045 WINDOW FRAME - TAN ACCENT 4 - SW 7740 ACCENT 4 - SW 6167
STUCCO 2 - SW 6045
STUCCO 1 - SW 7757 ACCENT 1 - SW 0017 ACCENT 2 - SW 9071 ACCENT 3 - SW 7054 WINDOW FRAME - BRONZE TILE - TIERRA Y FUEGO 6X6 POINT LOMA SANTA BARBARA CALIFORNIA MISSION (APARTMENTS & BUNGALOWS) - SCHEME 1
ACCENT 4 - SW 6174
WROUGHT IRON-SW 7069
WINDOW FRAME - BRONZE ROOF - EAGLE CAPISTRANO 8830
CALIFORNIA MISSION (APARTMENTS & BUNGALOWS) - SCHEME 2
TILE - TIERRA Y FUEGO 6X6

RASARIO SANTA BARBARA
STUCCO 1 - SW 7529 ACCENT 1 - SW 7614
ACCENT 3 - SW 6173
SIDING - SW 7018 TRIM - SW 7046 ACCENT 2 - SW 6054

BRICK VENEER

SUMMIT BRICK - ESPRESSO
MISSION RANCH (BUNGALOWS) - SCHEME 2
WINDOW FRAME - TAN ROOF - EAGLE MALIBU 2530
ROOF - EAGLE CAPISTRANO 8820
MISSION RANCH (BUNGALOWS) - SCHEME 1
ROOF - EAGLE MALIBU 2702
STUCCO 2 - SW 7671
STUCCO 1 - SW 9173 ACCENT 1 - SW 7601 ACCENT 2 - SW 6062 ACCENT 3 - SW 2851 ACCENT 4 - SW 6174 WROUGHT IRON-SW 7069
STUCCO 2 - SW 6546

BRICK VENEER

SUMMIT BRICK - COUNTRY CLUB

BRICK VENEER

SUMMIT BRICK - ALAMEDA

%XOORFN5DQFK//&
6RXWK%RZOLQJ*UHHQ:D\/RV$QJHOHV&$

 6$1/8,62%,632&$  
%XOORFN5DQFK 0$7(5,$/%2$5'
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
9RQ.DUPDQ$YH6XLWH,UYLQH&$


NWJ\FRP
$
STUCCO 1 - SW 7102
ROOF - EAGLE 4697
ACCENT 1 - SW 6515
SIDING 1 - SW 6087 SIDING 2 - SW 6241 SIDING 3 - SW 6163 ACCENT 2 - SW 6081 WINDOW FRAME - WHITE

FARMHOUSE (LIVE WORK)
SIDING 4 - SW 7006
TRIM - SW 7006 ACCENT 3 - SW 6004 ACCENT 4 - SW 7047 METAL - SW 7069

STONE VENEER

CREATIVE MINES SPLIT MODULAR GRAYPEARL METAL ROOF - BERRIDGE ZINC GREY

Signage Program
1 Bullock Ranch Tentative Tract 3136
Allowed Commercial Signage at Mixed Used Building facing Ranch House Road and Recreation Building at western terminus of private Sponza extension
The following regulations shall govern allowed signage types and locations on the above referenced building.

General:

The project includes a sign program as required by Section 15.40.485 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of this sign program is to provide for project specific designs and sign accommodations that are compatible and appropriate signage which is compatible with the building design and site layout.

Allowed Locations are as follows:
18” H by 6’ L 18” H by 6’ L 18” H by 6’ L
18” H by 8’ L
18” H by 12’ L

2 Signage Program
Allowed Types:

This sign program includes a total of 11 signs. Table 1 breaks down the sign type, quantity, and size of each sign as shown on building elevations. Signage would be allowed on metal awnings over the door or on the wall for each live/work, commercial space and the recreation building. Wall signs can be made from wood, metal, or plastic. Wall signs may be painted on the wall or on a board that is attached to the wall. Signs may be illuminated externally or internally consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.40.430.

Table 1
Residential Monument Sign
The following design shown below shall govern the allowed one (1) residential monument sign for the project site. Sign materials include stucco, terra cotta, decorative spanish tile and lazer-cut lettering.

GENERAL LEGEND

OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH

S S S S S
215
215
220
220
235
231
232
233
234
225
230
23 226
227
228
229
231
232
233
234
1 OF 6
20210190 BULL0CK RANCH

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
TRACT 3136

BULLOCK RANCH
3580 BULLOCK LANE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
0 20' 40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'

BULLOCK LANE
STA 2+00 - 5+25
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 5+25
SEE SHEET 2
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 5+25
SEE SHEET 2

INITIAL OFFSITE

IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT

GENERAL LEGEND

OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH
OH

OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 220 218 219
221221
221
221 221
222
223
2 OF 6
20210190 BULL0CK RANCH

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
TRACT 3136

BULLOCK RANCH
3580 BULLOCK LANE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
0 20' 40' BULLOCK LANE
SCALE: 1" = 20'
STA 5+25 - 10+75
SEE SHEET 1
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 5+25
SEE SHEET 1
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 5+25
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 10+75
SEE SHEET 3
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 10+75
SEE SHEET 3

INITIAL OFFSITE

IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT

GENERAL LEGEND

OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH G
G
G
G G
G
G

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 215
211 212 213 214 216
200
205 210
8 217
Station
3 OF 6
20210190 BULL0CK RANCH

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
TRACT 3136

BULLOCK RANCH
3580 BULLOCK LANE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
0 20' 40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'

BULLOCK LANE
STA 10+75 - 16+25
SEE SHEET 2
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 10+75 SEE SHEET 2
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 10+75
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 16+25
SEE SHEET 4
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 16+25
SEE SHEET 4

INITIAL OFFSITE

IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT

4 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH
OH
OH
OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH ARV S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 213 214 213 214 215214 214
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH

GENERAL LEGEND
20210190 BULL0CK RANCH

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
TRACT 3136

BULLOCK RANCH
3580 BULLOCK LANE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
0 20' 40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'

BULLOCK LANE
STA 16+25 - 21+75
SEE SHEET 3
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 16+25 SEE SHEET 3
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 16+25
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 21+75
SEE SHEET 5
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 21+75
SEE SHEET 5
4 OF 6 INITIAL OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT

GENERAL LEGEND

OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 211
212 213
211
212
213
214
210
210
210
210
208
208
209
209
20210190 BULL0CK RANCH

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
TRACT 3136

BULLOCK RANCH
3580 BULLOCK LANE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
0 20' 40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'

BULLOCK LANE
STA 21+75 - 26+50
SEE SHEET 4
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 21+75
SEE SHEET 4
CONTINUATION LINE - STA 21+75
5 OF 6 INITIAL OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT

OH GENERAL LEGEND
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
235
234
230
235
229
231
232
233
234
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
235
234
230
235
229
231
232
233
234
O
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH

DEMOLITION LEGEND
6 OF 6
20210190 BULL0CK RANCH

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
TRACT 3136

BULLOCK RANCH
3580 BULLOCK LANE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401

INITIAL OFFSITE

IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT
0 10' 20'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
0 10' 20'
SCALE: 1" = 10'

ORCUTT AND BULLOCK - DEMOLITION PLAN ORCUTT AND BULLOCK - GRADING PLAN DETAIL 0 20' 40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'

SLO FIRE TRUCK TURNING DETAIL

BULLOCK RANCH LIGHTING PLAN

Townhome and recreational area lighting fixtures and locations

Center bungalow lighting fixtures and locations

Eastside lighting fixtures and locations

Attachment K
Project Modifications in Response to Planning Commission Direction Proposed Tot Lot:

Proposed Balcony Reconfiguration:

Original Balcony Configuration (typical):

Proposed Balcony Reconfiguration (typical):

MEMORANDUM
To: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo cc: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner, City of San Luis Obispo From: Brandi Cummings, SWCA
Date: January 19, 2021
Re: Response to SLOAPCD Comments on the Bullock Ranch ISMND This memorandum is provided in response to the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District’s (SLOAPCD’s) comment letter regarding the Bullock Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND; SCH #2020110448) dated December 28, 2020.

SLOAPCD Comment No. 1 (General Comments)
Health Risk from nearby Locomotives
While the SLOACPD supports infill development, development adjacent to sources where mobile sources produce diesel particulate matter can present health risks to residents. The initial study states that the proposed project would be located approximately 94 feet from a railroad. Future residents living in the proposed residential units would be exposed to diesel particulate matter from locomotives traveling on the railroad. Diesel particulate matter has been classified by the state as a toxic air contaminant and a carcinogen.

Recognizing the public disclosure role of CEQA, the ACPD recommends that the lead agency estimate and disclose potential health risks from the railroad to the future residents for informational purposes. The SLOAPCD also recognizes that the lead agency has authority to require mitigation measures for projects to protect public health and safety.

Should it be determined that mitigation of health impacts from this toxic emission source is necessary, the most effective measure is to locate the sensitive receptors (residential units) as far as feasible from the toxic source (the railroad), which will directly reduce cancer risk. Please note that implementing strategies such as air filtration systems, sound walls, and vegetation barriers have not been proven to be as effective as moving a sensitive receptor farther from the toxic source.

Response: The City recognizes potential air quality implications associated with the nearby railroad operations. However, the proposed project would not exacerbate existing potentially hazardous conditions associated with exposure to toxic emissions associated with railroad operations. It should also be noted that while the western property boundary is located approximately 94 feet from the railroad, actual development within the project would be increasingly distanced from the railroad moving east across the

Response to SLOAPCD Comments on the Bullock Ranch ISMND 2 site, to approximately 1,100 feet at the eastern property boundary. In accordance with California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Quality Management District (2015), further analysis potential health risks associated with the nearby railroad is not required.

SLOAPCD Comment No. 2 (Air Quality)
Construction Phase Impacts – Below Thresholds
Based on the initial study emission estimates using the most recent CalEEMod computer model, the construction phase would not exceed the SLOAPCD’s construction phase thresholds identified in Table 2-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 2012). The initial study stated four construction mitigation measures in Section 3 – Air Quality. These measures include the SLOAPCD’s language for standard control measures for construction equipment (AQ-1) expanded dust control measures (AQ-2), idling near sensitive receptors (AQ-3), and proper demolition of asbestos containing material, proper abatement of lead-based coated structures, & naturally occurring asbestos on-site (AQ-4). These measures are consistent with the SLOAPCD’s analysis of the proposed project and the SLOAPCD supports the inclusion of these measures in the conditions of approval for the construction phase to reduce construction emissions further below SLOAPCD threshold levels.

Operational Phase Impacts - Below Threshold
Based on the initial study operational phase emission estimates using the most recent CalEEMod computer model, the operational phase air quality impacts from criteria air pollutants would likely be less than the SLOAPCD’s significance threshold values identified in Table 3-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 2012). Therefore, SLOAPCD is not requiring criteria pollutant operational phase mitigation measures for this project.

Response: Comments noted.

SLOAPCD Comment No. 3 (Greenhouse Gases)
The applicable GHG thresholds in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 2012) are not valid for projects with horizons beyond 2020. The project’s Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment appears to provide a 2030 project-specific threshold from statewide data. The SLOAPCD recommends the derivation of this threshold also be provided. It is not clear to the SLOAPCD whether the concerns identified in the Golden Door Properties case about using statewide metrics for local projects are addressed in the assessment. Ultimately, the City as the lead agency may make project specific GHG threshold determinations. The assessment also provides a consistency analysis with the applicable City Climate Action Plan at the time the project application was deemed complete by the City.

Response: The following provides a discussion of the methodology used for development of the projectspecific GHG significance threshold used for this project and the project’s applicability to relevant case law related to the use of GHG significance thresholds. Worksheets used for quantification of the projectspecific GHG significance threshold are attached.

GHG Significance Thresholds Methodology
At the time during which the analysis was being prepared, the City of San Luis Obispo’s current Climate Action Plan had not yet been adopted. The City’s previously prepared plan was based on a target year of 2020. Therefore, the analysis did not rely on consistency with the city’s Climate Action Plan. The SLOAPCD bright-line and efficiency thresholds were, likewise, based on achieving target year 2020

Response to SLOAPCD Comments on the Bullock Ranch ISMND 3 GHG reductions and do not account for the more stringent 2030 GHG emissions reduction target set forth by SB 32. Therefore, the SLOAPCD bright-line and efficiency thresholds were, likewise, not deemed appropriate for evaluating the Project’s GHG emissions. As a result, the analysis developed a projectspecific, locally-appropriate efficiency threshold to determine the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions. A locally-appropriate 2030 project-specific threshold was derived from CARB’s recommendations in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

The project-specific efficiency threshold was calculated by dividing statewide GHG emissions for locallyappropriate emission sectors by the sum of statewide jobs and residents. In accordance with case law (e.g., Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego), the 2030 statewide inventory target was modified to establish a locally-appropriate, project-specific threshold consistent with the SB 32 target. Emission sectors that would not be impacted by the proposed project were excluded from the efficiency calculation. Emission sources and sectors determined to not be locally appropriate and, therefore, excluded from the efficiency-threshold calculation included Cap-and-Trade reductions, as well as, emissions associated with industrial and agricultural sources, including the following:
• oil, gas, and hydrogen production
• refineries
• general fuel use
• mining operations
• Enteric fermentation
• crop residue burning
• manure management
Locally-appropriate emissions inventory was then divided by the statewide population to derive a locallyappropriate, project-specific efficiency threshold for both opening year and future year 2030 operational conditions.

The 2030 GHG emissions reduction target established by SB 32 is considered an interim target toward meeting the 2045 state goal. As a result, the project’s consistency with the project-specific efficiency threshold for year 2030, would also be considered as contributing to substantial progress toward meeting the state’s long-term, post-year 2030 GHG-reduction goals.

Summary of Relevant Case Law & Project Applicability
Relevant Case Law:

Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Case No. 217763).

This case related to the proposed development of the Newhall Ranch multi-use development project in northwestern Los Angeles County. In this case, the Court found that the project did not include substantial evidence to support the use of the business-as-usual GHG threshold of significance for determination of a less-than-significant project impact. The Court did not, however, preclude a lead agency from using a business-as-usual GHG threshold. The Court offered potential methods for establishing the necessary link between project-level GHG emission reductions and statewide GHG emission reduction goals, including assessing the project’s consistency with regulatory GHG-reduction programs adopted by state agencies. The Court also found that a lead agency may rely on numerical and efficiency-based thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, if supported by substantial evidence.

Response to SLOAPCD Comments on the Bullock Ranch ISMND 4 Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego (Case No. 072406)
In it’s decision, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court judgement that barred San Diego County from using a 2016 guidance document on climate change analysis for project reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the ruling barred the County of San Diego from using the GHG threshold of significance of 4.9 MT of CO2e/year/service population (SP). The CEQA guidance document, including the GHG threshold of significance, was determined to violate CEQA because it was not adopted formally by ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation through a public review process. The Court also found that the County did not provide substantial evidence to support reliance on the GHG threshold. The determination, however, did not preclude lead agencies from development of project-specific GHG thresholds.

Project Applicability:

In Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego (Case No. 072406), the court ruled that the County of San Diego’s threshold violated CEQA given that it was not formally adopted by ordinance, rule, resolution or regulation through a public review process and was not based on substantial evidence. However, this case related to thresholds identified in a County-wide CEQA guidance document. The threshold was intended to be applied generally to all projects for which the County was lead agency, was not project specific, and did not take into account future year GHG reduction targets (e.g., SB32 year 2030 reduction target). A threshold of significance for general use (as opposed to a project-specific threshold) “is subject to CEQA public adoption guidelines.” (Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068.) Thus, the court’s decision was not necessarily to preclude lead agencies from developing and applying project-specific thresholds, including those based on statewide data, but rather that the threshold developed by the County should have undergone CEQA review and should have been supported by substantial evidence.

As noted above, the GHG-efficiency threshold developed for this project is a project-specific threshold based on an evaluation of locally-appropriate emission sectors. Contrary to the GHG threshold in question in Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego (Case No. 072406), the project-specific thresholds used for this project are not intended to represent thresholds that are to be applied for all projects undergoing CEQA review for which the City is the lead agency. It is also important to note that in the Newhall case, the court noted that a numeric threshold approach may be appropriate for determining significance of a project’s GHG emissions/impacts, and emphasized the consideration of an efficiency metric for development of a project-specific GHG threshold. The threshold used for this project is consistent with this approach. It is also important to note that AEP’s Final White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California (October 2016) includes recommended methodologies for development of project-specific GHG thresholds, including the use of statewide data. In this document the AEP Climate Change Committee recommended development of a project-specific GHG threshold utilizing the state’s locally-appropriate land use sector emissions inventory and state forecasts for population and employment. The project-specific threshold developed for this project is based on and consistent with this approach and reflective of the state’s future year 2030 GHG-reduction target. The GHG threshold used for this project is a project-specific threshold and is not representative of a Cityrecommended GHG threshold to be used for all projects for with the City is the lead agency.

Item 6c
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 1/11/2022
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S

DECISION TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF A SETBACK REDUCTION
REQUEST AT 1953 CHORRO ST. (APPL-0512-2021)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Community Development Director’s decision denying a request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback Standards for an Accessory Structure at 1953 Chorro Street (APPL-0512-2021).”

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
After receiving a Stop Work Order and a Notice of Violation issued by City Code Enforcement staff, regarding installation of a large accessory structure without permit and within required setbacks in the southwest corner of the property at 1953 Chorro Street, the property owner, Todd Miller, filed a Director’s Action application requesting a reduction in side and rear setback standards to accommodate the structure.

As more fully described below in this report, the application was ultimately denied by the Community Development Director, on finding that placement of the structure within setbacks as proposed would be inconsistent with the neighborhood character and development pattern, with the City’s historical preservation standards for Master List Historic Resources, and that it would have adverse visual and scale effects on neighboring properties, contrary to the intent of the City’s development standards for setbacks. Furthermore, no apparent site characteristics or improvements making adherence to setback standards impractical or infeasible could be identified.

Mr. Miller filed an appeal of the Director’s decision, disputing the findings upon which the decision was made. That appeal was considered by the Planning Commission, who upheld the decision. Subsequently Mr. Miller filed an appeal of the Commission’s decision, which is now being brought to the City Council for consideration.

Item 6c

DISCUSSION
Background
On July 5, 2019, City Code Enforcement staff issued a Notice of Violation to Todd Miller, the owner of the property at 1953 Chorro Street, and posted a Stop Work Order on the property, upon observing a large accessory structure installed in the southwest corner of the property, noting permit requirements and setback standards applicable to the work (see Notices and Photos, Attachment B, and Neighborhood Overview, Figure 2, below) The subject property is a residential lot measuring 7,500 square feet in area (50 feet wide and 150 feet deep) located on the west side of Chorro Street, about 125 feet north of High Street, within a Medium-Low Density Residential (R-2) Zone. It is developed with a singlefamily dwelling built between 1890 and 1910, which was relocated to the site (from 40 Prado Road) in 1993. It was included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List Resource in 1994.1
On September 9, 2019, Mr. Miller filed Director’s Action application DIR-0599-2019 requesting an exception to setback requirements, to reduce the required side and rear setbacks from the standard five feet down to eighteen inches, in order to accommodate the structure, described as a “pre-fab metal carport” (see Project Plans, Attachment C).

The application was determined to be incomplete on September 27, 2019.

As described in the statement accompanying the Appeal Form (Attachment D), the appellant had subsequent discussion with various City staff regarding the structure, its conformance to building and fire safety regulations, and items described in the Incomplete Letter and on September 29, 2020, Mr. Miller submitted revised plans in response to that letter. The application was again determined to be incomplete on October 20, 2020, noting inconsistency with historical preservation policies and standards and a requirement for review by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee.

In April 2021, Planning staff met on site with Mr. Miller to review the site conditions, including the placement of the accessory structure on the property. Based on the observations made at the site visit and the information available in the record file, the application was denied by the Community Development Director on July 14, 2021 (see Decision Letter, Attachment E) based on several findings regarding:

1. Inconsistency of the proposed placement of the accessory structure, within side and rear setbacks, with the neighborhood character and development pattern as required by Zoning Regulations
§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (ii);

1 Added to the Inventory as the Oliver House, by Council Resolution 8352, as a good example of “Queen Anne Victorian” style and for its association with an early farming family of immigrants in the area

Item 6c

2. Inconsistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance due to the size, scale, and industrial character and appearance of the accessory structure with the primary dwelling on the site, which is a Master List historic resource;

3. Adverse visual and scale effects on neighboring properties from the placement of the structure within setbacks, contrary to the intent of setback standards set out in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.170 (A); and

4. Absence of site characteristics or improvements that make adherence to Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, according to required findings.

On August 9, 2021, Mr. Miller filed an appeal of the Director’s decision, citing the Director’s findings for denial and stating disagreement with the Director’s findings. As discussed below, the Commission upheld the Director’s decision denying the setback reduction request.

Finally, on September 17, 2021, Mr. Miller filed an appeal of the Commission’s decision (see Appeal Form, Attachment D), which is the subject of this report.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission considered Mr. Miller’s appeal of the Director’s decision denying the original setback reduction request. The Commission discussed the failure of the appellant to secure a construction permit before installing the structure and considered the character of the site and surroundings as well as the existence, or lack, of physical constraints or circumstances that might make conformance to setback standards impractical or infeasible. By a vote of 5-1-1 (with one Commissioner absent) the Commission voted to uphold the decision of the Director to deny the setback request (see Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Resolution, Attachment F).

Policy Context
Development of an accessory structure requires approval of a building permit from the City’s Building & Safety Division (Zoning § 17.70.010 (D) (1)). Additionally, accessory structures must conform to all applicable Zoning Regulations, including setback standards (Zoning § 17.70.010 (C) (1)).

Under Director’s Action application DIR-0599-2019, the Community Development Director was asked to consider reducing the side and rear setbacks by 3 ½ feet (from required 5 feet to 18 inches), as provided in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.070 (D) (2), to accommodate the accessory structure installed in the southwest corner of the site. Such exceptions may be granted in certain circumstances, upon making the findings for an individual exception, along with the Required Findings for Director’s Action set out in Zoning § 17.108.040 (A).

Item 6c
An excerpt from the City’s Municipal Code describing the required findings for a setback exception and for approval of a Director’s Action application is provided for convenience as Attachment G (Required Findings).

As described in the decision letter denying the application (Attachment E), staff was unable to make three of the required findings for setback reductions, and the structure itself could not be found to be consistent with the City’s Historical Preservation policies, therefore the setback reduction could not be granted.

Neighborhood Development Pattern (Finding #1). In order to grant a setback reduction, the Director must find that, in the case of a detached single-story accessory structure, the structure is consistent with the traditional development pattern of the neighborhood (Zoning Regulations § 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (ii) (b)). This neighborhood is characterized by the placement of primary dwellings at or near the 20-foot front setback limit (see Figure 2, above) and, as is common in an R-2 Zone, additional dwelling units to the rear of a lot, subject to minimum 5-foot side and rear setbacks applicable within the R-2 Zone (Zoning Regulations § 17.82.20 (A) & (B)).

Figure 1: Neighborhood Pattern (Google Maps)

Item 6c
Likewise, new accessory structures are subject to the same minimum 5-foot side and rear setback standards (for structures up to 12 feet in height).2 Existing dwellings and accessory structures in the vicinity are constructed of conventional residential building materials, such as wood or masonry.

While a limited number of accessory structures in the vicinity may be observed within side or rear setbacks (Figure 2, above), such accessory structures are of a small scale, typically single-car garages or storage sheds of limited depth and width, which are most commonly “legal non-conforming” structures pre-dating the City’s setback standards.

The appellant indicates
that a permitted structure
was located on the
property in about the
same location. Aerial
imagery (Figure 3)
shows a small accessory
structure in the rear of
the property, but no
corresponding permit
record is found in City
records. Nonconforming Provisions in the City’s Zoning Regulations which may have allowed continued use of a prior nonconforming accessory structure would not apply to the new carport building, as the prior structure has been demolished and the new accessory building is an entirely new structure subject to current setback standards.

2 The depth of a required setback increases with building height above 12 feet (see Zoning § 17.18.020 (B) Figure 2: "Pre-Fab Carport" Accessory structure (completed, left; under construction, right) Figure 3: Prior Accessory Structure

Item 6c
At 20 feet in width and 40 feet in depth, the
new accessory structure is about double the
size of typical legal non-conforming
accessory structures in the neighborhood.

Its metal construction also represents a
departure from the predominant wood and
stucco building materials that typify
construction in this neighborhood. The
surrounding neighborhood does not contain
similarly sized accessory structures and
exceptions have not been provided for
reduced setbacks for structures of similar
size or material.

Adverse Effects (Finding #3). Required findings for Director’s Action approval call for consideration of, and measures to address, any potential impacts to surrounding properties (Zoning § 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The visual impact from the unusually large size of the subject accessory structure and its incongruous metal material are made more noticeable to adjacent properties when placed almost directly against the property’s boundaries. The structure rises several feet above the boundary fence and no natural elements such as tall hedges or trees are present to screen the structure from view of neighboring properties. Setback standards are intended, among other purposes, to help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods (Zoning § 17.70.170 (A)). Placement of this large metal building closer to neighboring properties than permitted under current setback standards does not provide adequate consideration of adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties arising from the pattern and lack of open area that would result from the proposed setback reduction.

Impracticality or Infeasibility of Conformance (Finding #4). Approval of a Director’s Action application is also subject to finding that, in light of site characteristics or existing improvements that make strict adherence to the regulations, including setback standards, impractical or infeasible, a project nonetheless conforms with the intent of Zoning Regulations (Zoning § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). Here, there are no discernable site characteristics or existing improvements that render strict adherence to the setback standards impractical or infeasible, and none had been described by the Appellant in the application submittal or in his subsequent correspondence.

With the current appeal, however, the appellant notes the presence of a large Canary Islands Palm tree that “would prevent egress of vehicles in, and out of the garage” if the building were sited in conformance to minimum setback standards.

Figure 4: Accessory Structure, right wall

Item 6c
As a rectangular lot measuring 7,500 square feet in area (50 feet wide by 150 feet deep) and developed only with a modestly-sized single-family dwelling, the property is not of unusual size or shape and existing improvements present no barrier to adherence to setback standards. Engineering staff evaluated the plans for siting of the accessory structure, both in its present position and in a location conforming to setback standards and found that in both cases the Canary Islands Palm tree did not present a significant impediment to vehicle access to the structure. Although Engineering Standards call for turn-around space, allowing cars to exit the property in a forward motion, for deep driveways (over 100 feet), exceptions from this requirement are commonly made for residential development where circumstances permit, and such an exception would likely be made in the case of installation of a properly sited garage structure on this property.

The structure installed is a very large pre-fabricated structure and granting a setback exception to accommodate a building that was not designed to fit this particular site would be inconsistent with the intent of setback standards and the exceptions thereto. In addition to lack of basis for making the required finding that strict adherence to the setback standards is infeasible or impractical, staff could not find that the requested exception would be “nonetheless consistent with the intent of setback standards.” Historical Character (Finding #2)
The Conservation and Open Space
Element (COSE) of the City’s General
Plan sets out policies for the protection
of historical and architectural
resources (see COSE § 3.3),3 and as
described in Section 12.4 of the
General Plan Land Use Element, these
policies are implemented through the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
(SLOMC Ch. 14.01) and supporting
Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (HPPG). 4 The HPPG
provide that construction on properties
that contain listed historic resources shall conform to those General Plan policies and to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and supporting Guidelines (HPPG § 3.1.1).

3 Relevant policies include Policy 3.3.1: Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved and rehabilitated; and Policy 3.3.4: New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The General Plan can be accessed online at: www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/communitydevelopment/planning-zoning/general-plan 4 Historical Preservation documents available online at: www.slocity.org/government/departmentdirectory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation Figure 5: 1953 Chorro, Primary Dwelling

Item 6c
In particular, new accessory structures are to complement the primary structure’s historic character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials (HPPG § 3.4.1 (c)).

The accessory structure installed on this property does not satisfy this guideline, and therefore, is inconsistent with General Plan policies for preservation of historic and architectural resources. It is an unusually large accessory structure, at 800 square feet in area and 40 feet in depth, about 70% of the size of the 1,130 square-foot Oliver house. It exhibits a functionally-oriented industrial appearance that contrasts with the Oliver House’s Victorian (Queen Anne) form, detailing, and decoration, and is constructed of a utilitarian metal material without apparent relation to the wood-sided Oliver House, apart from the horizontal orientation of its metal siding. For these reasons, the accessory structure is not seen to complement the Oliver house in form, massing, color, or materials, and granting a setback exception to accommodate the structure could likewise not be found consistent with General Plan policies, as implemented through the City’s historical preservation policies.

Public Engagement
Public notice of this meeting has been provided to owners and occupants of property near the subject site and published in The New Times and posted on the City’s website. The agenda for this meeting was posted online, consistent with adopted notification procedures for development projects.

CONCURRENCE
Staff from the Building & Safety Division, Engineering, and the Fire Department reviewed plans and materials submitted with the original setback reduction request (application DIR-0599-2019), in terms of conformance to building and fire safety regulations and Engineering Standards. Building and Fire concluded that, as a metal building, the structure could conform to applicable building and fire codes. Engineering evaluated maneuverability across the driveway and into the proposed accessory structure and concluded that the Canary Islands Palm tree was not an impediment to vehicle access to a garage sited in conformance to setback standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Denial of a reduction in Setback Standards is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).

Item 6c

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2021
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $0 $ $0
Consideration by the City Council of an appeal of a decision made by the Planning Commission does not directly result in expenditure of funds and thus has no fiscal impact to the City. Staff resources committed to the review of appeals are included in the annual budget appropriation for the Community Development Department.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Uphold the appeal and adopt a resolution granting a Discretionary Exception from side and sear setback standards, reducing the required setback to 18 inches to accommodate the accessory structure. This action is not recommended since the appeal provides no justification for granting a setback exception or any basis for making the required findings necessary to approve a setback exception. Staff could not uncover any basis on which to find that the structure could comply with Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, which require the structure to be complementary to the primary structure in form, massing, color, and materials. In the case that the appeal is upheld, construction of a large accessory structure on the property remains subject to review by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), who would provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director (for Minor Development Review), to provide a basis for required CEQA findings and findings of conformance with the City’s General Plan and Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines.

2. Continue consideration of the item to a future date, with relevant guidance to staff and applicant including an opportunity for review by the CHC so that the project may then return to the appropriate decision maker for final action (as described in Alternative 1 above).

Item 6c

ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft Resolution denying an Appeal for a property located at 1953 Chorro St.

B – Code Enforcement Notices and Photographs
C – Project Plans (1953 Chorro)
D – Appeal Form and Statement (APPL-0512-2021)
E – Decision Letter (DIR-0599-2019)
F – Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Resolution (Sept. 8, 2021) G – Required Findings (Zoning Regulations – Excerpts)

R _____
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR

A DISCRETIONARY EXCEPTION FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK
STANDARDS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1953 CHORRO
STREET (APPL-0512-2021)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director denied a request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards for an accessory structure located at 1953 Chorro Street, on July 14, 2021, under Director’s Action application DIR 0599 2019; Todd Miller, applicant; and
WHEREAS, On August 9, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing by teleconference from San Luis Obispo, California, to consider the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision, and upheld the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards; and WHEREAS, On September 17, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision upholding the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from Side & Rear Setback standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing via teleconference from the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on January 11, 2022 for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision upholding the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards, and has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Planning Commission hearing and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, present at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings:

Resolution No. ____ (2022 Series)
R _____

1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback reduction is requested is neither consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional development pattern of the neighborhood (Zoning
§§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) & 17.108.040 (A) (2)). It is of an excessive scale, being significantly deeper and wider and greater in total enclosed floor area than structures which are typically considered to be accessory and subordinate to a single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with an exclusively metal exterior material which is inconsistent with conventional building materials and design for a residential building of this size and scale. As such, its placement directly against the property line without building setback is not consistent with the prevailing pattern of building masses in the vicinity, in which larger structures are set back from side and rear property lines in conformance to Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations.

2. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consideration of potential adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties (Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The accessory building’s perceived scale and the incongruity of its metal surface material are amplified and made more noticeable to neighboring properties by placement of the building directly adjacent to the side and rear property line without setback.

3. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or observed which would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually large proposed accessory building directly against the side and rear property lines without setbacks does not conform with the intent of Setback Standards to determine the pattern of building masses and open space (Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). The property is of a conventional rectangular shape, and of dimensions exceeding minimum standards for the zone, without constraining topographical features such as creeks or unusual slope characteristics, and existing property improvements are limited to one modestly sized single-family dwelling.

4. The proposed setback reduction is not consistent with policies for protection of historical and architectural resources set out in § 3.3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, or their implementing guidelines (Land Use Element § 12.4). The industrial character and metal construction of the accessory building for which the setback exception is proposed is not consistent with, and does not complement, the historical character of the primary structure on the property (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage (Oliver House), designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Contrary to the guidance for Related New Construction (including new accessory structures) provided in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property, the accessory building’s austere metal surface material and industrial character are not stylistically appropriate for the character of Oliver House, which exhibits a conventional residential character through wood exterior materials and decorative detailing.

Resolution No. ____ (2022 Series)
R _____
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that this application is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will disapprove, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).

SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the subject appeal filed by Todd Miller and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision upholding the Community Development Director’s decision to deny a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear setback standards for an Accessory Structure, under Director’s Action application DIR-0599-20201.

On motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ____ day of ___________ 2022. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
_________________________
Teresa Purrington
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, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation (Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation) July 5, 2019
Kimberly Miller
816 Clearview Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 816 Clearview Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 003-644-011 Code Case #: CODE-493-2019
Dear Property Owner,
On July 5, 2019, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff noted the following violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or other relevant codes at the above listed address:

1. Permit Required (SLOMC 15.02.010, California Building Code A105.1) “Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.”

2. Development Standards (SLOMC 17.16.020[B])
The interior side and rear setback standards for the R-1 zone shall be as set forth in Table 2-5.

Officer Comments: A Stop Work Order was posted at the property due to a structure under construction in the rear yard. The structure is being built without a permit and within required setbacks.

Corrective Action: A permit will be required for the structure. Once a permit is issued please ensure to schedule necessary inspection(s).

A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.

ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.

We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) no later than August 4, 2019. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) by the specified date will result in the issuance of an Administrative Citation requiring payment of FINES in accordance with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. For Municipal Code violations that remain uncorrected after issuance of an Administrative Citation, the City may seek enforcement by other civil or criminal remedies.

Any person having a title interest in the property may request a Director’s review of this Notice by completing the enclosed Request for Director’s Review Form and submitting it to the Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, within five (5) days of the date of this Notice. This Notice shall be deemed final unless you timely file a Request for Director’s Review.

We look forward to working with you to resolve these violations and would like to thank you for your efforts to maintain your property and to help preserve the safety and beauty of our community. If you have questions, please contact the undersigned Officer at (805) 783-7841 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
____________________________
Steve Sheats, Code Enforcement Officer
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review

City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org July 14, 2021
Todd Miller
1953 Chorro St
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
SUBJECT: Application DIR-0599-2019 (1953 Chorro)
Request for reduction of side and rear setbacks to accommodate a single-story accessory structure
Dear Mr. Miller:

On July 14th, 2021, I reviewed your request for a reduction of side and rear setbacks to accommodate a single-story accessory structure at 1953 Chorro Street. After careful consideration, and pursuant to Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (B) (Director’s Action – Required Findings), I have denied your request because one or more of the required findings for approval of a Director’s Action application could not be made, as described below:

Findings:

1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback reduction is requested is neither consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional development pattern of the neighborhood (Zoning §§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) & 17.108.040 (A) (2)). It is of an excessive scale, being significantly deeper and wider and greater in total enclosed floor area than structures which are typically considered to be accessory and subordinate to a single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with an exclusively metal exterior material which is inconsistent with conventional building materials and design for a residential building of this size and scale. As such its placement directly against the property line without building setback is not consistent with the prevailing pattern of building masses in the vicinity, in which larger structures are set back from side and rear property lines in conformance to Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations.

2. The industrial character and metal construction of the accessory building for which the setback exception is proposed is not consistent with, and does not complement, the historical character of the primary structure on the property (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage (Oliver House), designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Contrary to the guidance for Related New Construction (including new accessory structures) provided in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property, the accessory building’s austere metal surface material and industrial character are not stylistically appropriate for the character of Oliver House, which exhibits a conventional residential character through wood exterior materials and decorative detailing.

DIR-0599-2019 (1953 Chorro)

3. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consideration of potential adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties. The accessory building’s perceived scale and the incongruity of its metal surface material are amplified and made more noticeable to neighboring properties by placement of the building directly adjacent to the side and rear property line without setback.

4. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or observed which would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually large proposed accessory building directly against the side and rear property lines without setbacks does not conform with the intent of Setback Standards to determine the pattern of building masses and open space. The property is of a conventional rectangular shape, and of dimensions exceeding minimum standards for the zone, without constraining topographical features such as creeks or unusual slope characteristics, and existing property improvements are limited to one modestly sized single-family dwelling.

5. Denial of a reduction in Setback Standards is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).

My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of the decision. Anyone may appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department within the time specified. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal documentation. Appeals will be scheduled for the first available Planning Commission meeting date. If an appeal is filed, you will be notified by mail of the date and time of the hearing.

If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, please contact Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at [email protected]).

Sincerely,
Tyler Corey
Deputy Director
Community Development

1 Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 2021, 6:00 p.m.

Teleconference - Broadcast via Webinar
Planning
Commissioners

Present:

Commissioner Hemalata Dandekar, Commissioner Michael
Hopkins, Commissioner Steve Kahn, Commissioner Michelle Shoresman, Commissioner Mike Wulkan, Chair Bob Jorgensen Planning
Commissioners

Absent:

Vice Chair Nick Quincey
City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant City Attorney Markie Jorgensen, and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian

1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on September 8, 2021, at 6:07 p.m.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Jorgensen opened the public hearing.

Public Comments:

None
End of Public Comment--
Chair Jorgensen closed the public hearing.

2 3. CONSENT

3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 2021, PLANNING

COMMISSION MINUTES
Approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2021.

Motion By Commissioner Wulkan
Second By Commissioner Shoresman
Ayes (6): Commissioner Dandekar, Commissioner Hopkins,
Commissioner Kahn, Commissioner Shoresman, Commissioner Wulkan, and Chair Jorgensen
Absent (1): Vice Chair Quincey
CARRIED (6 to 0)

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.a 1953 CHORRO (APPL-0512-2021) AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO DENY A DIRECTOR’S
ACTION APPLICATION (DIR-0599-2019) REGARDING A REQUEST
FOR SETBACK EXCEPTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AN 800 SQUAREFOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries. Additional input was supplied by Steve Sheats, Code Enforcement Officer, and Senior Planner Brian Leveille.

Appellant Todd Miller provided rebuttal comments to items presented in the staff report.

Chair Jorgensen opened the public hearing.

Public Comments:

None
End of Public Comment--
Chair Jorgensen closed the public hearing.

3 Motion By Commissioner Hopkins
Second By Commissioner Dandekar
Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an Appeal and upholding the Community Development Director’s decision denying a request for a discretionary exception from Side and Rear Setback Standards for an Accessory Structure at 1953 Chorro Street (APPL 0512 2021)." Ayes (5): Commissioner Dandekar, Commissioner Hopkins,
Commissioner Kahn, Commissioner Shoresman, and Commissioner Wulkan
Noes (1): Chair Jorgensen
Absent (1): Vice Chair Quincey
CARRIED (5 to 1)

5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION

5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects.

6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 22, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. via teleconference.

APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: 09/22/2021

RESOLUTION NO. PC-1045-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S

DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A DISCRETIONARY

EXCEPTION FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK STANDARDS FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1953 CHORRO STREET (APPL-0512-
2021)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director denied a request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards for an accessory structure located at 1953 Chorro Street, on July 14, 2021, under Director’s Action application DIR-0599-2019; Todd Miller, applicant; and
WHEREAS, On August 9, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo meeting was conducted via teleconference from San Luis Obispo, California, on September 8, 2021, to consider the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision; 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 evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings:

1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback reduction is requested is neither consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional development pattern of the neighborhood (Zoning §§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) & 17.108.040 (A) (2)). It is of an excessive scale, being significantly deeper and wider and greater in total enclosed floor area than structures which are typically considered to be accessory and subordinate to a single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with an exclusively metal exterior material which is inconsistent with conventional building materials and design for a residential building of this size and scale. As such, its placement directly against the property line without building setback is not consistent with the prevailing pattern of building masses in

Resolution No. PC-0512-21
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro St.)

the vicinity, in which larger structures are set back from side and rear property lines in conformance to Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations.

2. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consideration of potential adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties (Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The accessory building’s perceived scale and the incongruity of its metal surface material are amplified and made more noticeable to neighboring properties by placement of the building directly adjacent to the side and rear property line without setback.

3. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or observed which would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually large proposed accessory building directly against the side and rear property lines without setbacks does not conform with the intent of Setback Standards to determine the pattern of building masses and open space (Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). The property is of a conventional rectangular shape, and of dimensions exceeding minimum standards for the zone, without constraining topographical features such as creeks or unusual slope characteristics, and existing property improvements are limited to one modestly sized single-family dwelling.

4. The proposed setback reduction is not consistent with policies for protection of historical and architectural resources set out in § 3.3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, or their implementing guidelines (Land Use Element § 12.4). The industrial character and metal construction of the accessory building for which the setback exception is proposed is not consistent with, and does not complement, the historical character of the primary structure on the property (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage (Oliver House), designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Contrary to the guidance for Related New Construction (including new accessory structures) provided in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property, the accessory building’s austere metal surface material and industrial character are not stylistically appropriate for the character of Oliver House, which exhibits a conventional residential character through wood exterior materials and decorative detailing.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This application is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will disapprove, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).

SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the subject appeal filed by Todd Miller, and upholds the Community Development Director’s decision to deny a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear setback standards for an Accessory Structure, under Director’s Action application DIR-0599-20201.

Resolution No. PC-0512-21
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro St.)

Upon motion of Commissioner Hopkins, seconded by Commissioner Dandekar, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Hopkins, Kahn, Shoresman, and Wulkan NOES: Chair Jorgensen
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Quincey
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 8th day of September, 2021. ____________________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Planning Commission

San Luis Obispo Municipal Code

17.70.170 Setbacks.

A. Purpose. This section establishes standards for the measurement of setbacks and required setback areas.

These provisions, in conjunction with other applicable provisions of the zoning regulations, are intended to help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods. They also provide separation between combustible materials in neighboring buildings. Setback areas are further intended to help provide landscape beauty, air circulation, views, and exposure to sunlight for both natural illumination and use of solar energy.

D. Exceptions to Setback Requirements.

2. Discretionary Exceptions. Discretionary exceptions to setback requirements shall require a director's action and meet the findings required for a director's action (Chapter 17.108), as well as any findings indicated below for an individual exception.
d. Other Setback Variations in Previously Subdivided Areas. Upon approval of a director's action, the director may allow side and rear setbacks to be reduced to zero under either of the following circumstances:
i. When there exists recorded agreement, to the satisfaction of the city attorney, running with the land to maintain at least ten feet of separation between buildings on adjacent parcels and the development will comply with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1; or
ii. When the reduction is for either a minor addition to an existing legal structure that is nonconforming with regard to side and rear setback requirements or for a detached singlestory accessory structure; provided, that all such minor additions and new accessory structures shall comply with applicable provisions of Title 12, Building and Construction (see also Chapter 17.92, Nonconforming Structures) and the director makes the following findings:
(a) In the case of a minor addition, that the minor addition is a logical extension of the existing nonconforming structure;
(b) In the case of a detached single-story accessory structure ( either new or replacing a previously approved nonconforming structure), that the accessory structure is consistent with the traditional development pattern of the neighborhood and will have a greater front and/or street side setback than the main structure;
(c) That adjacent affected properties will not be deprived ofreasonable solar exposure, and the development will comply with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1;
( d) That no useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback; The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021. https:/
/
sanlui
sobis
po.mu
nicipa
l.code
s/
Code/

17.10 8
https
://
sanl
uiso
bisp
o.mu
nicip
al.co
des/
Cod
e/17.
92 htt
ps
://
sa
nl
ui
so
bi
sp
o.
m
un
ici
pa
l.c
od
es
/
C
od
e/
15

San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
(e) That no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy, or security impacts are likely from the addition; and
(f) That it is impractical to obtain a ten-foot separation easement in compliance with subsection (D)(2)(d)(ii)(a) of this subsection.

17.108.040 Director's Action - Required findings.

A. Required Findings. The director may approve a director's action application only after first making all of the following findings. The proposed interpretation, determination, or modification to standards:

1. Is consistent with the intent of these zoning regulations and applicable general plan policies;

2. Is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone;

3. Provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects on surrounding properties such as, but not limited to, traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, noise, visual and scale, and lighting.

With regard to cases of granting exceptions to the strict application of development standards, the following additional finding shall be made:

4. While site characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence to the zoning regulations impractical or infeasible, the project nonetheless conforms with the intent of these regulations.

B. Failure to Make Findings. The director shall deny the application if any one or more of the required findings cannot be made. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021.

Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.

City Website: www.slocity.org
City Telephone: (805) 781-7100
Code Publishing Company
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021. https://www.slocity.org/ https://
www.codebook.com/