SPECIAL PROVISIONS
FOR
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Buchon Street Traffic Calming
Specification No. 91612
March 2023
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7200
Buchon Street Traffic Calming
Specification No. 91612
Approval Date: April 4, 2023
March 9, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS.................................................................................................... II BID SUBMISSION .....................................................................................................................................II BID DOCUMENTS ...................................................................................................................................III PROJECT INFORMATION.......................................................................................................................III QUALIFICATIONS....................................................................................................................................IV AWARD .....................................................................................................................................................V ACCOMMODATION.................................................................................................................................VI BID FORMS ....................................................................................................................A BID ITEM LIST FOR BUCHON STREET TRAFFIC CALMING, SPECIFICATION NO. 91612................A LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS................................................................................................................ C PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10285.1 STATEMENT.............................................................. D PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................... D PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10232 STATEMENT ................................................................. D LABOR CODE SECTION 1725.5 STATEMENTS ................................................................................... D NON-COLLUSION DECLARATION..........................................................................................................F BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................... G QUALIFICATIONS.................................................................................................................................... H ATTACH BIDDER'S BOND TO ACCOMPANY BID...................................................................................I SPECIAL PROVISIONS.................................................................................................. 1 DIVISION I GENERAL PROVISIONS.......................................................................................................1 1 GENERAL...........................................................................................................................................1 2 BIDDING.............................................................................................................................................1 3 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION...........................................................................................1 4 SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................2 6 CONTROL OF MATERIALS...............................................................................................................2 7 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC .......................................................2 9 PAYMENT...........................................................................................................................................4 DIVISION VIII MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ..............................................................................4 73 CONCRETE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS.............................................................................................4 77 LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE............................................................................................................6 APPENDIX A - FORM OF AGREEMENT ....................................................................... 0
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
ii
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
BID SUBMISSION
Sealed bids will be received by the City of San Luis Obispo at the Public Works Administration Office located at 919 Palm Street, California 93401, until 2:00 p.m. on May 4th, 2023
Public bid opening may be accessed via Microsoft Teams video conference and conference call. In person attendance will be permitted. Attendees are encouraged to wear face masks and practice social distancing. Use the following link:
LINK
or join by phone with this number: 1 (209) 645-4165 with Conference ID: 735 988 969# Submit bid in a sealed envelope plainly marked:
Buchon Street Traffic Calming, Specification No. 91612
Any bid received after the time and date specified will not be considered and will be returned to the bidder unopened. Bids received by Fax or Email will not be considered.
By submission of bid you agree to comply with all instruction and requirements in this notice and the contract documents.
All bids must be submitted on the Bid Item List form(s) provided and submitted with all other Bid Forms included in these Special Provisions.
Each bid must be accompanied by either a:
1. certified check
2. cashier's check
3. bidder's bond
made payable to the City of San Luis Obispo for an amount equal to ten percent of the bid amount as a guaranty. Guaranty will be forfeited to the City San Luis Obispo if the bidder, to whom the contract is awarded, fails to enter into the contract.
The City of San Luis Obispo reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids or waive any informality in a bid.
All bids are to be compared based on the City Engineer's estimate of the quantities of work to be done, as shown on the Bid Item List.
Bids will only be accepted from bidders that are licensed in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 9, Division III of Business and Professions Code.
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
iii
The award of the contract, if awarded, will be to the lowest responsive bid submitted by a responsible contractor whose bid complies with the requirements prescribed. If the contract is awarded, the contract will be awarded within 60 calendar days after the opening of the bids.
Failure to raise defects in the notice to bidders or bid forms prior to bid opening constitute a waiver of those defects.
BID DOCUMENTS
A copy of the plans and special provisions may be downloaded, free of charge, from the City’s website at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/public-works-bidsproposals No printed copies are available for purchase at the City office.
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards referenced in the Special Provisions may be downloaded, free of charge, from the City’s website at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/documentsonline/construction-documents You are responsible to obtain all issued addenda prior to bid opening. Addenda will be available to download at the City’s website listed above or at the office of the City Engineer.
Contact the project manager, Bryan Wheeler at 805-781-7178 or the Public Works Department at (805) 781-7200 prior to bid opening to verify the number of addenda issued.
You are responsible to verify your contact information is correct on the plan holders list located on the City’s website at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/public-works-bidsproposals.
PROJECT INFORMATION
In general, the project includes removing small sections of roadway and sidewalk to construct a new neighborhood traffic circle at the intersection of Toro St and Buchon St.
The project includes construction of a new stamped concrete traffic circle, curb ramps, sidewalk, and striped bulb-out areas with raised pavement markings.
The project estimated construction cost is $200,000
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
iv
Contract time is established as 20 working days.
The fixed liquidated damages amount is established at $500 per day for failure to complete the work within the contract time.
In compliance with section 1773 of the Labor Code, the State of California Department of Industrial Relations has established prevailing hourly wage rates for each type of workman. Current wage rates may be obtained from the Division of Labor at:
https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/DPreWageDetermination.htm
This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
QUALIFICATIONS
You must possess a valid Class A Contractor's License at the time of the bid opening.
You and any subcontractors required to pay prevailing wage must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code.
You must have experience constructing projects similar to the work specified for this project. Provide three similar reference projects completed as either the prime or subcontractor. All referenced projects must have been completed within the last five years from this project’s bid opening date.
One of the three reference projects must have been completed under contract with a city, county, state or federal government agency as the prime contractor.
Two referenced projects must be for roadway paving and curb ramp construction within the public right of way.
Failure to provide reference projects as specified in this section and as required on the qualification form is cause to reject a bid as being non-responsive.
The City reserves the right to reject any bid based on non-responsiveness if a bidder fails to provide a bid that complies with all bidding instructions.
The City reserves the right to reject a responsive bid based on the non-responsibility of the bidder if the Director of Public Works or Designee finds, after providing notice and a hearing to the bidder, that the bidder lacks the
1. knowledge
2. experience,
3. or is otherwise not responsible
as defined in Section 3.24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to complete the project in the best interest of the City.
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
v
Rejected bidders may appeal this determination. Appeal must comply with the requirements in this Notice to Bidders.
It is the City of San Luis Obispo’s intent to award the contract to the lowest responsive bid submitted by a responsible bidder. If in the bidder’s opinion the contract has been or may be improperly awarded, the bidder may protest the contract award.
Protests must be filed no later than five working days after either:
1. bid opening date
2. notification of rejected bid.
Protest must be in writing and received by the project manager located at:
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Valid protests must contain the following information:
1. the reasons for the protest
2. any supporting documentation
3. the ruling expected by the City to remedy the protest.
Any protest not containing all required information will be deemed invalid and rejected.
The City will consider additional documentation or other supporting information regarding the protest if submitted in compliance to the specified time limits. Anything submitted after the specified time limit will be rejected and not be considered.
The Director of Public Works or Designee may request additional information to be submitted within three days of the request, unless otherwise specified, and will notify the protester of ruling within ten days of determination.
If the protester is not satisfied with ruling, the protester may appeal the ruling to the City Council in compliance with Chapter 1.20 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code, § 6250, et seq.), the City will make public records available upon request.
AWARD
The lowest bidder will be determined using the BID TOTAL.
As a condition to executing a contract with the City, two bonds each equal to one hundred percent of the total contract price are required in compliance with Section 3-1.05 of the Standard Specifications.
You may substitute securities for moneys withheld under the contract in compliance with the provisions of the Public Contract Code, Section 10263.
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
vi
ACCOMMODATION
If any accommodations are needed to participate in the bid process, please contact Kathryn Stanley at (805) 781-7200 or by Telecommunications Device for the Deaf at (805) 781-7107. Requests should be made as early as possible in the bidding process to allow time for accommodation.
BID FORMS
A
BID FORMS
All bid forms must be completed and submitted with your bid. Failure to submit these forms and required bid bond is cause to reject the bid as nonresponsive. Staple all bid forms together.
THE UNDERSIGNED, agrees that they have carefully examined:
1. the location of the proposed work
2. the plans and specifications
3. read the accompanying instructions to bidders
and propose to furnish all:
4. materials
5. labor
to complete all the required work satisfactorily in compliance with
6. plans
7. specifications
8. special provisions
for the prices set forth in the bid item list:
BID ITEM LIST FOR BUCHON STREET TRAFFIC CALMING, SPECIFICATION NO. 91612
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) 1 9-1 Mobilization LS 1
2 7,12 Temporary Traffic Control and
Implementation LS 1
3 84 Remove & Dispose Striping and
Markings LS 1
4 19 Clear and Grub SF 4
5 82 Remove & Dispose Entire Sign
and Post Assembly EA 4
6 77,78 Adjust Monument Lid to Finished
Grade EA 1
7 77 Adjust SS Manhole to Finished
Grade EA 1
8 9 Speed Hump Removal LS 1
9 73 Curb Ramp 1 – Buchon St/Toro
St – West Corner LS 1
10 73 Curb Ramp 2 – Buchon St/Toro
St – South Corner LS 1
11 9,73 Cross Gutter Per Eng. Std. 4310 LS 1
12 9,73 Traffic Circle LS 1
*13 39,73 Concrete Base Repair
Allowance per Detail C, Sheet 6 SF 50
*14 73 Sidewalk Allowance SF 50
BID FORMS
BID FORMS
B
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) *15 73 Curb & Gutter Allowance LF 15
14 82 R1-1 Stop Sign EA 2
15 82 New Street Name Sign EA 2
16 82 W2-6 Sign EA 2
17 82 W11-2 Sign EA 8
18 82 W16-7P (L or R) EA 8
19 82 Punch Post (SLO Std Plan 7210) EA 6
20 84 Striping and Markings LS 1
21 84 Non-Retroreflective White
Raised Pavement Markers LS 1
22 82 OM Type Q Flex Post EA 1
23 84 Replace Hydrant Reflectors
(SLO Std Plan 7920) EA 2
24 84 Paint Curb - Red LF 190
Bid Total (or Base Bid) $
(1) refers to section in the Standard Specifications, with modifications in the Special Provisions, that describe required work.
* Bid item exempt from Section 9-1.06 of the Standard Specifications. The unit price will not be adjusted regardless Of the final bid item quantity.
BID FORMS
BID FORMS
C
LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS
Pursuant to Section 4100 of the Public Contracts Code and section 2-1.33C of the standard specifications, the Bidder is required to furnish the following information for each Subcontractor performing more than 1/2 percent (0.5%) of the total base bid. Do not list alternative subcontractors for the same work. Subcontracting must not total more than fifty percent (50%) of the submitted bid except as allowed in section 5-1.13 of the standard specifications.
For Streets & Highways projects, subcontractors performing less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) worth of work need not be mentioned. Subcontractors required to pay prevailing wage, must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 to be listed.
NOTE: If there are no subcontractors, write “NONE” and submit with bid.
Name Under Which
Subcontractor is Licensed License Number
DIR Public
Works
Registration
Number
Address and Phone
Number of Office, Mill or
Shop
Specific
Description of
Subcontract
% of
Total
Base
Bid
Attach additional sheets as needed.
BID FORMS
BID FORMS
D
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10285.1 STATEMENT
In compliance with Public Contract Code Section 10285.1 (Chapter 376, Stats. 1985), the bidder hereby declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the bidder, or any subcontractor to be engaged by the bidder, has ____, has not ____ been convicted within the preceding three years of any offenses referred to in that section, including any charge of fraud, bribery, collusion, conspiracy, or any other act in violation of any state or federal antitrust law in connection with the bidding upon, award of, or performance of, any public works contract, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1101, with any public entity, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1100, including the Regents of the University of California or the Trustees of the California State University. The term "bidder" is understood to include any partner, member, officer, director, responsible managing officer, or responsible managing employee thereof, as referred to in Section 10285.1.
NOTE: The bidder must place a check mark after "has" or "has not" in one of the blank spaces provided. The above Statement is part of the Bid. Signing this Bid on the signature portion constitute signature of this Statement. Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution.
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QUESTIONNAIRE
In compliance with Public Contract Code Section 10162, the Bidder must complete, under penalty of perjury, the following questionnaire:
Has the bidder, any officer of the bidder, or any employee of the bidder who has a proprietary interest in the bidder, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation?
Yes No
If the answer is yes, attach a letter explaining the circumstances PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10232 STATEMENT
In compliance with Public Contract Code Section 10232, you hereby state under penalty of perjury, that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against you within the immediately preceding two-year period because of your failure to comply with an order of a federal court which orders you to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board.
LABOR CODE SECTION 1725.5 STATEMENTS
The bidder has delinquent liability to an employee or the state for any assessment of back wages or related damages, interest, fines, or penalties pursuant to any final judgment, order, or determination by a court or any federal, state, or local administrative agency, including a confirmed arbitration award. Any judgment, order, or determination that is
BID FORMS
BID FORMS
E
under appeal is excluded, provided that the contractor has secured the payment of any amount eventually found due through a bond or other appropriate means.
Yes No
The bidder is currently debarred under Section 1777.1 or under any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works.
Yes No
NOTE: The above Statements and Questionnaire are part of the Bid. Signing this Bid on the signature portion constitute signature of this Statement and Questionnaire. Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution.
BID FORMS
BID FORMS
F
NON-COLLUSION DECLARATION
I, , declare that
I am of ,
the party making the foregoing bid that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone refrained from bidding; that the bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid.
Executed on , 20 , in __
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
(Signature and Title of Declarant)
(SEAL)
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _______day of _________, 20_____
Notary Public
Company Name:____________________
BID FORMS
BID FORMS
G
BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
By signing below, the bidder acknowledges and confirms that this bid is based on the information contained in all contract documents, including the notice to bidders, plans, specifications, special provisions, and addendum number(s) . (Note: You are responsible to verify the number of addenda prior to the bid opening.)
The undersigned further agrees that in case of default in executing the required contract, with necessary bonds, within eight days, (not including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays), after having received a mailed notice that the contract is ready for signature, the proceeds of the check or bond accompanying his bid will become the property of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Licensed in accordance with an act providing for the registration of contractors, License No. , Expiration Date .
The above statement is made under penalty of perjury, and any bid not containing this information "will be considered non-responsive and will be rejected” by the City.
Signature of Bidder
(Print Name and Title of Bidder)
DIR– Public Works
Registration No:
Business Name (DBA):
Owner/Legal Name:
Indicate One: Sole-proprietor Partnership Corporation List Partners/Corporate Officers:
Name Title
Name Title
Name Title
Business Address
Street Address
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip Code
Phone Number
Fax Number
Email Address
Date
BID FORMS
BID FORMS
H
QUALIFICATIONS
Failure to furnish complete reference information ON THIS FORM, as specified in this project’s Notice to Bidders and indicated below, is cause to reject the bid. Additional information may be attached but is not a substitute for this form.
Reference Number 1
Customer Name & Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Project Name (Site Address):
Is this similar to the project being bid?
Yes □ No □
Describe the services provided and how this project is similar to that which is being bid:
Date project completed:
Was this contract for a public
agency?
Yes □ No □
Reference Number 2
Customer Name & Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Project Name (Site Address):
Is this similar to the project being bid?
Yes □ No □
Describe the services provided and how this project is similar to that which is being bid:
Date project completed:
Was this contract for a public
agency?
Yes □ No □
Reference Number 3
Customer Name & Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Project Name (Site Address):
Is this similar to the project being bid?
Yes □ No □
Describe the services provided and how this project is similar to that which is being bid:
Date project completed:
Was this contract for a public
agency?
Yes □ No □
BID FORMS
BID FORMS
I
ATTACH BIDDER'S BOND TO ACCOMPANY BID
Know all men by these presents:
That we ____________________________________________, AS PRINCIPAL, and _______________________________________________________, AS SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the City of San Luis Obispo in the sum of:
____________________________________________________ Dollars (_____________) to be paid to said City or its certain attorney, its successors and assigns; for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors or assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents:
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the certain bid of the above bounden ______________________________________________________________________ to construct ___________________________________________________________________ (insert name of street and limits to be improved or project) dated _____________________ is accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo, and if the above bounden _______________________________________________________, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns shall duly enter into and execute a contract for such construction and shall execute and deliver the two bonds described within ten (10) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays) after the above bounden,
______________________________________________________, has received notice by and from the said City of San Luis Obispo that said contract is ready for execution, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and virtue.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto set our hands and seals this ___ day of ______, 20____.
Bidder Principal:
Signature Date
Title:
Surety:
Bidder's signature is not required to be notarized. Surety's signature must be notarized.
Equivalent form may be substituted
(Rev. 6-30-14)
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1 SPECIAL PROVISIONS
ORGANIZATION
Special provisions are under headings that correspond with the main section heading of the Standard Specifications. Each special provision begins with a revision clause that describes or introduces a revision to the Standard Specifications. Any paragraph added or deleted by a revision clause does not change the paragraph number of the Standard Specifications for any other reference to a paragraph of the Standard Specifications.
DIVISION I GENERAL PROVISIONS
1 GENERAL
Add to Section 1-1.01 GENERAL:
The work must be done in compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works:
1. Buchon Street Traffic Calming Special Provisions
2. City of San Luis Obispo Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards – 2018 edition
3. State of California, Department of Transportation Standard Specifications and Standard Plans – 2015 edition
In case of conflict between documents, governing ranking must comply with section 5-
1.02 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Standard Specifications.
Failure to comply with the provisions of these sections is a material breach of contract:
1. Sections 5 through 8 of the Standard Specifications
2. Section 12 through 15 of the Standard Specifications
3. Section 77-1 of the Standard Specifications
4. Section 81 of the Standard Specifications
5. authorized working hours
6. OSHA compliance
2 BIDDING
Replace Section 2-1.33A BID DOCUMENT COMPLETION AND SUBMITTAL, General with:
Furnish bid using blank forms provided in the Special Provisions. Bid must include all forms and must be signed by the bidder.
3 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
Replace 1st and 2nd paragraph in Section 3-1.18 CONTRACT EXECUTION with: (for accelerated work)
Upon notification of project award, return:
1. executed contract
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
2 2. insurance
3. contract bonds
within five business days after the bidder receives the contract. 4 SCOPE OF WORK
Add to Section 4-1.03 WORK DESCRIPTION:
Comply with the latest versions of the City of San Luis Obispo Standard Plans and Standard Specifications, Greenbook Standard Plans and Specifications and the latest version of the MUTCD and WATCH manual for all Work Zone Traffic Devices and installation of permanent traffic control devices. Comply with provisions of Section(s) 9,73, and 77 for general, material, construction, and payment specifics.
Comply with the provisions of Sections 7, 12, 14, 15, 39, 56, 73, 77, 82, 84, 86 and 96 for general, material, construction, and payment specifics.
Add Section 4-1.03A WORK DESCRIPTION, Project Specific Signage:
Maintain Revenue Enhancement Funding signage in work area. Return Revenue Enhancement Funding signs at the end of the project or upon the Engineer’s request. 6 CONTROL OF MATERIALS
Add to Section 6-2.03 DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE:
The Engineer will furnish Sales Tax signs mounted to moveable barricades. Maintain Sales Tax signage in work area. Return Sales Tax signs at the end of the project or upon the Engineer’s request.
7 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC
Add to Section 7-1.03B PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, Traffic Control Plan Unless stated otherwise below, work hours are 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Monday through Friday) at all the affected streets.
Unless otherwise approved by the City, no full width street closures will be permitted.
Traffic control plans should consider any lane closures based on the following list of priorities (in order of most desired to least desired option):
1. Restrict parking on one or both sides as necessary in order to maintain two-way traffic circulation with minimum 10’ travel lanes
2. Two-way circulation with flaggers and minimum 10’ travel lane
3. Closure of individual lanes with flaggers.
4. Closure of individual lanes with signed detour routes, pre-approved by the City.
Unless otherwise approved, pedestrian access must be maintained at three of the four corners of the Buchon/Toro intersection during construction. Once a corner has been demolished, it must be reconstructed within 3 days.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
3 CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNS
Two (2) changeable message signs (CMS) must be installed and operational 1 week prior to the start of construction and be maintained throughout the duration of the project at locations approved by the Engineer upon review of the submitted Traffic Control Plan.
Changeable message sign shall be programmed for two flashes with the messages to be approved by the Engineer
NIGHT WORK
Night work shall not be permitted for this project.
Add to Section 8-1.01A GENERAL, Order of Work:
Phase 1 – The curb ramp work and cross gutter shall be the first orders of work.
Phase 2 – Once curb ramp work is completed, the traffic circle work shall commence.
Phase 3 – Once the traffic circle work is completed, paving and installation of permanent striping and pavement markings shall be completed as the third phase of work.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
4 9 PAYMENT
Add to Section 9-1.02A:
The lump sum price paid for each “Traffic Circle” include payment for the following:
• Saw-cutting
• AC overlay removal to PCC roadway
• Installation of Concrete Curb and Stamped Concrete
• OM1-3 signs and posts, Type D Markers
The lump sum price paid for each “Speed Hump Removal” include payment for the following:
• Saw-cutting
• AC overlay removal to PCC roadway
The lump sum price paid for each “Cross Gutter” include payment for the following:
• Saw-cutting
• Demolition
• Installation of Concrete Cross Gutter per Eng. Std. 4310 Payment for varying widths of “paveouts” per plans are included in the applicable lump sum prices. Remove and replace AC over PCC pavement per Eng. Std. 4110 & 6020.
DIVISION VIII MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION
73 CONCRETE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS
Add to Section 73-1.03 Construction
You must meet with the Engineer for an average of 1.5 hours total per ramp to complete the following coordination tasks:
1. Before saw-cutting to agree on the limits of demolition and removal.
2. After formwork is set, to verify that grades meet those stated on the Plans.
3. Upon completion of new curb ramp installation to verify finished grades.
Curb ramps have been designed to comply with the current Caltrans Standard Plan detail RSP A88A and City Std. 4440. Field modifications to the design plans, if approved by the Engineer, must meet the dimensional and slope requirements of Standard Plan RSP A88A. When measuring the ADA facility’s dimensions and slopes, consider the required dimension or slope to have been met if the recorded individual measurements comply with the following:
• Dimensional measurement does not exceed ½-inch from the dimension shown, i.e. ½-inch less than a minimum dimension, or ½-inch greater than a maximum dimension. • Slope measurement does not exceed 0.2 percent from the slope shown.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
5 You must give the City a 24-hour notice for inspection of formwork before pouring the concrete.
You must calibrate all levels used in construction at the beginning of each work day.
You must ensure that new ramp flowlines do not create any "ponding" areas.
You cannot saw-cut and demolish more than 2 corners at any given intersection in order to allow pedestrian travel.
Curb ramp spandrel design may vary from Engineering Standards, as directed by the Engineer, in order to accommodate ramp landing.
You are responsible for storing existing signs and boxes for reuse.
Add to Section 73-1.04 Payment
As shown on the bid item list, each new curb ramp will be paid in lump sum for all work shown on the plans for the individual corner, unless included in a separate bid item on the bid item list. The lump sum price includes all work shown on the Plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions. It also includes work for:
1. public notices
2. layout
3. elevation control
4. saw-cutting
5. demolition
6. removal and disposal of demolished material
7. formwork
8. installation of ramps, sidewalk, curb and gutter.
9. furnishing and installation of new signs, post and sleeves
10.temporary cold mix
11.adjustment of existing utility boxes, vaults, etc.
12.protection of existing utilities and restoration of existing improvements
13.protection and restoration of existing benchmarks
14.cleanup
Payment for varying widths of “paveouts” per plans are included in the applicable curb ramp replacement lump sum price. Remove and replace AC over PCC pavement per Eng. Std. 4110 & 6020.
Bid items 13, 14 & 15 are additional items intended for field changes and additions to work shown on the plans. The intent of the additional allowance items is to provide additional payment to conform specified work to existing field conditions on a per unit price basis. Section 9 -1.06 is waived for these items and you are advised that items may be increased, decreased or deleted in their entirety without any additional compensation.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
6 Add to Section 73-4.03 TEXTURED CONCRETE AND COLORED CONCRETE SURFACES, CONSTRUCTION;
Do not apply salt finish texture to concrete curb ramps spandrels and cross gutters. A broom finish shall be applied at these locations.
77 LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Add to Section 77-1.01 EXCAVATION AND RESTORATION, GENERAL; Protection and restoration of survey monuments and benchmarks must comply with Section 5-1.26 and 5-1.36.
Add to Section 77-1.03D Surface Restoration
Potholing indicates that the intersection of Buchon and Toro is paved with AC over PCC. Depth of existing AC varies from 1/4" through 4”. Full depth of AC excavation is included applicable bid items as necessary. No additional payment is to be made for increased AC thickness.
PCC thickness is estimated to be 7” through 11”. No full-depth excavation of PCC is expected for this project.
DIVISION IX TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
84 MARKINGS
Add to Section 84-2.01A Summary,
Traffic Striping to be applied shall be per Caltrans Revised Standard Plans 2015.
See Section 84-2.04 of the City Standard Specifications for payment of traffic striping.
DIVISION XIII APPENDICES
Add 100-1.01
Appendix A: Form of Agreement
Appendix B: Project Mitigation Measures
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
0 APPENDIX A - FORM OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this ______ day of ___________, 20__, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city, San Luis Obispo County, California (hereinafter called the Owner) and COMPANY NAME (hereinafter called the Contractor).
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
NAME OF PROJECT, SPEC NO.
in strict compliance with the plans and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by the Owner, in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized representatives.
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The Owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, the contract prices as follows:
Item
No.
Item Unit of
Measure
Estimated
Quantity
Item Price
(in figures)
Total
(in figures)
1. 2.
3. BID TOTAL: $ .00
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in compliance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the documents made a part of this Contract.
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work which the Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor, during the performance of this Contract, said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and conclusive.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
1 ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following documents, all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, and if not attached, as if hereto attached:
1. Notice to Bidders and Information for Bidders
2. Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards
3. Special Provisions, any Addenda, Plans and Contract Change Orders
4. Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Plans 2015
5. Accepted Bid and Bid Bond
6. List of Subcontractors
7. Public Contract Code Sections 10285.1 Statement
8. Public Contract Code Section 10162 Questionnaire
9. Public Contract Code Section 10232 Statement
10.Labor Code Section 1725.5 Statements
11.Bidder Acknowledgements
12.Qualifications
13.Non-collusion Declaration
14.Agreement and Bonds
15.Insurance Requirements and Forms
ARTICLE IV INDEMNIFICATION: The Contractor shall indemnify, defend with legal counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable legal counsel fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the Contractor’s negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct in the performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage which is caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Should conflict of interest principles preclude a single legal counsel from representing both the City and the Contractor, or should the City otherwise find the Contractor’s legal counsel unacceptable, then the Contractor shall reimburse the City its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable legal counsel fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. The Contractor shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City (and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) with respect to claims determined by a trier of fact to have been the result of the Contractor’s negligent, reckless or wrongful performance. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.
The Contractor obligations under this section apply regardless of whether such claim, charge, damage, demand, action, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine or penalty, or liability was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee.
However, without affecting the rights of the City under any provision of this agreement, the Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless the City for liability attributable to the active negligence of AGENCY, provided such active negligence is
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
2 determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where the City is shown to have been actively negligent and where the City’s active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of the Contractor will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of the City.
ARTICLE V. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said bid conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A Municipal Corporation
__________________________________
Derek Johnson, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM CONTRACTOR:
Name of Company
________________________________ By:________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Name of CAO/President
Its: CAO/PRESIDENT
(2nd signature required if Corporation):
By:________________________________
Name of Corporate Officer
Its: ____________________
Department Name: Public Works
Cost Center: 5010
For Agenda of: December 4, 2018
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Bryan Wheeler, Transportation Planner/Engineer Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUCHON TRAFFIC CALMING
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve Plans and Specifications for Buchon Traffic Calming Measures ; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’ s Estimate of $160,000; and
3. Authorize the use and transfer of $142,000 from the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming budget and $ 18,000 from the City’s Traffic Safety & Operations Budget to the project account.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 2010, City staff and neighborhood residents developed a Traffic Calming Plan for the larger Pismo & Buchon neighborhood area. The draft plan included bulb -outs and speed humps along both Pismo & Buchon, however when put to a vote most traffic calming measures along Buchon did not receive the required level of support under the Neighborhood Traffic Calming program and ultimately Buchon did not receive the same degree of traffic calming as Pismo.
In 2016, City staff and residents on Buchon began discussion of revisiting traffic calming options on Buchon Street. A draft action plan was developed which included installation of three speed humps between Johnson & Santa Rosa and a neighborhood traffic circle at Buchon and Toro as depicted in Figure A below. The draft action plan was distributed to Buchon Street households for a vote to support the plan, 61% responded to the ballot and of the 61% responding 88% supported the action.
Plans and specifications for the traffic calming measur es have been completed and are now ready for Council approval and construction advertising. ( Attachment A) Packet Pg. 65
Item 8
Figure A: Overview of Traffic Calming Measures
Packet Pg. 66
Item 8
Policy Context & Public Engagement
The City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes neighborhood traffic volume and speed thresholds for various types of street classifications. The purpose of installing traffic calming measures on Buchon street is to strive to achieve those adopted thresholds. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming program involves close coordination of City staff and neighborhood residents in the development of a plan of measures to reduce speeds and volumes.
Ultimately the draft plan developed was mailed to all property owners and residents, of those that responded 88% supported the draft plan. A meeting was held on December 3, 2018 to go over final details with neighbors on the proposed traffic calming measures. .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As a minor alteration to existing facilities this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15301.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: On-Going Program
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources
Current FY
Cost
Annualized
On-going
Cost
Total Project
Cost
Neighborhood Traffic Improvements $ 142,019 - $ 142,019 Traffic Safety and Operations
Improvements
17,981 $ 17,981
Total $ 160, 000 - $ 160, 000
The Engineers estimate for the project is $160, 000. The project is proposed to be funded with 142, 019 from the Neighborhood Traffic Improvements budget and $ 18,000 from the Traffic Safety & Operations Budget. This will leave a balance of $0 in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Account and a balance of $41,983 in the Traffic Safety & Operation Account. Both the Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Traffic Safety/ Oper ations budgets are annual allocations, whereby projects identified thru those programs are funded periodically over the course of the financial plan.
ALTERNATIVE
The Council may choose to defer or deny authorization of the funding and/ or approval the plans and specifications at this time. However, staff does not recommend this as the proposed project is estimated to be within the current balance of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming budget and the project received overwhelming support from the neighborhood.
Packet Pg. 67
Item 8
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 68
Item 8
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: April 4, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 6a – REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY APPLICATION ARCH-0040-2021 AT 841 PATRICIA DRIVE (APPL-0075-2023)
Discussion
The City Council received correspondence on March 27, 2023 (with minor revisions on April 3, 2023) from the law firm of Adamski, Moroski, Madden, Cumberland & Green, representing Eric and Julie Michaels, appellants for Item 6a on the City Council Agenda for the April 4, 2023 meeting. The following discussion is provided by City staff in an effort to clarify the focus of the Planning Division’s evaluation of the Architectural Review application that is the subject of this item, and in response to several points raised in the correspondence received.
Proposed development of the property at 841 Patricia Drive includes construction of a single-family dwelling, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and related site improvements.
The proposed project design places the primary dwelling and the ADU on opposite sides of a creek and includes a bridge across the creek in order to connect these project elements. The bridge would require a discretionary exception to the City’s creek setback requirements.
Purpose of the Proposed Bridge
In the Appellant’s correspondence the proposed bridge is described as a small nonvehicular bridge, necessary, at minimum, to enable maintenance of that portion of the property by providing access for labor and machinery.
This description of the bridge is not consistent with the project design under consideration, as depicted in the plans and project description submitted with this application. The application materials describe and depict a steel-decked bridge that is twelve feet in width and approximately 55 feet in length, approached by a paved drive from the garage of the primary dwelling, and connecting to a small, paved area adjacent to the proposed ADU, on the opposite side of the creek. Concrete abutments are proposed on either side of the bridge. In appearance and description, the bridge and associated paving are designed to accommodate small vehicles to allow travel between the dwelling and ADU. Nowhere in the subject application has the proposed bridge been described as a small creek crossing for purposes of providing access across the creek for maintenance purposes, nor has any less intrusive alternative been proposed to access the eastern portion of the property for maintenance.
841 Patricia Drive Appeal Page 2
Furthermore, it is observable that the eastern portion of the property has been, and continues to be maintained, without any currently existing structural crossing of the creek.
Requirement for Biological Survey and Environmental Review Biological Survey. The appellant’s correspondence states that a biological survey was prepared for the purpose of ensuring that the bridge would not have significant impact on the environment and that, in concluding that the bridge would not have such impacts (with mitigation measures), it would also serve as the basis for granting an exception from creek setback requirements. Further, appellant’s letter questions requirement for the environmental study as part of the City’s consideration of the creek setback exception.
Staff notes in response that a biological survey is required by the City for any creek setback exception request, as described in Zoning Regulations §17.70.030 (G)(4)(d), in order to provide the basis for evaluating whether one of the required findings for a creek setback exception could be made. All eight of the required findings must be supported and “[t]he director…may act to approve an exception to the creek setback requirements of this section only where the applicant can provide clear and substantiated evidence that there is no practical way to comply with the provisions and that no other feasible alternatives will result in better implementation of other zoning regulations or general plan policies while allowing reasonable use of sites subject to creek setbacks. (Zoning Regulation §17.70.030(G)(4)(a) [emphasis added]). A biological survey may be necessary to assess the environmental finding and to determine whether greater than normal setbacks are required, pursuant to Section 17.70.030 (E)(4). However, a finding of no significant environmental impacts is not, by itself, sufficient evidence supporting all of the required findings and ordinance requirements, including the “clear and substantiated” evidence threshold, above.
Information from the required biological survey is most directly relevant to one of the required findings (Zoning §17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (i)), regarding minimization of impacts, in that it helps identify and evaluate potential adverse impacts of the proposed bridge. Staff’s analysis describes, and attempts to propose mitigations to minimize the apparent impacts to the riparian corridor from installation and use of the proposed bridge. However, based on this discussion, the Planning Commission concluded it could not find that the access bridge, as designed, would minimize impacts to riparian habitat.
Mitigation Agreement. Furthermore, as discussed in the Background Discussion of the staff report, environmental documentation (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Agreement signed by the applicant) was prepared in satisfaction of the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The application did not qualify for an exemption from CEQA environmental review because of the potential for impact on creek and wildlife corridors mapped and depicted in the City’s General Plan. The Initial Study resulted in development of mitigation measures to reduce potential significant environmental impacts. Under CEQA regulations, a project applicant must agree to implementation of these measures through a Mitigation Agreement in order for the environmental document to be deemed sufficient to support any subsequent review or approval of the development application.
841 Patricia Drive Appeal Page 3
Though pertinent to the requested creek setback exception, consideration and proposed mitigation of significant potential environmental impacts under CEQA is distinct from and does not necessarily support a conclusion that an application has satisfied all of the City’s otherwise required, additional findings for such exceptions. The City’s ordinance and required findings are not solely concerned with establishing and documenting the particular significance of environmental impacts, but rather with the minimization of any impacts to riparian habitat through location and design, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. As with the biological survey of the property, the CEQA environmental documentation does not itself provide a basis on its own for affirmatively making any or all of the required findings, including §17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (i), and it does not specifically focus on the demonstrated infeasibility of location and design alternatives, or the implementation of other zoning or general plan policies.
Reasonable Use and Redesign
The remaining discussion in this memorandum addresses asserted similar development approvals, whether reasonable use of the property is denied without approval of a creek setback exception, and whether conformance to creek setback standards can be achieved by redesign of a project.
Other private creek crossings. Appellant’s letter identifies three existing private creek crossings in the City. Development of all but one of these properties occurred prior to the City’s enactment of creek setback standards in 1996, and were therefore not subject to the required findings that must now be made under current regulations. Protection of creek corridors has long been an important policy of the City, but implementation of the policy has always been sensitive to the preservation of reasonable use of property. It is clear from the aerial photos provided in the correspondence that all three of these are examples of limited instances in which any site development could not feasibly occur without the ability to cross a creek channel. Current creek setback standards do still allow for exception in limited circumstances, where reasonable use of such properties would otherwise be deprived.
In this instance, however, as discussed in the staff report for this item, regarding “Finding 4” (Zoning §17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)(iv)), certain circumstances applying to this property, such as its shape and size, do differ from those of “typical” lots in this area, including that the western portion of the site has an area much larger than that typical of surrounding lots, and considerably larger than the minimum lot area requirement applicable in the R-1 Zone (Zoning §17.16.020(A)). Given the amount of area available here for site development, the Planning Commission found that denial of the requested creek setback does not deprive the property of development with a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures, in the manner enjoyed by properties in the vicinity.
Lot Area Useable for Buildings. As to use of the eastern side of the property, although it is roughly correct that 35% of the total area of the property lies east of the riparian vegetation edge, only a small portion of that, no more than about 3,500 square feet of area, could be developed. That limited area represents less than 10% of the total site area (excluding the creek) and is confined to a small strip between a 15-foot-wide sewer easement and 20-foot creek setback, most of this portion being of insufficient width to make its development practical.
841 Patricia Drive Appeal Page 4
Lot coverage standards limit the total area of a lot that can be covered by building footprint. This limit is calculated using the net area of the entire lot,1 and so constraints to development of certain portions of a lot do not reduce the total potential building footprint for the lot. Less constrained portions of a lot may still accommodate the same amount of building footprint allowed by lot coverage standards. In addition, up to 800 square feet of building footprint for an Accessory Dwelling Unit is excluded from lot coverage calculations altogether, which further facilitates placement of an ADU building on less constrained areas of a lot. Given the substantial size of the developable portion of this property, the Planning Commission could not find that reasonable use of the property would be deprived without an exception from creek setback standards in this case.
ADU Placement and Project Redesign. And finally, in light of the considerations above, lack of a creek crossing might complicate the placement of an Accessory Dwelling Unit on the portion of the site lying east of the creek, as proposed in Appellants’ plans, but would not preclude the establishment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit on the property.
Contrary to the assertion that staff’s evaluation of this application has in some manner focused on an alternative location for an ADU, our evaluation has discussed the consistency of the project with relevant standards and guidelines, including creek setback standards, and not the particular location of the proposed ADU itself.
Conclusion
The proposed project design requires a discretionary exception from creek setback standards in order to accommodate the proposed access bridge across the creek on the property. The City may only approve such an exception upon making all eight required findings set out in Zoning Regulations. Staff has been consistent and transparent from the early phases of application review that the application lacks clear and substantiated evidence in support of the required findings for an exception from creek setback standards. On review of the application, the Planning Commission concluded that four of the eight required findings for the creek setback exception could not be made.
As described in the staff report and clarified in this response memorandum, staff maintains that reasonable use of the property is preserved without approval of an exception to creek setback standards, and that there is no evidence that a redesign of the project to conform to creek setback requirements is infeasible. Neither the information provided by the appellants with their appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, nor the March 27th correspondence of their representing attorney provides any additional information or evidence in support of the required findings.
Attachment
A. Bridge Drawings
1 As provided in Zoning §17.70.110 (Lot Area), Net Lot Area excludes the creek area. It does, however, include the creek setback areas beyond the edge of vegetation.
340
341
342
343
344
UP
UP
350
350
SHALLOW
DEEP
SHALLOW
SHALLOW
SHALLOW
335
335
335
335
340 340
340
345
345
345
345
345
350
350
350
350
332
332
333
333
334
334
336
336
337
337
337 337
337
337
338 338
338
338
339
339
339 339 339
339
341
341
341
342
342
342
342
343
343
343
344
344
344
346
346
346
346
346
347
347
347
347
348
348
348
348
349
349
349
349
351
351
351
351
352
352
352
352
353
353
353
353
7600 Morro Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
(805) 610-1714
#20-003 DATE: JUNE 4, 2021
Ch con
6
(
0 1
(
0 %$6,62)%($5,1*6
1
(
0 1
:
0 6
:
0 6
(
0 6
:
0
6 )+ 6
:0
3$75,&,$'5,9(
6 6 )+
:0
6
(
:22'
)(1&(
(;,67,1*6+58%6
(
:')(1&(
(
%/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//
6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(17
38%/,&
'5$,1$*(
($6(0(17
38%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(17
6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867
3$75,&,$'5,9(
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
6+$'('$5($
5(35(6(176
$//2:$%/(/,0,76
2)%8,/',1*
(19(/23(
$
$
$
$
5(6,'(1&(
$'8
322/
*$5$*(
&29
325&+
*5((1+286(
6+$'('$5($
5(35(6(176
$//2:$%/(/,0,76
2)%8,/',1*
(19(/23(
$&&(6625<
6725$*(
75$6+&217$,1(5
/2&$7,21:
35,9$&<6&5((1
($6(0(17
$&&(66
%5,'*(
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
(
(175<*$7( &2/8016
(
:$7(50(7(5
(
(/(&
(
),5(+<'5$17
(
:$7(50$,1
(
6(:(50$,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//
3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((7:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7 #5,'*(
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$
$
$
6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867
2))6(7
2))6(7
2))6(7
$6
6)
/27$5($
6)
/27$5($
&5((.$5($12786(',1
/27&29(5$*(
&$/&
(
%/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(176+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23( $&&(66
%5,'*(
($6(0(17
6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867
2))6(7
2))6(7
$'8
3$7,2
(+' 678',2,QF
:HVW0DOO6XLWH%
$WDVFDGHUR&$
S
H
HGGLH#HKGHVLJQVWXGLRFRP
0,&+$(/65(6,'(1&( 6&+(0$7,&6,7(3/$1 $6 3$75,&,$5'6$1/8,62%,632&$ B
UHY
$6
$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
$ $6
/27&29(5$*(&$/&
$6 $6
(1/$5*('6,7((;+,%,7
758(
1257+
*5$3+,&6&$/(
758(
1257+
*5$3+,&6&$/(
Item 6a
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 4/4/2023
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 90 Minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION ARCH-0040-2021, REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AT 841 PATRICIA DRIVE (APPL-0075-2023; ARCH-0040-2021; EID-0547-2021)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a 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 denying Architectural Review Application ARCH-0040-2021, regarding development of property at 841 Patricia Drive (APPL-0075-2023).”
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
An Architectural Review application was filed for the development of the property at 841 Patricia Drive, including a vehicle and pedestrian bridge crossing a creek channel to provide access between a proposed single-family dwelling and a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (Attachments E & F). The application included a request for a discretionary exception to the creek setback provisions of Chapter 17.70.030 to accommodate the proposed bridge. The application was referred to the Planning Commission for review and action, and after careful consideration, the Commission, by a unanimous (6-0) vote, denied the application because four of the eight required findings1for approval of an exception to creek setback standards could not be made (Attachments J & K). The application lacked clear and substantiated evidence that redesign of the project to fully protect the creek resource was infeasible, that the project design minimized impacts to creek resources, or that a redesign of the project would deny reasonable use of the property.
The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The appeal (Attachment D) states that the project was improperly denied, that all required findings for a creek setback exception can be made, and that the City Council must make the findings. No additional evidence in support of the required findings is included in the appeal.
1 Required findings for creek setback exceptions are described in SLOMC § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c).
Item 6a
POLICY CONTEXT
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan sets out several Community Goals for the Environment regarding the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and natural landforms, including creeks and wildlife habitat along creeks, so that diverse, native plants, fish, and animals can continue to live within the area (Community Goals 3, 4, 7, 9). Land Use Element Policies for Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods require residential developments to preserve, protect, and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as creeks and wildlife habitats (Policy 2.3.7), protect stream corridors and natural drainages (Policy 2.3.9(c)), and to respect site constraints such as creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, and wildlife corridors (Policy 2.3.10).
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan describes the City’s policy for the preservation and creation of continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors (Policy 7.3.3). Creeks and Wetlands (Figure 9, see Attachment B) and Wildlife Corridors (Figure 3, see Attachment C) within the City are identified and mapped in this Element.
Development is to be carried out in a manner that protects corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal, with riparian corridors identified as features of particular importance to wildlife (Program 7.7.8).
Policies for the protection of creek corridors are implemented by provisions for Creek Setbacks set out in §17.70.030 of the City’s Zoning Regulations, which prohibit improvements, including structures and paving, within creek setbacks measured from the top of creek banks, or from the edge of riparian vegetation. Provision is made for consideration of exceptions to creek setback standards under certain circumstances, where required findings in support of an exception are made (Zoning §17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)).
Furthermore, the City’s Community Design Guidelines provide guidance for Creekside Development, including development of property for residential use. These guidelines provide, consistent with creek setback standards, that no structure or road may be located within a creek setback area (§7.1(B)(2)), and that no grading or filling or removal of native vegetation shall occur within a creek setback area (§7.1(B)(3)). A project site is considered “sensitive” when located adjacent to a creek, and development of such property is typically subject to design review (§1.2(E)) to ensure it is designed in a manner that responds to the unique characteristics of the site.
All of these policies, programs, standards, and guidelines are considered during Architectural Review of a development proposal, through Minor Development Review as described in Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.106. The development review process is intended to ensure that a project is consistent with the General Plan, the purpose of Zoning Regulations, development standards, and adopted Design Guidelines (Zoning §17.106.050(B)).
Item 6a
DISCUSSION
Background
On January 15, 2021, Eric and Julie Michaels, represented by Oasis Associates, Inc., filed an Architectural Review application for the development of the property at 841 Patricia Drive with a single-family dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (see Project Description, Attachment E, and Project Plans, Attachment F). The project design included a pedestrian and vehicle bridge between the primary dwelling and ADU across a creek channel on the property.
In February 2021 and again in April 2021 staff determined that the application was incomplete and notified the applicants of this in writing (hereinafter “Incomplete Letters;” see Attachment G). This notification included informational notes to the applicants describing the inconsistency of the project design with the City’s policies for the protection and enhancement of creeks and wildlife habitat and corridors. These notes also stated that the information provided with the application did not support the required findings for approval of an exception from creek setback requirements, especially those findings regarding the presence of special circumstances, the feasibility of alternate designs, and consideration of reasonable use of the property (see Attachment G, pg. 16).
In responses to these Incomplete Letters, the applicants acknowledged that creek setback provisions were applicable to the project but expressed confidence that an exception request was justified and provided several reasons for considering the request related to site topography, minimization of impacts, and reasonable use of the property, which are discussed in further detail within this report. The applicant team and staff conducted a teleconference meeting on April 16, 2021, to discuss remaining items required to make the application complete. In that meeting, staff again communicated to the applicants that the application lacked evidence in support of findings required to approve a creek setback exception and encouraged alternatives to the project design that would address protection of the riparian habitat.
On receipt of additional application materials from the applicants, staff determined the application to be complete in July 2021, having received responses to all outstanding completeness items described in the Incomplete Letters. Notwithstanding the status of the application, staff considered the reasons given by the applicants in support of a creek setback exception to be insufficient to justify a positive recommendation to the Community Development Director for approval of the requested exception. Staff again notified the applicants in writing about the project’s inconsistency with City policy for the protection of wildlife habitat and corridors and with creek setback standards on July 30, 2021 (see Policy Inconsistencies Summary, Attachment H).
Staff subsequently informed the applicants that the application would not qualify for a categorical exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline §15300.2 (Exceptions), which excludes from categorical exemptions projects which “may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted” by a governmental agency; in this case, a creek and wildlife corridor mapped and depicted as such in the City’s General Plan.
Item 6a
In this communication (Attachment I), staff also reiterated the lack of support for approval of a creek setback exception and encouraged consideration of project design alternatives that would preserve the integrity of the creek setback corridor and not require an exception.
Nevertheless, after clearly advising applicants that staff would not support granting a creek setback exception, staff commenced preparation of an Initial Study as required under CEQA at applicant’s request. In March 2022, as the first internal draft of the Initial Study neared completion, staff met with the applicant team to discuss the path forward for the application, again reiterating the outstanding concerns about the lack of evidence in support of several of the required findings for the requested creek setback exception.
The Community Development Director, as authorized by Zoning Regulations §17.109.010, referred consideration of the application to the Planning Commission because the proposed project involved inconsistencies related to General Plan policies for resource protection and significant neighborhood input was received regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project. As discussed in further detail later in this report (see Previous Council or Advisory Body Action, below), the Planning Commission considered the application at their January 25, 2023 meeting (see Meeting Minutes, Attachment J) and, by unanimous (6-0) vote, denied the application (see Planning Commission Resolution PC-1068-23, Attachment K), finding the project inconsistent with General Plan policies, development standards in Zoning Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines.
In particular, the Commission found that the application lacked evidence to support four of the eight required findings for an exception from creek setback requirements:
SLOMC 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (i): The proposed access bridge could not be found to minimize impacts to riparian habitat, since it would interrupt the contiguous riparian corridor, require clearance of vegetation and placement of fill soils for its abutments, and involve ongoing use of the bridge for vehicle and pedestrian access across the creek channel, between the residence and ADU. SLOMC 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (iv): Given that the site contains a developable area on the western portion of the site, outside of any creek setback, that is larger than the typical lot size in the vicinity, and measuring about four times the minimum lot area standard for the R-1 Zone, it could not be found that there were special circumstances applicable to the property that deprived it of development in a manner similar to other property in the vicinity.
SLOMC 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (vii) & (viii): Nor was evidence found in the application that site development could not be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project, or that redesign of the project to comply with creek setback requirements would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property, since the amount of developable area outside of required creek setbacks is sufficient to allow for development of a single-family dwelling and ADU without need for an access bridge to be constructed across the creek channel.
Item 6a
On February 1, 2023 the applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. The reasons for the appeal are provided in the Appeal Form included with this report as Attachment B.
Site and Setting
The subject property is an undeveloped 1.41-
acre parcel (Lot 63) within Ferrini Estates
(Tract 1182), an 86-lot single-family
residential subdivision situated at the
northwest edge of the City, west of Highway 1
and north of Highland Drive (see Figure 1). It
is in a Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone.
The lot is on the east side of Patricia Drive,
about 150 feet north of Patricia Court. It is a
“flag lot” situated in the middle of the block,
connected to Patricia Drive by a 25-foot wide
accessway.
The site is characterized by disturbed fill soils
on the western and eastern portions of the
site, sloping down from either side of the
creek toward a shallow channel supporting
riparian vegetation. A 30-foot wide drainage easement follows roughly the course of the creek channel in the middle portion of the property (see Existing Topo / Site Plan, Attachment F, Sheet A2). The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan depicts a creek in this location (see COSE Figure 9, Attachment B):
Creeks and Wetlands), labeled as “Perennial creek, with degraded corridor, but able to be restored or repaired.” A generalized wildlife corridor is also depicted travelling through this area (see COSE Figure 3: Wildlife Corridors, Attachment C).
The site can be divided into three main components, as depicted in project plans (see Lot Coverage Detail in Site Plan, Attachment F, Sheet AS-1): the central portion of the site, subject to a drainage easement and a required creek setback; and the western and eastern portions, representing the developable area of the site, together measuring about 38,260 sq. ft. in area. In addition to normal development standards, the eastern portion of the site is also subject to a 15-foot wide sewer easement along the east boundary of the property.
Proposed Project
The applicants propose to develop the property for single-family residential use (see Project Description, Attachment E, and Project Plans, Attachment F), including:
1. Single-family dwelling (4 BR, 4 BA, 4,940 sq. ft.) with greenhouse (430 sq. ft.)
2. Three-car garage (858 sq. ft.) and utility room (212 sq. ft.)
3. Swimming pool and outdoor barbecue area
4. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU, 825 sq. ft.)
5. Access Bridge across the creek channel to the ADU
6. Small (128 sq. ft.) accessory storage shed
Figure 1: 841 Patricia
Item 6a
Primary dwelling and amenities. The proposed dwelling, greenhouse, garage, and pool and barbecue area are located on the western portion of the site, in and adjacent to a two-story building (25 feet in height) in a rectangular plan, stepping down to single-story wings at its south end (“en-suite” wing with basement sauna) and north end (garage and utility room). The building can be characterized as Contemporary Craftsman in architectural style, with horizontal lap siding, shake shingle roofing, with gabled roof forms, overhanging eaves, projecting rafters, decorative brackets, rectangular window forms, including use of divided lights and painted trim, and stone chimney, porch, and feature wall. The pool and outdoor barbecue area are set into the slope on the east side of the primary dwelling, internal to the site itself. (see Attachment F: Site Plan, Sheet AS-1; Exterior Elevations, Sheets A11-A13, and Figure 2, above).
Accessory Dwelling Unit. The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and accessory storage shed are located on the east side of the site, across the creek channel. The ADU is single-story and just under 16 feet in height. It has a simpler five-sided plan with a lowslope single gable roof with deeply overhanging eaves. It is detailed in a manner similar to the primary dwelling, with horizontal lap siding, shake roof, rectangular window forms with painted trim, and stone patio and five-foot tall patio wall (See Project Plans, Attachment F, Sheets A14 – A16, and Figure 3, above).
Figure 2: Primary Dwelling (West Elevation)
Figure 3: Accessory Dwelling Unit (West Elevation)
Item 6a
Access Bridge. An access bridge is proposed to be installed across the channel to connect the western and eastern portions of the site, as the primary dwelling and ADU are separated by the creek channel and associated riparian vegetation. The bridge is composed of steel material with concrete abutments. As depicted in plans (see Attachment F, Sheet C1, and Figure 4 below) the bridge is 12 feet wide and will span about 55 feet between abutments across the creek channel. The bridge surface is about four feet above the bottom of the channel. Its decking and framing are about 18 inches deep, providing two feet of “free board” above the identified 100-year flood plain level.
The bridge will also carry utility services (i.e., water and electric) across the creek channel to the ADU. As shown in the Tree Survey and Revegetation Plan (Attachment L) existing oak and willow trees will be removed as necessary from the bridge crossing area, with compensatory planting under a revegetation plan to replace removed trees elsewhere within the riparian corridor.
Creek Setbacks
As summarized in the Policy Context section of this report, above, the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan sets out several Community Goals for the Environment demonstrating the importance of creek and wildlife resources:
Land Use Element - Community Goals
3. Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the quality of air, water, soil, and open space.
4. Protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife habitat on land surrounding the city, at Laguna Lake, along creeks and other wetlands, and on open hills and ridges within the city, so that diverse, native plants, fish, and animals can continue to live within the area.
7. Protect and restore natural landforms and features in and near the city, such as the volcanic morros, hillsides, marshes, and creeks.
9. Identify, map and monitor our community's natural assets to preserve and protect them.
Policies – Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods Figure 4: Access Bridge; Section (left), Concept Photos (right)
Item 6a
2.3.7 – The City shall require residential developments to preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants.
2.3.9(c) – New development shall protect stream corridors and natural drainages
2.3.10 – The City shall require new residential developments to respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, native vegetation, and significant trees.
The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) describes the importance of creek corridors and provides specific creek protection policies and programs:
The City’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors that allow wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. To help preserve natural communities, it is important to protect, improve and where appropriate and feasible, protect and re-establish these corridors. (COSE §7.0 – Background)
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 7.3.3 – Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors
Program 7.7.8 – Condition development permits in accordance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Features of particular importance to wildlife include riparian corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided to maintain connections between habitat areas
Pursuant to Program 7.7.9 (Creek Setbacks), Creek Setback policies are implemented by the Creek Setback regulations set out in Zoning §17.70.030. Creek setback requirements apply to all creeks as defined in the Open Space Element and shown on its creek map (COSE Figure 9, see Attachment B).
Creek setbacks are measured from the existing top of bank, or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the creek flow line.
Here, the top of bank is not clearly defined, owing to the shallow nature of the creek channel, and the edge of the associated riparian vegetation is the appropriate feature from which to measure the setback. A 20-foot creek setback applies to development of this property (§17.70.030(E)(1)), with neither paving nor structures larger than 120 square feet in area permitted within the creek setback (§17.70.030(F)). Project plans depict the edge of riparian vegetation (labeled as “Surveyed Vegetation Line” on plans, Attachment F, Sheet AS-1), which has been confirmed by the City Biologist as an appropriate representation of the vegetation edge.
Item 6a
The abutments and structure of the proposed access bridge exceed 120 square feet in area and extend beyond the top of banks and into the channel, and therefore may not be located within the creek setback without obtaining a discretionary exception (§17.70.030(G)).
Required Findings for Creek Setback Exceptions
Exceptions from creek setback requirements may be considered, as provided by Zoning §17.70.030(G)(4). Such exceptions may be approved only where an applicant can provide clear and substantiated evidence that there is no practical way to comply with the provisions and that no other feasible alternatives will result in better implementation of other Zoning Regulations or General Plan policies while allowing reasonable use of a site. (Zoning §17.70.030(G)(4)(a)). The granting of an exception is subject to making all of the required findings set out in Zoning §17.70.030(G)(4)(c), as follows:
Required Findings for Creek Setback Exception (Zoning §17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)) Findings. Each Director’s Hearing or other discretionary application to grant an exception to a required creek setback shall be subject to each of the following findings, in addition to any other required findings associated with the project application under which the request is considered:
(1) The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; and (2) The exception will not limit the City’s design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies; and (3) The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and (4) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
(5) The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege—an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
(6) The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; and
(7) Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project; (8) Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. “Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site, “reasonable development” may mean no additional development considering site constraints and the existing development’s scale, design, or density.
Item 6a
Staff concluded that the following four required findings for granting a discretionary creek setback exception could not be made:
1. The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. (SLOMC § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (i)) Staff Analysis: Provisions for creek setback exceptions direct that a biological survey be prepared by a qualified independent person to provide the basis for making the required findings (Zoning §17.70.030(G)(4)(d)). A Biological Resources Assessment, along with a subsequent Addendum, was prepared for the project by David Wolff Environmental, LLC, included as attachments to the project IS/MND (see Attachments 3 and 4 within Attachment M of this report, from pg. 225). As described by its author, the assessment documents existing conditions of the site and evaluates the potential for any direct or indirect significant impacts on biological, wetland or riparian resources, or adverse effects on any rare, threatened, or endangered plant or wildlife species (Attachment M, pg. 225).
The Assessment provides a summary description of the creek corridor, noting that it supports arroyo willow thicket habitat dominated by arroyo willow, with occurrence of large and small coast live oak trees, a leaf maple, and planted sycamore, and continues behind houses to its end near Westmont Avenue (Attachment M, pg. 228). It can provide habitat for wildlife adapted to urban environments although, being surrounded by urban development, “other wildlife use is likely limited with generally low wildlife values” and “while depicted by the City as a wildlife corridor, the project site does not represent any specific migratory or movement corridor for wildlife” (Attachment M, pp. 228-229).
Discussion of special status plant and wildlife species is provided, describing the low potential for any to occur at the site, given lack of suitable habitat conditions (see Attachment M, pp. 229-231).
It is noted that environmental review of the project (see Environmental Review, below), as supported by the Biological Resources Assessment, indicates that installation of the bridge would not, with incorporation of certain mitigation measures, have significant impacts on scenic resources, water quality, or biological resources, as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, evaluation under CEQA focuses on impacts to particular threatened species and species of concern, whereas the City’s creek preservation policies and standards, and this required finding, are more broadly concerned with minimization of impacts to riparian habitat and opportunities for habitation, rest, and movement of a range of wildlife that may take advantage of the habitat, including those adapted to the urban environment, whether or not they are considered to be threatened or endangered.
Interruption of this riparian corridor by the presence and use of the bridge can be presumed to have some incremental impact on opportunities for habitation, rest, and movement of wildlife. Where the existing riparian corridor is currently intact and contiguous, the bridge structure will cross and interrupt it, involving clearance of riparian vegetation to accommodate its twelve-foot width, fill soils in the setback area for the support abutments, and ongoing use of this portion of the creek channel for access between the primary residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Item 6a
As discussed in evaluation of the remaining required findings below, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that the access bridge is necessary for reasonable development of this property, and, if a bridge is not necessary then a project design that involves no access bridge is an alternative that further minimizes, or practically eliminates, impacts to use of the riparian corridor by wildlife. As there are alternatives to develop the site in a manner that would not require an access bridge, the Planning Commission found that the proposed access bridge would not minimize impacts to riparian habitat.
4. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning. (SLOMC § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (iv))
Staff Analysis: The property is subject to substantially the same circumstances, conditions, and privileges as land in the vicinity with the same zoning. This lot lies within the northerly portion of Tract 1182 (Lots 1 – 78). As this property and those in the vicinity are within an R-1 Zone, permitted land use is limited to a Single-Unit Dwelling (Zoning §17.10.020, Table 2) and physical development must conform to the Development Standards set out in Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.16, such as creek setbacks, floor area ratio and lot coverage limitations, building height limits, and setbacks.
Certain circumstances applying to this property differ from those of “typical” lots in this area. This lot is considerably larger and is more eccentrically shaped than nearby lots. It slopes gradually on its east and west sides, down toward the creek channel which bisects the site. A third of its “developable” area is separated on the east side of the property by the creek channel and is encumbered by a sewer easement, presenting considerable constraints to development of that portion of the site.
Nevertheless, the western portion of the site, connected to Patricia Drive, measures more than 24,000 square feet in area, much larger than the 10,000 to 15,000 square-foot lot size typical of surrounding lots, and four times larger than the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area requirement applicable in the R-1 Zone (Zoning §17.16.020(A)). Accordingly, the Planning Commission found that the required creek setback does not deprive the property of development with a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures, in the manner enjoyed by properties in the vicinity, and that there is no evidence that special circumstances apply to the site that would deprive the owner the ability to develop the lot in a similar manner as adjacent properties and in the vicinity.
7. Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project. (SLOMC § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (vii))
Staff Analysis: The proposed bridge provides access from the primary dwelling to an Accessory Dwelling Unit planned for the eastern portion of the property, across the creek channel, for vehicles and pedestrians. A redesign of the project would most obviously focus on the location of the ADU and the provisions for access to it from the primary dwelling.
Item 6a
In response to Informational Notes regarding the required findings for creek setback exceptions provided to the applicants during review of the application for completeness (see Attachment G), the applicants provided their explanation of their justification for the exception request. As to the feasibility of site development with a redesign of the project, the applicants noted natural topography constraints and argued that placement of the proposed ADU on the western portion of the property and removal of the bridge from the project design would render the project infeasible, as doing so would result in more site grading disturbance (cut and fill), and would affect other sensitive areas of the site (see Attachment G, pg. 3, Item 4).
The Planning Commission found that no evidence had been presented that clearly substantiated that the eastern portion of the site is the only feasible location for the ADU or that a 12-foot-wide vehicle bridge is the only feasible means to provide access to the unit from the primary dwelling. Nor was it demonstrated that any additional site grading would be necessary in order to incorporate the proposed ADU into the development proposed for the western portion of the site, or that any additional grading required to do so would be infeasible. No other sensitive areas of the site that would be affected by any such additional grading were identified or described. As discussed elsewhere in this report, more than half an acre (24,000 sq. ft.) of the western portion of the site is unencumbered by constraints (from riparian habitat, creek setback, or utility easement) and available for residential site development, and the Planning Commission found no clear and substantiated evidence in the application record demonstrating that development of this portion with a single-family dwelling and ADU would in fact be infeasible.
8. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. “Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. (SLOMC § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c) (viii)) Staff Analysis: Development of a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures (including an Accessory Dwelling Unit), consistent with applicable development standards, represents reasonable use of property in the R-1 Zone. The applicant, in response to Informational Notes during completeness review, argued that there would be no reasonable use of the eastern portion of the site without an access bridge across the creek (see Attachment G, pp. 8 & 17, par. 4), and that limiting access to, or use of, this portion of the lot would conflict with recent legislation (i.e., California state law) regarding establishment of ADUs (Attachment G, pg. 13, Item 4).
Staff noted that this required finding relates to reasonable use of the entire property, not with use of particular portions of it. In addition, California law regarding ADUs directs local agencies to permit establishment of such units, consistent with provisions of state law, including relaxation of development standards where such standards would preclude their establishment, but does not mandate that an ADU must be allowed on any or all portions of a site. In this case, the half-acre western portion of the site is much larger in size than other properties in the vicinity and is available to accommodate development of both a single-family dwelling and an ADU, and the Planning Commission found no evidence that redesign of the project to achieve consistency with creek setback requirements would deny reasonable use of the property as a whole.
Item 6a
The remaining required findings ((c)(ii), (iii), (vi)) appeared to be supported by plans and information submitted with the application. The property is not located within any Flood Hazard Zone, and project plans depict a proposed bridge structure designed in conformance to flood control policies, providing adequate clearance above the 100-year flood level. There are no characteristics of the property or project that would prevent the implementation of any City-adopted plan, nor any hazardous condition or circumstance that would cause the project to present a threat to the public or property in the area or downstream from the site.
Based on the evaluation outlined above, four of the eight required findings necessary to approve a creek setback exception cannot be met. Specifically, findings 1, 4, 7 & 8 that relate to the minimization of impacts to riparian habitat, special circumstances that apply to the site, feasibility of a redesign of the project, and reasonable use of the property, were not supported or could be objectively substantiated by the information provided with this application. Because these required findings could not be made, staff could not support, and the Planning Commission did not approve, the requested creek setback exception.
Community Design Guidelines
Project plans were reviewed for conformance to development standards applicable to the project, as set out in Zoning Regulations §17.16.020 and Ch. 17.70, and to the City’s Community Design Guidelines. Notwithstanding the request for an exception to the creek setback requirement described in Zoning §17.70.030, the proposed project otherwise conformed to basic development standards including density, lot coverage limitations, building height limits, and building setbacks, and to satisfy design guidelines related to building design. As depicted in Sheets A10 through A15 of project plans (Attachment F) the proposed dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit employ conventional residential exterior materials, roof forms, window spacing, colors, and detailing to achieve compatibility with existing development in the immediate neighborhood, use step-backs, sloped roofs, overhangs, and increased building setbacks to visually minimize the apparent height of the proposed buildings, and orient windows and activity areas in a manner that minimizes overlook and privacy impacts to neighbors (see Attachment G, pp. 8 & 9). However, the proposed project is not consistent with Community Design Guidelines for Creekside Development.
Creekside Development. Guidance provided for Creekside Development (CDG §7.1) reiterates creek setback requirements, supplemented by two relevant guidelines for proposed structures:
§7.1 Creekside Development
(B)(2) A path or trail may be located within a creekside setback where biological and habitat value will not be compromised; however, no other structure, road, parking access, parking space, paved area, or swimming pool should be constructed within a creek or creekside setback area. The surfacing of a path or trail may most appropriately be permeable; the type of surface will be based on the need to protect riparian resources and minimize runoff to the creek channel.
(B)(3) No grading or filling, planting of exotic/non-native or non-riparian plant species, or removal of native vegetation shall occur within a creek or creekside setback area.
Item 6a
The Planning Commission found the proposed project to be inconsistent with the above guidelines for Creekside Development since it introduces a bridge structure with an impervious surface for vehicle access across the creek channel, which exceeds “a path or trail” in scale and intensity of use. Installation of the bridge also involves filling, to fit the abutments, along with removal of some of the existing riparian vegetation, albeit with compensatory planting.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Architectural Review application ARCH-0040-20212 and, by unanimous (6-0) vote, denied the application (see Meeting Minutes, Attachment J). As described in Planning Commission Resolution PC1068-23 (Attachment K), the Commission found the proposed project to be inconsistent with General Plan policies and implementing creek setback standards for the preservation of wildlife habitat and corridors set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element, and for the conservation and development of residential neighborhoods set out in the Land Use Element regarding preservation of natural site features and respect for site constraints. Nor could the required findings for approving an exception to creek setback requirements to accommodate the access bridge proposed with the project be made.
Public Engagement
Public notice of consideration of this application by the Planning Commission at its January 23, 2023 meeting was provided to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject site, in accordance with the Notification Requirements set out in Council Resolution 10681 (2015).
As provided by those requirements, notification for consideration of the appeal of this application has been provided in the same manner. Public notice about, and opportunity for public comment on, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this application were provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, parties who have expressed interest in this application to the Planning Division or provided public comment at the January Planning Commission meeting, and who have provided contact information, were notified of Council consideration of this appeal.
CONCURRENCE
Project plans were reviewed by Community Development staff (Building & Safety Division, Engineering Division), the Natural Resources Manager, the Fire Department, and the Utilities Department. The Natural Resources Manager assisted in confirmation of the “edge of riparian vegetation” used to establish creek setback measurements and review of information regarding potential impacts to biological resources. The Engineering Division reviewed the project design for conformance to applicable Engineering standards and flood control policies and regulations, particularly in regard to the design of the access bridge, concluding that the bridge would not present a barrier for purposes of safe conveyance of waters or create or exacerbate any hazard.
2 The Planning Commission Agenda Report prepared by staff for this item is available in the City’s online archive at http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=172143
Item 6a
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), projects which a public agency disapproves are statutorily exempt from CEQA (Guidelines §15270. Projects Which Are Disapproved). As staff is recommending that the Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny this application, thereby upholding the denial of the project, this is the applicable environmental determination for the recommended action.
Notwithstanding the statutory exemption described above, staff notes that an Initial Study was conducted for the project, with particular focus on the potential for significant environmental impacts from the project on biological resources, given the presence of the creek and wildlife corridor features depicted in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan. The Initial Study concluded that potential environmental impacts from the project would be reduced to a “less than significant” level by incorporation of certain mitigation measures into any project approval that might be granted. These mitigation measures are described in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration document, attached to this report (Attachments M & N).
While staff recommends that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this project under the statutory exemption for project denial, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration would need to be adopted with any approval action taken on the project and the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project would have to be incorporated into any approval action, should required findings in support of such an approval be made.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2023
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
Item 6a
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal and continue the hearing to a date certain and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the Architectural Review application ARCH0040-2021. If Council pursues this alternative, the Council should generally provide the facts and basis for upholding the appeal based on the policy standards for the exception as enumerated in Zoning §17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)) 1-8. The basis for upholding the appeal will need to be based on evidence and the applicant will need to work with City Staff to provide the basis for this alternative. Should Council pursue this alternative, any resolution would need to include required findings and should incorporate the Mitigation Measures described in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (Attachments M & N).
This action is not recommended since the project as proposed has been found by the Planning Commission to be inconsistent with General Plan policies, development standards in Zoning Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines. Neither the Architectural Review application nor the appeal of the Planning Commission decision provide evidence in support of the required findings that must be made in order to approve an exception from creek setback requirements to accommodate the approved access bridge across the creek channel.
2. Continue consideration of the item, with direction provided to staff and the appellants for more information or analysis. Specific details should be provided as to what new or additional information will be required in order to inform a decision on the appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Council Resolution (APPL-0075-2023, 841 Patricia) B - Conservation and Open Space Element: Figure 9 (Creeks and Wetlands) C - Conservation and Open Space Element: Figure 3 (Wildlife Corridors) D - Appeal Form (APPL-0075-2023 (841 Patricia))
E - Project Description (841 Patricia)
F - Project Plans (841 Patricia)
G -Incomplete Letter Responses (841 Patricia)
H - Policy Inconsistencies Summary (841 Patricia)
I - Email Communication (July 30, 2021)
J - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Jan 25, 2023)
K - Planning Commission Resolution PC-1068-23
L - Tree Survey and Revegetation Plan (841 Patricia)
M -Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Michaels Residence Project) N - Public Comments on Initial Study/MND, and Responses to Comments (Michaels Residence Project)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 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 DENYING ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW APPLICATION ARCH-0040-2021, REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AT 841 PATRICIA DRIVE
(APPL-0075-2023)
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2023, 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, to consider a proposal for development of the property at 841 Patricia Drive, including a request for an exception to required creek setbacks, under Architectural Review application ARCH-0040-2021; Eric and Julie Michaels, applicants, and by unanimous (6-0) vote, adopted Planning Commission Resolution PC-1068-23 denying the application; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, Eric and Julie Michaels filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Architectural Review application; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 4, 2023, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision denying Architectural Review application ARCH-0040-2021; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based on all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings:
a) The proposed project is not consistent with policies and programs of the City’s General Plan for the preservation of wildlife habitat and corridors set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 7.3.3, Program 7.7.8) and for the conservation and development of residential neighborhoods set out in the Land Use Element regarding preservation of natural site features and respect for site constraints (Policies 2.3.7 & 2.3.10). A creek crosses the subject property and a wildlife corridor travels through the vicinity of the project site, as depicted in Figure 9 (Creeks and Wetlands) and Figure 3 (Wildlife Corridors) of
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R ______
the Conservation and Open Space Element. The proposed project includes a 12-foot-wide access bridge crossing the creek channel for ongoing use by pedestrians and vehicles to connect development on each side of the creek, involving fill activities to install the bridge abutments and removal of riparian vegetation to accommodate the bridge, disrupting the existing intact and contiguous riparian corridor, impacting the opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. As further described below, the access bridge proposed under the current project design does not meet the required findings for granting of an exception to the creek setback requirements which implement the resource protection policies of the General Plan.
b) The location and design of the proposed access bridge will not minimize impacts to riparian habitat (Zoning Regulations §17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(i)).
Construction of the bridge structure would involve clearance of riparian vegetation to accommodate its twelve-foot width, adding fill soils in the setback area for the support abutments, and encroachment into the creek channel for access between the primary residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Interruption of the riparian corridor by the presence and use of the access bridge will impact opportunities for habitation, rest, and movement of wildlife. c) There is no evidence that there are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning (17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(iv)). The subject property lies within an R-1 Zone, and physical development must conform to the Development Standards set out in Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.16. The western portion of the site, wholly outside of the required creek setback area, measures more than 24,000 square feet in area, four times larger than the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area requirement applicable in the R-1 Zone (Zoning §17.16.020(A)), and much larger than the typical area of surrounding lots. The required creek setback does not deprive the property of development of a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units, in the manner enjoyed by properties in the vicinity under applicable use limitations and development standards, and no other circumstances have been identified that would deprive the property of such development.
d) There is no evidence that site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project. (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(vii)). No evidence has been presented that the eastern portion of the site is the only feasible location for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) proposed under this application, or that the proposed access bridge is the only feasible means to provide access to the ADU from the primary dwelling. As described in the staff report presented at a public hearing for this item, there is no evidence in the application record demonstrating that a project redesign to achieve the development of this site with a dwelling and ADU would in fact be infeasible.
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 3
R ______
e) There is no evidence that redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(viii)). While development of the eastern portion of the property is constrained by its location across a creek channel from the street-accessible western portion of the property and by a sewer easement, and development of the central portion of the property is constrained by the presence of a creek and required creek setback, the western portion of the site is comprised of a developable area approximately half of an acre (24,000 sq. ft.). Development of a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures (including an Accessory Dwelling Unit), consistent with applicable development standards, represents reasonable use of property in the R-1 Zone and is feasible within the developable area of the western portion of the site.
f) The proposed project design is not consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for Creekside Development (CDG §7.1), which direct that no structure other than a path or trail may be located within a creek setback, including a road, parking access or space, or paved area (CDG §7.1(B)(2)), and that no grading or filling or removal of native vegetation shall occur within a creek setback (CDG §7.1(B)(3)). The proposed project includes a bridge structure designed for vehicle access within the required creek setback, involving fill soils with installation of the bridge abutments and removal of willow and oak trees, along with other vegetation, from the riparian corridor.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Denial of the proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review, as a project which a public agency disapproves, as described in the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) §15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 4
R ______
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the subject appeal filed by Eric and Julie Michaels, and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Architectural Review application ARCH-0040-2021, regarding proposed development of the property at 841 Patricia Drive, including a request for exception to required creek setbacks.
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of __________ 2023. ___________________________
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
Chapter 6
FOOTHILL
SANTA ROSA
TANK FARM
LOS OSOS VALLEY
MADONNA
BROAD SOUTH
CALIFORNIA
HIGUERA
JOHNSON
PALM
FOOTHILL
LAGUNA LAKE
Figure
9:
Creeks and Wetlands
0.5 0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles
City LimitRiparian HabitatsWetland Habitats
Creeks
Perennial creek with good riparian corridorIntermittent creek with good riparian corridorPerennial creek with degraded corridor but able to be restored or repairedIntermittent creek with degraded corridor but able to be restored or repairedPerennial creek with degraded corridor, high encroachment, and difficulty in restoring Waterways
Drainage ditchOpen concrete swale or channelUnderground culvert or major bridge
Chapter 6
BUCKLEY
HWY 1
HWY 101
LA G UNA LAKE
HWY 101
BROAD
FOOTHILL
PRADO
LOS OSOS VALLEY
TANK FARM
City LimitGreenbeltCreeksWildlife Zones
Figure 3:
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife CorridorLinear BarrierPotential Wildlife Corridor 0123
Miles
3 4 2 7 M i g u e l i t o C o u r t S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 4 5 0 9 p 8 0 5 . 5 4 6 . 0 5 2 5 f w w w . o a s i s a s s o c . c o m
application supplement
to the
minor development review application
single family residence & accessory dwelling unit (adu) development 841 Patricia Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
15 January 2021
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a new 4,900± square foot (SF) single-family residence and an 825 SF accessory dwelling unit. The siting of the house complies with the requisite development standards while responding to the existing topography, on-site creek-riparian corridor, and views of the surrounding hillsides and City below.
Extensive landscape architectural design completes the overall aesthetic and functional approach to the project.
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS
Owner Eric & Julie Michaels
Project Address 841 Patricia Drive
APN 052-520-063. (Lot 63 of Tract 1182)
Parcel Size 1.41 acres
Zoning Designation Low Density Residential- Planned Development (R-1-PD) Planned Development Established with annexation into City and amended Tract 1182, circa 1985 The subject property, a flag lot
accessed via an existing gated driveway
on Patricia Drive, is surrounded on all
sides by other single-family homes
built in the tract since its approval in
the mid-1980s. The City identifies an
unnamed and mapped creek running
through the property. There is an
existing small storage shed on the
property which is to be demolished as
part of the proposed development.
III. PERMIT PROCESSING
The Zoning Regulations identify
thresholds for the level of development
review required for the project. The
proposed project is an allowable use but does require a minor development review as the new single-family residence is located on a site with a creek. Minor development review Figure 1
Oasis Associates, Inc.
15 January 2021
ARC-MII Application Supplement – Michaels Residence, 841 Patricia Drive, SLO
3 4 2 7 M i g u e l i t o C o u r t S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 4 5 0 9 p 8 0 5 . 5 4 6 . 0 5 2 5 f w w w . o a s i s a s s o c . c o m
is a staff-level review with no public hearing. Once the review is completed and the project is approved, the property owner can apply for building permit(s).
IV.DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ZONING REGULATIONS
A. Planned Development & Tract 1182
The subject property is within a Planned Development (PD) zoning overlay. The PD overlay established specific development standards that may deviate from the Citywide zoning regulations. In this case, the PD overlay was established as part of the area’s annexation into the City in 1978 and was further refined with the subdivision (circa 1985). The City provided records that relate to the PD and tract approval.
The majority of the conditions of approval and PD requirements pertained to development of the tract and related improvements. The subject property is not identified for specific requirements however, the following items are of note. 1) The tract map conditions of approval specified a minimum drainage easement be established for all-natural drainage ways from top bank to top of bank (with a minimum of 10 feet). 1
2) Per the tract approval, homes and driveways shall drain to the street or natural drainage ways. And cross lot drainage shall not be increased with development of lots. If drainage does cross property lines, private drainage easements would need to be established. 2
3) Drainage structures are to be designed for a 100-year storm, however this condition notes, “Exceptions to the subdivision ordinance shall be provided for lot which do not have adequate frontages.”3 Figure 2 identifies the 1984/85 tract map noting the drainage and sewer easements.
City Standards & Specifications 1010 of the Uniform Design Criteria also apply to the project, most notably.
• §1010 5.1.2 Alignment of Drainage Facilities (C) Easement Width • §1010 5.1.10 Fencing
• §1010 7.1.3 Pipe (D) Sewer Lines within Easements
See Sheet C-1 Preliminary Grading & Utility Plan (Chacon & Associates) for the proposed grading, drainage, and utility concepts and the completed Stormwater Control Plan for Post Construction Requirements form.
1 Resolution 5428 (1984 series) Condition 2
2 Resolution 5428 (1984 series) Condition 3 and 4
3 Ordinance 479 (1978 series) Condition 11
Oasis Associates, Inc.
15 January 2021
ARC-MII Application Supplement – Michaels Residence, 841 Patricia Drive, SLO
3 4 2 7 M i g u e l i t o C o u r t S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 4 5 0 9 p 8 0 5 . 5 4 6 . 0 5 2 5 f w w w . o a s i s a s s o c . c o m
B. Development Standards & Creek Setback
The development standards applicable to the subject property are provided in the table below. The proposed project complies with the applicable development standards. See Sheet A1, RRM Design Group, for the project statistics – lot coverage, building height, setbacks, parking, and related project information.
The City’s creek setback requirements are also applicable to the project. In this location, a 20-foot setback from top of bank or edge of riparian habitat is applicable. (§17.70.030).
The location of the riparian setback has been established by Freddy Otte, City Biologist.
The setback has been surveyed and noted on the plan set accordingly. Encroachments into the riparian corridor consist of a bridge to access the proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and related utility connections. Other agency permits (e.g., Army Corp., US & CA Fish & Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board) will be applied for, as necessary, for any encroachment into their jurisdiction. David Wolff, Sage Institute, Inc. is the project biologist and is familiar with the site, proposed project, and agency permitting requirements.
The proposed development has been carefully designed in response to the topography of the site. Building height calculations are provided on Sheet A4-Site Elevations. The main portion of the structure is a rectilinear configuration with the average grade elevation calculated based on the extents of this portion of the building (see Sections 1 & 2 on sheet A4). The en-suite wing of the structure is calculated separately as the wing is a relatively small portion of the building mass (see Section 3 on sheet A4). The 588 Figure 2
Oasis Associates, Inc.
15 January 2021
ARC-MII Application Supplement – Michaels Residence, 841 Patricia Drive, SLO
3 4 2 7 M i g u e l i t o C o u r t S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 4 5 0 9 p 8 0 5 . 5 4 6 . 0 5 2 5 f w w w . o a s i s a s s o c . c o m
SF en-suite wing is one-story structure (with basement) with a lower finish floor elevation created in response to the increased slope in this area of the property. While the average slope of the overall property does not exceed 15% and thus §17.70.080.B “Building Height on Slopes with Sixteen Percent Grade or Greater” is not automatically applicable, the calculation provided is consistent with the development standards for a sloping site. The main structure and the en-suite’s exposed façades and building height, located on the downward slope, are consistent with the intent of the development standards to control building height, while responding to the site topography and in the context of neighborhood and surrounding homes.
ZONING REGULATIONS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE
17.16.020 Development Standards; Table 2-4: R-1 Zone Development Standards.
STANDARD ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS PROJECT COMPLIANCE
Maximum Residential
Density: 7 units/net acre
See also Section 17.70.040 (Density) One (1) residential single-family dwelling on one (1) legal lot.
Density is not applicable to ADU.
Maximum FAR: 0.4 Maximum FAR may be increased up to 0.50 if consistent with Section 17.16.030(A) (Requirements
and Findings for FAR Increase in R-1 Zone). See also
Section 17.70.060 (FAR Measurement and Exceptions)
0.12 (7,857 SF gross floor area
(conditioned and non-conditioned
space) / 61,419 SF)
Minimum Setbacks
Front: 20 feet
Interior Side and Rear:
See Table 2-5 below
Corner Lot—Street Side:
10 feet.
See also Section 17.76.030 (Front Yard
Paving)
See Figure 2-1: Street Side Setback on
Corner Lots
Front: 25
Side: 5 feet (with building height
of 10’6”) to 15 feet (with building
height of 15’6”)
Rear: 15 feet (to ADU building
height of 20 feet)
Maximum Building Height:
25 feet
Roof pitches with a slope of at least 30
degrees above a horizontal plane may extend
beyond the maximum height no more than
30 inches. See also Sections 17.16.020(B)
(R-1 Zone Minimum Interior Side and Rear
Setbacks) and 17.70.080 (Height
Measurement and Exceptions)
Main building: 25 feet
En-suite wing: 20 feet
Accessory Dwelling Unit: 20 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage:
40%
See also Section 17.70.120 (Lot Coverage) 11% (6,876 SF) Minimum Lot Area: 6,000
SF
See also Section 16.18.030 (Lot Dimensions) Existing lot of 61,419 SF
Oasis Associates, Inc.
15 January 2021
ARC-MII Application Supplement – Michaels Residence, 841 Patricia Drive, SLO
3 4 2 7 M i g u e l i t o C o u r t S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 4 5 0 9 p 8 0 5 . 5 4 6 . 0 5 2 5 f w w w . o a s i s a s s o c . c o m
Table 2-5: R-1 Zone Minimum Interior Side and Rear Setbacks Maximum Building Height
A point this high on the roof of a building:
Minimum Required Setback
Must be at least this far from the property line:
1—12 feet 5 feet (minimum setback)
13—15 feet 6 feet
16—17 feet 7 feet
18—19 feet 8 feet
20—22 feet 9 feet
23—24 feet 10 feet
25 feet 11 feet
C. Accessory Dwelling Unit
Based upon Municipal Code §17.86.020, detached ADUs shall not exceed 850 square feet for a studio or one-bedroom unit or one thousand (1,000) square feet for a unit containing at least two bedrooms. Performance standards should be reviewed and are not unnecessarily prohibitive. The proposed one-bedroom ADU, located across the creek from the proposed single-family residence, is 825 square feet.
D. Clean Energy Choice Program (CECP)
Based upon the criteria in the CECP, new buildings, including single-family residences are subject to the new energy requirements, as well as the State Energy Code Requirements. The A1 Title Sheet contains the requisite planning phase CECP acknowledgment. Additional compliance with these requirements will be part of the building permit application process and construction inspection phase.
3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&( $
352-(&712
56
$35,/
µ ·µ
;6+((7
7,7/(6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7
0,&+$(/65(6,'(1&(
352-(&7',5(&725<2:1(5&/,(17
(5,&$1'-8/,(0,&+$(/6
0,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$
&/,(175(35(6(17$7,9(
%5(77+$%$5
0,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$
&217$&7
%5(77+$%$53+21(
(0$,/
%*+$%$5#*0$,/&20
352-(&73/$11(5
2$6,6$662&,$7(6,1&
0,*8(/,72&28576$1/8,62%,632&$
&217$&7
&$52/)/25(1&(3+21(
(;7(0$,/
&0)#2$6,6$662&&20
$5&+,7(&7
550'(6,*1*5283
6+,*8(5$675((768,7(6$1/8,62%,632&$
&217$&7
('',(+(55(5$3+21(
(0$,/
(0+(55(5$#550'(6,*1&20
&,9,/(1*,1((5
&+$&21$662&,$7(6//&
3$/20$5$9($7$6&$'(52&$
&217$&7
.(11(7+-&+$&213(3+21(
(0$,/
.&+$&21#&+$&21$662&&20
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
)257,1,
6+,*8(5$675((76$1/8,62%,632&$
&217$&7
:(6$52/$3+21(
(0$,/
:(6#)257,1,/$1'6&$3(6&20
352-(&7'(6&5,37,217+,6352-(&7352326(6$1(:
648$5()227
6)
6,1*/()$0,/<&867205(6,'(1&(21$181'(9(/23(')/$*/27:,7+,1$&,5&$ 5(6,'(17,$/68%',9,6,21,1$'',7,217+(352-(&7,1&/8'(6$1648$5()227 6)
'(7$&+('$&&(6625<':(//,1*81,77+($5&+,7(&785$/67</(2)7+(+20(6 6 ,6&216,'(5('´&217(0325$5<&5$)760$1µ$1$0(5,&$167</(,163,5('%<7+($576$1'&5$)76029(0(17:,7+$67&(1785<7:,67&20021&+$5$&7(5,67,&62)7+(&5$)760$167</(+20(,1&/8'($&29(5(')5217325&+(;326('5$)7(57$,/629(5+$1*,1*($9(66+,1*/(522)6$1'6,',1*$1'0,;('0$7(5,$/67+528*+2877+(6758&785(5(48,6,7(3$5.,1*,63529,'(',17+(352326('&$5*$5$*(:,7+$'',7,21$/81&29(5('3$5.,1*)25*8(676$1(:648$5()227 6)
'(7$&+('$&&(6625<%8,/',1*,6352326(')256725,1**$5'(1,1*<$5'722/6216,7(6,7($0(1,7,(6$5((19,6,21('720$;,0,=(7+()81&7,21$/$1'$(67+(7,&86(2)7+(6,7( 6+((7,1'(;9,&,1,7<0$3
352-(&767$7,67,&6=21,1* 53'/2:'(16,7<5(6,'(17,$/$''5(66 3$75,&,$'5,9( 6$1/8,62%,632&$
$31 3$5&(/6,=(
$&5(6
6)
0,1/27$5($ 6)*5266/27&29(5$*(
6)&5((.6(7%$&.$5($ 6)1(7/27$5($
5()(5726+((7$)25$5($
6)
0$;/27&29(5$*($//2:
2) 6)352326('&29(5$*(
6)
$//2:$%/()$5 256)352326(')$5 256)2&&83$1&<86(3(5&%& 580$;$//2:('+(,*+7
6725,(6)75(6,'(1&(
6725<)7$'8
0$;352326('+(,*+7
6(($5&+6(&7,2166(7%$&.6 $//2:(' 352326('
)5217 ·µ 6(($5&+6,7(
6,'( ·µ 6(($5&+6,7(
5($5 ·µ 6(($5&+6,7(
6)'2)%('52206 $'82)%('52206 (;&(037
)5203$5.,1*5(48,5(0(176
5(48,5('6)'3$5.,1* &29(5('63$&(663$&(6)257+(),567%('52206$1'63$&(63(5($&+$'',7,21$/%('52207$%/( 7+,63/$1+$6%('52206$1',65(48,5('72+$9(7+(0,1,08063$&(6 5(48,5('$'83$5.,1* 63$&(6
$'86'21275(48,5($'',7,21$/3$5.,1*
727$/5(48,5('3$5.,1* 63$&(63529,'('3$5.,1* 63$&(6 %,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5(' 63$&(6
%,&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'(' 63$&(6
),5(635,1./(565(4
6)'
1)3$'
$'8
1)3$'
$ 7,7/(6+((7$ (;,67,1*7232& 35(/,0,1$5<*5$',1*3/$1& 75((6859(</ 0$67(5/$1'6&$3(3/$1/ 5($5<$5'/ )5217$872&2857$ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1$ 6,7(%8,/',1*6(&7,216$ 6,7($5,$/0$3$ %$6(0(17/(9(/0$,15(6,'(1&($ *5281')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 6(&21')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 522)3/$10$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/60$,15(6,'(1&($ 3(563(&7,9(9,(:60$,15(6,'(1&($ )/225$1'522)3/$1$'8$ (/(9$7,216$'8$ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/6$'8727$/6+((76
352-(&7$5($65(6,'(1&(&21',7,21('
*5281')/225
6)(168,7(
6)6(&21')/225
6)727$/
6)5(6,'(1&(81&21',7,21('
%$6(0(17
6)*$5$*(
6)287'225/,9,1*
6)*5((1+286(
6)&29325&+(175<
6)(168,7('(&.
6)%$/&21<
6)9(5$1'$
6)87,/,7< 67$,56
6)$'8&21',7,21('
6)$'881&21',7,21('
3$7,2
6)'(&.
6)$&&(6625<%8,/',1*
*$5'(16725$*(
6)
"
'!%#
%
$"
$
$
$
# #
!"#
"
#
#
!"#
"
%!&$&$
#
&$%'!!!
"
"
&
*-.+%
*, )+ **)&
!$
"
! $
"
#
y
WƌŽũĞĐƚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ
ϬϭͬϭϰͬϮϭ
&203/,$1&(67$7(0(17)2506
7!7 &(5<.56.7575
"
#
&& $*!$#'$ &%""
&!&"$!
& !
!)&! "
%&$'&! %
%& &$&!
' -
% !&&&&%($&! !$ %!$$$ ! * !% !& &!%' &&)&&
$ &""
&! - $*!%$ &! &!&&& $*!#'$ &%- &( 9.5.64
$!
&! &! #'$ & ! "
'
3 %&$'&! %
)! %&$'&! '%& &&!
!) ,
0
58-47-554+
$-6:;81
"
'#!$ (*'
%
"
#"$!
&%
'%&"$!$ ""$!%")& &756< !$ $+!%
'%&! ! %&$&&& $+ +%
& !&
$!"!%'
% !$&$& & $+ +%
& !$&& $'
!&
$+%
& !&
$!"!%'
%
%%& &!&
$+%
& !&& $% '
+&!
!) ' &$%!
%=-
$
"#<
$'&!
$
"#<.9
$'&! '%
$
"
#"$!
&%
$/$&'
&!
'1
&$!&
+1$#'$ &%.
$+!
$!$ !$
)'
!)
&&& &%
! "
&
'! & *%&&& !&"
%&.
&&'
$ &""
&! + ! %&$&! "
)&&
$*!
"&! 6 &
$ &
%- $*! "
%&% $"!$&% '%&%!)&&&"$!
&% ! "
)&&
!
$*!+"
'%&%&&)$#'$ &%-'
! "
%)&&"$!$ %& $%& $*! %' "&! !$& $!"!%% '
% !$&$& & $*'&
'
&!$&& $% '
'% ! %%! /$&! "
%!&)$ & ' $'&! % &-! " &!"*!&'
$ &$&&!! "
!"*!&'
$&&!! "
%
' &"
%&%)&& $*! "
!' &&! -
%&
%'$%% &! & $*! "
"!$&
)& &
$ &
%- * % '$ ! %&$'&! "& & $*! " "!$&%!'
$(% $%' &&-'
%"&! $&&!! "
&""$!("
%%
% "$!$&!&'
-'
&&! %"&! &(&%!'&
&3%$2%'&!
$ &%3-:
8
!
&%&!&
!$ $*!+&! 574-4- 574-5 !'
57-46-554-=2%$1%'&!
$ &%2)"
%&"$ &"$!%% %&
%! & %"&! "$!%%-%&&&*1%'
3&*
$ &!$ %3""
&! %("-9 $*% & /0%%! $* %&(!! "! &%,& $* *% & + &! $
&$ $&!
)
&*% & -!
$
&$:
.
&$'
% ! &'$
%"
' %&
(& &'
'%%
&$&*%&%!'$! $*!$
%"& +(&$& +!!
""
%+
!&%$* ""
%-
.
&$'
*"
' !$&'%! &'$
%%'
!$""
% ! $
& -
;""
%&!
($% &
! %&$'&! ! ).'
'
+
' $! %&$'&! ! !
%'
)
' '
&! %
&$&! %! *&*"&&! !& && &! ! !
&! -<&1
$+!
$!$ !$
)'
%'
%1!$ %&$'&! % $#'$%' &&
%.
3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&( $
352-(&712
56
$35,/ (;,67,1*72326,7(3/$1
(;,67,1*7232*5$3+,&6859(<6,7(3/$1 ·µ ;6+((7
µ ·µ
;6+((7
µ ·µ
;6+((7
5h
'
/
0h
'
/
$#5+5 1(«$'#4+0)5
0h
'
/
0h
9
/
5h
9
/
5h
'
/
5h
9
/
9 ,. 9
9/
9 (E) WOOD
FENCE
(E) ENTRY GATE & COLUMNS
EXISTING SHRUBS
(E) 6' WD FENCE
EDGE OF
DENSE
VEGETATION
(E) BLOCK RETAINING WALL
SEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENT
PUBLIC
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT
EDGE OF
RIPARIAN
VEGETATION
PATRICIA DRIVE
(E) WATER METER(E) ELEC
(E) FIRE HYDRANT
(E) TOPOGRAPHY
N
YARD SETBACK
20' - 0" MIN.
YARD SETBACK
5' - 0" MIN.
YARD SETBACK
5' - 0" MIN.
YARD SETBACK
5' - 0" MIN.
YARD SETBACK
5' - 0" MIN.
BUILDABLE AREA
OUTSIDE OF
SETBACKS
BUILDABLE AREA
OUTSIDE OF
SETBACKS
(E) WATER MAIN(E) SEWER MAIN
YARD SETBACK
5' - 0" MIN.
(E) SHED TO
BE REMOVED
EASEMENT
30' - 0"
EASEMENT
15' - 0"
EASEMENT
20' - 0"
EASEMENT
30' - 0"
BUILDABLE AREA
OUTSIDE OF
SETBACKS
EDGE OF CREEK
SETBACK
EDGE OF CREEK
SETBACK
CREEK SETBACK
20' - 0"
CREEK SETBACK
20' - 0"
CREEK SETBACK
20' - 0"
CREEK SETBACK
20' - 0"
9,&,1,7<0$3
340
341
342
343
344
83 83
6+$//2:
'((3
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
335
335
335
335
340 340
340
345
345
345
345
345
350
350
350
350
332
332
333
333
334
334
336
336
337
337
337 337
337
337
338 338
338
338
339
339
339 339 339
339
341
341
341
342
342
342
342
343
343
343
344
344
344
346
346
346
346
346
347
347
347
347
348
348
348
348
349
349
349
349
351
351
351
351
352
352
352
352
353
353
353
353
7600 Morro Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
(805) 610-1714
#20-003 DATE: JUNE 4, 2021
Ch con
6
(
0 1
(
0 %$6,62)%($5,1*6
1
(
0 1
:
0 6
:
0 6
(
0 6
:
0
6 )+ 6
:0
3$75,&,$'5,9(
6 6 )+
:0
6
(
:22'
)(1&(
(;,67,1*6+58%6
(
:')(1&(
(
%/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//
6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(17
38%/,&
'5$,1$*(
($6(0(17
38%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(17
6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867
3$75,&,$'5,9(
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
6+$'('$5($
5(35(6(176
$//2:$%/(/,0,76
2)%8,/',1*
(19(/23(
$
$
$
$
5(6,'(1&(
$'8
322/
*$5$*(
&29
325&+
*5((1+286(
6+$'('$5($
5(35(6(176
$//2:$%/(/,0,76
2)%8,/',1*
(19(/23(
$&&(6625<
6725$*(
75$6+&217$,1(5
/2&$7,21:
35,9$&<6&5((1
($6(0(17
$&&(66
%5,'*(
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
(
(175<*$7( &2/8016
(
:$7(50(7(5
(
(/(&
(
),5(+<'5$17
(
:$7(50$,1
(
6(:(50$,1
<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//
3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((7:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7 #5,'*(
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$
$
$
6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867
2))6(7
2))6(7
2))6(7
$6
6)
/27$5($
6)
/27$5($
&5((.$5($12786(',1
/27&29(5$*(
&$/&
(
%/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(176+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23( $&&(66
%5,'*(
($6(0(17
6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867
2))6(7
2))6(7
$'8
3$7,2
(+'678',2,QF
:HVW0DOO6XLWH%
$WDVFDGHUR&$
S
H
HGGLH#HKGHVLJQVWXGLRFRP
0,&+$(/65(6,'(1&( 6&+(0$7,&6,7(3/$1 $6 3$75,&,$5'6$1/8,62%,632&$ B
UHY
$6
$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
$ $6
/27&29(5$*(&$/&
$6 $6
(1/$5*('6,7((;+,%,7
758(
1257+
*5$3+,&6&$/(
758(
1257+
*5$3+,&6&$/(
TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNKARCTOSTAPHYLOS MANZANITA `DR. HURD` DR. HURD COMMON MANZANITA CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNKCITRUS X LIMON `IMPROVED MEYER` MEYER LEMONCITRUS X SINENSIS SWEET ORANGE FEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVAFICUS CARICA COMMON FIGFORTUNELLA MARGARITA `NAGAMI` KUMQUATLAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNKLAURUS NOBILIS `SARATOGA` SARATOGA BAY LAURELPLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNK
SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
ACANTHUS MOLLIS BEAR`S BREECHALYOGYNE HUEGELII BLUE HIBISCUSARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI `POINT REYES` POINT REYES KINNIKINNICK BACCHARIS PILULARIS `PIGEON POINT` PIGEON POINT COYOTE BRUSH
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS CARMEL CREEPERCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSH FESTUCA RUBRA `MOLATE` MOLATE RED FESCUEHEUCHERA SANGUINEA CORAL BELLSHYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA OAKLEAF HYDRANGEALANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `SPREADING WHITE` WHITE TRAILING LANTANALAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA `HIDCOTE` HIDCOTE LAVENDERMUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLYMUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS
ORIGANUM VULGARE OREGANO
PHORMIUM X `SEA JADE` NEW ZEALAND FLAXRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `MOUND SAN BRUNO` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYROSE (SELECTED BY OWNER) --ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `IRENE` TM IRENE TRAILING ROSEMARYROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `TUSCAN BLUE` TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY SALVIA NEMOROSA `BUMBLEBLUE` BUMBLEBLUE PERENNIAL SALVIASALVIA OFFICINALIS GARDEN SAGESALVIA X `WAVERLY` WAVERLY SAGESANTOLINA CHAMAECYPARISSUS LAVENDER COTTONSESLERIA X `GREENLEE` GREENLEE MOOR GRASSSTACHYS BYZANTINA LAMB`S EAR
TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDERTHYMUS VULGARIS COMMON THYME WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` MUNDI COAST ROSEMARYWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `WYNABBIE GEM` WYNABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY
VINES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
FICUS PUMILA CREEPING FIG
TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES CHINESE STAR JASMINEVITIS X `ROGERS RED` ROGERS RED CALIFORNIA GRAPE 83 5() :
83 337
338
339
341
342
343
344
346
347
348
349
351
352
353
336 337 338
339 341
342
343
344
340
345
350
335
340
S
FH
S
WM
6+$//2:
'((3
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
MASTER
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L-1
PROJECT MANAGER
WES AROLA
DRAWN BY
WES AROLA
DATE
03.11.2021
MICHAELS RESIDENCE
841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPO
LANDSCAPE PLANS
# DATE ITEM
PLANTING DESIGN CRITERIA
THE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COMPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREES KNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREENED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN 3" OF BARK MULCH
IRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIA
THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND STATE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. THE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FOR THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE.A WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CONTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THE
IRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH HYDROZONE.
ALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP,
ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES, SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, WATER CAN BE REGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.
ALL LAWN AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION
OR HIGH EFFICIENCY SPRAY IRRIGATION
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
THE DESIGN WILL MEET OR EXCEED THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS FOR
WATER CONSERVATION THROUGH WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE
IRRIGATION DESIGN. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MWELO
_____________________
WES AROLA - CA 5958
,Q)HHW
LQFK IHHW
*5$3+,&6&$/(
PATRICIA
ADU
BRIDGE
GARAGE
RESIDENCE
PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST
SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-2
SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-3
LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHRUB PLANTINGS
S
MPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREES
CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVE
NED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPE
" OF BARK MULCH
A
MPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND STATE WATER AN
THE WATER CONSERVATION METH VA OD FOR
ERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE. TO
NTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THE
DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THE TE
CH HYDROZONE. RO
OVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY ER DRIP,
HAT ONCE ESTABLISHED WATER CAN BE A
PLANTING DESIGN CRITERIA
THE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COM
KNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL C
GROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREE
AREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN 3
IRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIA
THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COM
CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. T
THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATEA WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CON
IRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EAC
ALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCO
ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES SO T
PRELIMINARY WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS
83 337
338
339
341
342
343
344
346
347
348
349
351
352
340
345
350
6+$//2:
'((3
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
CORE
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L-2
PROJECT MANAGER
WES AROLA
DRAWN BY
WES AROLA
DATE
01.11.2021
MICHAELS RESIDENCE
841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPO
LANDSCAPE PLANS
# DATE ITEM
,Q)HHW
LQFK IHHW
*5$3+,&6&$/(
1 INFINITY POOL 16x38
STONE PAVING WITH NATURALIZED
EDGENATURAL LAWN
WITH SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION
STAGGERED CONCRETE STEPS
DECKING WITH RAILINGRETAINING WALL, BOARD FORM
CONCRETE OR SMOOTH STUCCO
NATURAL LAWN OR MOWED MEADOW
SPA/GYM PATIO
GROTTO STYLE SPA
PLANTING AREA, TYPPAVER RIBBON DRIVEWAY TO ADUBRIDGELIGHTWEIGHT STEEL OVERHEAD SHADE
STRUCTURE
OUTDOOR KITCHENGRASS PAVINGGRAVITY BLOCK RETAINING WALL
STONE CLAD ACCENT WALL
DESIGN KEY
234
5 6789
10111213
1 2
2 3
4 4 5
6 7
8 9 10
10 10
10 11
12 13
14 14
15 15
15 16
16 16
10
83 346
347
348
349
351
352
353
345
350
6+$//2:
'((3
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L-3
PROJECT MANAGER
WES AROLA
DRAWN BY
WES AROLA
DATE
01.11.2021
MICHAELS RESIDENCE
841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPO
LANDSCAPE PLANS
# DATE ITEM
,Q)HHW
LQFK IHHW
*5$3+,&6&$/(
1 DRY STACKED BOULDER RETAINING WALLS TO CREATE
LANDSCAPE TERRACESBLOCK RETAINING WALL COVERED IN VINESPERMEABLE LINEAR PAVERS
ACCENT TREES POSITIONED TO PROVIDE PRIVACY
GAPPED STEPPERS WITH PLANTED JOINTS
CONCRETE PORCH / STEPS
PLANTING AREA, TYP
ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE
TRASH STORAGE
DESIGN KEY
234
5 678
1 9
2 3
3 3
4 5
6 6
7 7
7 8
9 9
1
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A4
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
SITE SECTIONS
1” = 20’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 20 40 800 40 80 160
1” = 40’-0” (12X18 SHEET)
*5281')/225
723
723
/(9(/
/(9(/
*5281')/225
'$'8
*5281')/225
'$'8
723'$'8
723'$'8
=21()6
322/%277
322/%277
0$;$//2:+7$%29($9**5$'(
0 $
;
$
/
/
2 :
+
7 $
%
2 9
(
$9
*
*
5 $
'
(
(
$9*)*
$9**5$'(#6(&7,21
(
)*
(
)*
352326('
$//2:('
%('5220
.,7&+(1
(
)*
(
)*
$9**5$'(#6(&7,21
(
$9*)*
$//2:('
352326('
*5((1+286(
9(5$1'$
$'8
723
723
/(9(/
/(9(/
723
723
0 $
;
$
/
/
2 :
+
7 $
%
2 9
(
$
9 *
*
5 $
'
(
=21()6
*$5$*())
*$5$*())
(
$9*)*
$9**5$'(#6(&7,21
(
)*
(
)*
$//2:(' 352326('
0%('5220 0%$7+
87,/,7<
*$5$*(
*5281')/225
*5281')/225
%$6(0(17
%$6(0(17
68,7())
68,7())
723/,9,1*
5220
723/,9,1*
5220
(
)*
(
$9*)*
(
)*
$9**5$'(#6(&7,21
0 $
;
$
/
/
2 :
+
7 $
%
2 9
(
$
9 *
*
5 $
'
(
352326('
$//2:('
352326('
(
)
*
7 2
5 '
,
*
(
*5($75220 )2<(5 (168,7( :,&
%$6(0(17
$6 $
6,7(6(&7,21#/,9,1*
$6 $
6,7(6(&7,21#*$5$*(
$6 $
6,7(6(&7,21#(168,7(
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A5
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
SITE AERIAL MAP
SITE AERIAL MAP 1 1" =20’ - 0” (24 X 36 SHEET)
1” = 40’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 20 40 800 40 80 160
1” = 80’-0” (12X18 SHEET)
VIEWS OF BISHOP PEAK
VIEWS OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
1
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A6
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) YOGA
13'-3"x14'-0"
DRY SUANA
7'-6"x12'-0"
STOR
CAB.
T.
A-500 A1 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FLOOR PLAN_BASEMENT
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A7
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) UP
UP
W D
GREATROOM DINING 22'-6"x2'0" 15'0"x19'-6"
KITCHEN
22'-6"x24'-0"
NOOK
PWDR
PANTRY
6'-6"x11'-6"
BUTLER
8'-0"x6'-1"
ELEV.
5'-0"x6'-6"
FOYER
W.I.C.
9'-6"x7'-6"
BATH
7'-0"x12'-0"
EN-SUITE
16'-0"x14'-6"
MUD ROOM
12'0"x9'-6"
BBQ
2-CAR
1-CAR GARAGE
OUTDOOR LIVING
GREENHOUSE
30'-0"x13'-0"
TOOLS
CL.
UTILITY 1
PATIO
sink
bench
pet
wash
linen
seating
flex. station
hutch
built-in
built-inbuilt-in
coat
linen
pergola
prep station
entertainment REF
STOVE
MICRO
9' - 6" MIN
18' - 6" MIN
19' - 0" MIN.
18' - 6" MIN.
A-500 A2 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 1
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A8
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) D W
BEDROOM 3
12'-0"x11'-4"
W.I.C 3
8'-0"x4'-8"
BATH 2
W.I.C. 2
8'-0"x4'-8"
BATH 3
M. BEDROOM
15'-6"x14'-6"
HIS
5'-0"x6'-5"
HERS
6'-10"x6'-5"
T. M. BATH
OPEN TO BELOW
GALLERY
44'-0"x5'-9"
BEDROOM 2
12'-0"x11'-4"
VERANDA
BALCONY
FAMILY ROOM
15'-6"x14'-4" BALCONY
LNDRY.
7'-0"x10'-5"
ELEV.
bench
entertainment
built-in shelving
art niche
storage
A-500 A3 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 2
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A9
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 ROOF PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) A-500 A4 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SITE _ROOF PLAN
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A10
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALS 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) A A
B
C
C
F
F
F
D
E
H
G
D
G
H
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH
C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW
CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.
ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)
TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET
DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A11
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1 2
A
A
B
C
C
F
D
E
H
D
G
H
B
E
F
G
G
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH
C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW
CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.
ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)
TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET
DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE
SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLAN A12 PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20 MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1 2
A
A
B
C
C
F
D
E
H
D
G
H
B
E
F
G
D
D
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH
C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW
CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.
ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)
TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET
DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A13
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1 2
A
A
B
C
C
F
D
E
H
D
G
H
B
E
F
G
A
D
A
A
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH
C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW
CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.
ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)
TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET
DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A14
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN - ADU 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) UP
KITCHEN/LIVING
BEDROOM
W.I.C. BATHROOM
PATIO
DECK
3/16" = 1'-0"
DADU-ROOF PLAN SCHEMATIC
3/16" = 1'-0"
DADU-FLOOR PLAN SCHEMATIC
PERSPECTIVE - FRONT
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A15
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 ELEVATIONS - ADU 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) RIGHT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
FRONT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1 1
1 1
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH
C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW
A
B
C
C
F
E
H
B G
E
F
A A F
F
G
H
CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.
ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)
TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET
DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A16
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALS - ADU 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) A
G
B
E
F
F
C
H
F
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH
C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW
CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.
ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)
TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET
DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE – 12 March 2021 – digitally via email [email protected] February 12, 2021
C.M. Florence, AICP
Oasis Associates, Inc
3427 Miguelito Ct
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Subject: Application ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Determination of application completeness:
Dear Ms. Florence:
I write to inform you that after review of the materials submitted with your client’s Architectural Review application for development of the property at 841 Patricia Street with a single-family dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit has been determined to be incomplete, pending receipt of additional information or materials needed to complete the application. Additionally, we note, in the Information Note at the end of this letter, several areas of concern about consistency of the proposed project with applicable policies and guidelines related to protection of creeks and wildlifecorridors, and the design of new construction within existing residential neighborhoods which should be considered prior to submitting information and materials in response to this letter.
Planning
1. Creek Setback. Depict and clearly label the Creek Setback applicable to the site, as provided in Zoning Regulations (§ 17.70.030 (C) Measurement of Creek Setbacks). Show the location of the top of bank and the edge of predominant pattern of riparian vegetation and provide the dimension of the creek setback.
RESPONSE: See sheet A2 & A3. The location of the edge of predominant pattern of riparian vegetation is depicted on the existing topographic survey, as delineated in the field by Freddy Otte, Biologist. The “biological setback” is synonymous with the edge of riparian habitat, as there is no clearly defined top-of-bank. The twenty (20)-foot building setback is noted as the shaded “Allowable Building Area” nonetheless, we will add a 20- foot dimension to the plan for additional clarity.
Accessory structures located within the setback area comply with §17.70.030 G.2.
2. Waterway (Creek). Provide on the Site Plan the location and width of all waterways on the site (i.e. the creek).
RESPONSE: The location and width of the “waterway” is depicted on sheet A2 & A3 as a recorded thirty (30) foot easement. A cross section has been added to sheet C1 to help show the width of the existing “waterway.”
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
3. Biological Setback. The Biological Setback Limits depicted on Site Plans do not appear to be relevant to the proposed project. Omit the Biological Setback Limits from the site plan (note that a depiction of the edge of riparian vegetation is appropriate in its place, as described in Comment #1 above).
RESPONSE: See response to comment no. 1.
4. Allowable Building Area. Clarify the “Allowable Building Area” depicted on Site Plans.
Note that this is not recognized as an applicable development standard. Unless relevant to development standards or creek and wildlife corridor protection, consider omitting depiction of this area from Site Plans. Instead, verify that relevant setbacks, easement lines, and other features that constrain “buildable area” are properly depicted and dimensioned in plans.
RESPONSE: The noted allowable building area represent the requisite 20-foot setback from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation. See response to comment no. 1, as we will add the setback dimension to sheet A2, accordingly. The language used on the site plan has been changed from “Allowable Building Area” to “Allowable limits of building envelope” on sheets A2 & A3
5. Statement (Exceptions). Clearly describe any exceptions or variances from the Property Development Standards set out in Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.70, including any Creek Setback Exception requested. Provide discussion and evidence in support of any requested exception to assist in consideration of required findings that must be made. Forexample, any Creek Setback exception must be based on findings concerning minimization of impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, includingopportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; consistency with flood control measures; and presence of special circumstances applicable to the site and infeasibility ofalternative designs (see Zoning Regulations § 17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)).
RESPONSE: While structural creek crossings on many other discretionary approvals in the City did not require an exception, an interpretation could be made that requires an exception1 for the bridge to access the other side of the creek and the proposed ADU. If that is the case, the bridge will ultimately be designed to allow the Director to make the required findings noted in §17.70.030 G.4.(c).
6. Accessory Structures and Uses (Creek Setback). Identify any Accessory Structures and Uses located within the required Creek Setback, as provided in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.030(G)(2). Verify that they do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel; will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; and will not reduce any flooding capacity in compliance with the City’s flood damage prevention regulations.
Calculate the amount of the required creek setback area occupied by such structures and uses (note that they may not, in total, occupy not more than one-half of the total setback area).
RESPONSE: See response to no. 5 above.
1 See §17.70.030 G. 2. Accessory Structures and Uses – The following items may be located within the required creek setback without obtaining a discretionary exception unless otherwise noted, provide that they do not extend beyond the top of bank int the creek channel; will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; will not reduce any flooding capacity in compliance with the City’s flood damage prevention regulation; in total occupy not more than one-half of the total required creek setback areas; and are consistent with other property development standards of the Zoning regulations.
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
7. Bridge Details. Provide details about the design of the bridge proposed to cross the creek channel, including colors and materials, dimensions, and supporting structures (abutments, footings, etc.). Include in these details the relationship of the bridge to the required Creek Setback. Provide cross-section drawings depicting the portion of the bridge crossing the creek channel.
RESPONSE: A cross section of the bridge crossing has been added to sheet C1. We have also included a similar bridge type to represent the general style and size of the bridge. See sheet A3.
8. Effected Vegetation. Describe the nature and extent of work affecting trees and vegetation within the creek setback and creek channel, such as soil work, plantings, trimming, weed abatement, or vegetation removal. Include a depiction of all areas in the creek setback and creek channel in which vegetation removal will be undertaken (e.g. to accommodate the proposed bridge).
RESPONSE: The proposed bridge/creek crossing has been located in an effort to minimize the disturbance to the creek channel and adjacent vegetation. See sheets A3, C1 and C-2, and the description below in our response to the section called Informational Notes.
9. Lot Coverage Calculation. Verify that lot coverage has been calculated consistent with Zoning Regulations § 17.70.120, which describes lot coverage as the ratio of the total area of a lot covered by the footprint of all structures to the net lot area. Note that Net LotArea is described in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.110 (B), and that Net Lot Area excludesarea between the tops of banks of creeks. Show the components of the Lot Coverage Calculation on the Title Page of plans, including the areas excluded from the lot area (i.e. creek area) and the Net Lot Area itself. Consider, for clarity, indicating the excluded area on Site Plans.
RESPONSE: An area plan showing the allowable lot coverage in the lot coverage calculation has been added to sheet A3. The lot area, allowable lot area for lot coverage, max lot coverage, and proposed lot coverage have been added to the title sheet with the code reference 17.70.120.
10. Solid Waste Collection. Show the dimension of the solid waste collection area, consistent appropriate number of waste containers), and provide details of the area screening (seealso Utilities items below concerning solid waste collection service).
RESPONSE: Dimensions of the fenced enclosure for the trash receptacles have been added to the Schematic Site Plan on sheet A3, and are consistent with the appropriate number of waste containers. Our trash enclosure is not within any required front or side setback per 17.70.200. The fence/screen height will be under 60-inches.
11. Parking. Verify the dimensions of parking spaces provided in the garage. One of the spaces does not appear to meet minimum dimensions. Clearly depict the location and dimension of the “third parking space” provided for the development. Depict the location
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
and dimensions of two long-term bicycle parking spaces. Provide in the Project Data on the Title Sheet of plans a calculation of required parking (which for single-family dwellings is determined by the number of bedrooms).
RESPONSE: Parking dimensions have been added to the floor plan sheet A7. The required parking requirements, 2 spaces, have been added to the title sheet A1 and are satisfied by the 2-car garage. The third car garage has updated to reflect the minimum 18’-6” x 9’-6” required clear space. These sizes are based on the City’s own interpretations of section 17.16.070. Please see attached City memo.
12. Dwelling Information (Project Data). Indicate in the Project Data on the Title Page of plans the number of new dwellings, by bedrooms (describing the number of bedrooms).
RESPONSE: The bedroom breakdown for the single-family residence (SFD) and the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) have been added to the title sheet A1 under project statistics.
13. Elevation Drawings (Building Height). Show on Elevation Drawings dimensioned maximum height of building from average natural grade.
RESPONSE: See sheet A4 for the site sections and maximum height from the average natural grade. §17.70.080 has been used to calculate height limit. The height of the building is measured as the vertical distance from the average level of the highest and lowest existing grade of that portion of the site covered by the building to the topmost of the roof. Requirements from §17.16.020 Table 2-5: Minimum Interior Side and Rear Setbacks have been shown at applicable locations on site plan sheet A3.
14. Elevation Drawings (Colors and Materials). Provide on each Elevation Drawing a key noting corresponding colors and materials for building surfaces.
RESPONSE: Sheet A10 provides the colors and materials on the perspective. For clarity, we have added the same key notes to sheets A11 – A13.
15. Accessory Structure. Include Elevation Drawings of the Accessory Structure at the north end of the property. Clearly indicate colors and materials for the structure.
RESPONSE: Sheet A16 depicts the ADU in perspective with key noted material/colors.
For clarity, the color/material key notes have been added to sheet A15.
16. Exterior Lighting. Show on Site Plan and Elevation Drawings, and on Landscape Plans where appropriate, proposed exterior lighting, sufficient to evaluation conformance to Night Sky Preservation standards and potential impact to the wildlife corridor along the creek course. Building (Lizzandro Diaz (805) 781-7157 | [email protected]) RESPONSE: Lighting examples and code language have been added to sheets A11, A12, A13 & A15. A statement has been included that notes all exterior doors will have lighting, and any additional lighting will be code compliant.
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
17. Provide proposed Occupancies in compliance with Ch. 3 of the California Building Code. Engineering (Hal Hannula (805) 781-7201| [email protected])
RESPONSE: R-3/U Occupancy has been added to the title sheet.
18. Provide a preliminary drainage report if warranted to clarify drainage in the channel and to verify that all improvements, including the bottom girder of the bridge are at least 1’ above the 100-year flood. Drainage calcs for the subdivision were not available at the time of this review.
RESPONSE: See attached Design Memorandum, Chacon Associates, 03 March 2021.
19. Provide a preliminary utility plan showing the existing public water, sewer, and storm drain lines for reference. City record drawings for Tract 1182 are available upon request.
Include the depth and alignment for the public sewer located within the easement. Include additional information on the storm drain with an outlet to the channel. Show and label any existing or proposed erosion protection at the storm drain outlet.
RESPONSE: The existing utilities have been added to sheet C1.
20. Show and label the bearings and distances for all property lines and easements for reference.
RESPONSE: The bearings and distances of the property lines are depicted on sheets A2 & C1.
21. Unless otherwise approved by the Utilities Department, revise the ADU plans so that the roof overhang does not encroach into the easement.
RESPONSE: The roof overhang on the “rear elevation” of the ADU has been removed.
The change is reflected on the site plan, as well as ADU sheets A14 & A15.
22. Include a tree inventory for the area of the proposed bridge crossing. Trees with canopies/root zones located within the work zone should be included. Provide the tree diameters and species for trees included in the inventory. Tree canopies should be generally shown to scale for any impacted trees. Show and label the trees to be removed and the trees to remain. Fire (Rodger Maggio (805) 781-7386 | [email protected]) RESPONSE: Vegetation at and adjacent to the proposed bridge structure has been identified and inventoried. Tree canopies have been estimated. See sheet L-1.
23. Fire Sprinklers conforming to NFPA 13D standards are required for the residence and ADU, and at least one sprinkler in each attic space.
RESPONSE: Comment noted and will be addressed on the construction documents. For clarification, NFPA 13D fire sprinklers have been added to project statistics on Sheet A1 for both the SFD & ADU.
24. Exterior construction materials shall conform to the requirements of the California
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Residential Code R337 for ignition resistant construction. No combustible exterior siding is permitted inclusive of wood lap siding and shingles. Roof assembly shall be class A.
Attic and subfloor venting shall be designed to inhibit ember intrusion. Utilities (Cori Burnett (805) 781-7208 | [email protected])
RESPONSE: Comment noted and will be addressed on the construction documents.
Ignition resistant and non-combustible code language has been added to the colored elevations and perspectives, on sheet: A10, A11, A12, A13, A15 & A16
25. The project is located within a capacity constrained area and shall meet the wastewater flow offset requirements per Chapter 13.08.396 of the City’s Municipal Code prior to building permit issuance. Please submit the Wastewater Offset Flow Application and a PDF version of the project plans to Cori Burnett, Utilities Engineer, to complete this requirement, [email protected]. Wastewater Offset Program information can be found at https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilitiesdepartment/wastewater/wastewater-offset-program.
RESPONSE: Comment noted and will be addressed with submittal of the construction documents.
26. Label the size of the existing water meter.
RESPONSE: The existing water meter size has been labeled on sheet C1.
27. Show the mainline that the sewer lateral to which the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit would connect.
RESPONSE: The existing utilities have been added to sheet C1.
28. Revise the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU) calculations, using the City’s calculator, available online at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/documents-andfiles. Include the revised tables in the plans.
RESPONSE: The City’s MAWA and ETWU forms are now completed and located on sheet L-1.
29. Provide evidence of confirmation of service for the project from the City’s franchise waste hauler (San Luis Garbage Company).
RESPONSE: See attached correspondence from the San Luis Garbage Co. (P. Cron, 15 February 2021).
Preliminary review is intended to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The above list includes all of the items identified as necessary to find your application complete for further processing. Your application will remain in an incomplete status until those items are received. Upon resubmittal, please provide a narrative response indicating where these items can be found in your plans or application materials.
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
The City may ask for further clarification or amplification of information after an application accepted as complete. Feel free to contact me anytime at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at [email protected]) if you have any questions regarding this letter, or about the status or processing of your applications.
Informational Note: Figure 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element depicts a wildlife corridor over the site area, and a creek depicted in Figure 9 traverses the site. Supporting policies for the protection and enhancement of creeks and wildlife habitat and corridors are found in the Land Use Element and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (e.g., see LUE §§ 2.3.7, 6.6.3, & 6.6.4; COSE §§ 7.3.3, 7.7.8, & 7.7.9). These policies require that residential development respect natural featuressuch as creeks and wildlife corridors, preserve andprotect these important features, respect the separation from creek banks and natural features, andkeep open channels open and free of structures in or over their banks.
Information requested above, relevant to the creek and wildlife corridor, will inform considerationof whether the proposal is consistent with those General Plan policies, and whether project may impact on the wildlife corridor or creek habitat. The proposed new construction may not be considered exempt from CEQA Environmental Review, requiring preparation of a CEQA Initial Study, to determine if the project may have a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore,where a Creek Setback exception may be necessary, the information provided does not support the restrictive findings set out in Zoning § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c), required to approve such an exception, particularly those regarding the presence of special circumstances, and feasibility of alternate designs allowing for reasonable use of the property.
RESPONSE: We note the findings in §17.70.030(G) (4) (c) below and provide the related response.
G.4.c. Findings. Each Director’s Hearing or other discretionary application to grant an exception to a required creek setback shall be subject to each of the following findings, in addition to any other required findings associated with the project application under which the request is considered:
(1) The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; and
(2) The exception will not limit the City’s design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies; and (3) The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and (4) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; and (5) The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege—an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and (6) The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; and
(7) Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project; and (8) Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. “Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site, “reasonable development” may mean no additional development considering site constraints
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
and the existing development’s scale, design, or density.
The proposed bridge has been located in an area less densely vegetated than the balance of the corridor in order to avoid impacts to existing vegetation. (See sheet L-1) Upstream of the section of corridor located on the subject property, there is a confluence of two drainage swales – one taking concentrated flows from the hillside and culverted
under Patricia Drive and the other taking
concentrated flows from a swale located between
Anacapa Circle and Twin Ridge Drive and, again,
culverted under Patricia Drive. See aerial
photograph. Given the existing improvements (i.e,,
culverts, roadways, buildings, etc.) that have
impacted the riparian corridor, the addition of the
proposed bridge carries a light footprint on the land.
Flooding concerns have analyzed by the project civil
engineer, Ken Chacon, PE and memorialized in the
attached design memorandum regarding the
preliminary hydrology. This analysis established the
locations and requisite bridge clearance of 2.5 feet
above the creek bottom, which will provide the 100-
year depth of flow plus 2-feet of freeboard. A section
through the bridge can be seen on sheet C-1.
With its careful placement and analysis, the proposed bridge will not limit the City’s design options for providing flood control measures (it is noteworthy, that we worked with the City’s biologist, Freddy Otte, as he is responsible for managing the appropriate level of flood control measures and provided guidance for some judicious pruning and deadwood removal within the corridor); nor adversely impact the environmental setting and/or conditions of the corridor. The project biologist will be responsible for coordination with and lodging permits with other agencies (i.e., Army Corps, US & CA Fish & Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board ), as required.
Approval of the proposed bridge cannot be considered a special privilege, as many bridges have been approved for similar purposes throughout the City. Without the ability to cross the creek, the applicants have no access or reasonable use of the balance of their property. In addition, recent legislation has paved the way for the streamlined addition of accessory dwelling units. With that said, both the technical and environmental aspects of the proposed bridge have been analyzed, its location determined based upon those factors, and this location will minimize impacts, accordingly.
In addition, the City’s Community Design Guidelines for Infill Development encourage compatible scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings, particularly when a new house is proposed to be larger than others in a neighborhood. Architectural Review will include consideration of these design elements.
RESPONSE: We have provided a study of the neighboring properties. The average FAR of the neighboring properties is approximately 19.3%. Our proposed FAR is 10%. This represents just over half of the FAR of the average neighboring property, yet most of the neighboring properties are ¼ acre in size. The home has been designed with the neighboring properties in mind, with the scale of the home, as you approach from the leg of the flag lot, appearing to be one-story. Our
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
setbacks along the driveway side (west side of the home) have much greater setbacks than any of the surrounding yards, and steps down from fence, to planting area, to rockery, to permeable naturally meandering paved driveway. Even the elements on the second story façade are set back behind decks and coverings. The setbacks on the north and east side of the home are greater than any home in the immediate neighborhood.
In order to facilitate review of these primary concerns, we request that you provide a narrative statement and supporting material describing the elements of the project design which address the policies, standards, and guidelines set out in those documents, and demonstrating consistency and compliance with them. Of particular importance are:
Building Scale and Windows: Infill residential development should be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood.
This is crucial when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the neighborhood. When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings (CDG §5.3). Also, the proposed window pattern appears to orient a large amount of glass window areas in the direction of neighboring properties.
RESPONSE: By design, a flag lot has four (4) sides that face neighboring properties and, therefore, a structure would necessarily have windows facing a neighboring yard. While the lot was legally designed and approved for a single-family residence, the proposed home is situated in the only allowable area legally available on the site. The applicant and design team have taken great care to focus the view of the home towards high views of Bishops Peak, distant views of hills to the east, and out into the expansive yard that creates the balance of the lot. Egress windows and non-egress windows provide natural light and ventilation on all sides of the home.
The design intent of the home focuses most of glazing towards the northeast – the largest part of the site to accommodate the home and related exterior amenities. With that said, the home is shielded, for the applicant’s privacy and the neighboring property(s), by layers of landscaping, including a lawn, patio, then a pool, rockery, hillside, creek, trees, and additional side yard beyond. All bedrooms are required to have a minimum of one (1) egress, and the master bedroom is the only bedroom with a western view towards a neighboring property. All of the higher windows in the great room are clear story windows and provide no view that is not sky or hillside, which allows for additional light into the space. The majority of the windows along the west side of the building (in the hallway and staircase) provide natural daylight into these circulation spaces, where people move from room to room and do not congregate. The greenhouse on the west side of the building has a large extent of glass, but sits about 8-feet below the neighboring property and is shielded by both a natural rock wall and a 6-foot fence, currently constructed on the neighboring yard.
Creek and Wildlife Corridor: Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors. To accomplish this, the City will require private developments to evaluate animal species and their movements within and through development sites and create habitats and corridors appropriate for wildlife (COSE 7.3.3). Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and protection of floodways and natural features. Featureswhich normally would be outside the creek setback may be permitted to encroach where there is no
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
practical alternative, to allow reasonable development of a parcel, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in this Element. Removal of any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions will provide for wildlife corridors, traffic circulation, access, utilities, and reasonable use of adjacent properties (COSE 7.7.9).
RESPONSE: See response to Information Note, paragraphs 1 and 2.
Sincerely, Respectfully submitted,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Development Review C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
E. & J MICHAELS
Attachments – Full Plan Set – revised
Design Memorandum, K. Chacon, 03 March 2021
Correspondence, San Luis Garbage Co.,15 February 2021
c: E. & J. Michaels
E. Herrera & B. Walker/RRM
K. Chacon/Chacon Associates, LLC
W. Arola/Fortini Landscape
20-0060
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE – 04 June 2021 – digitally via email [email protected] April 9, 2021
Carol Florence
Oasis Associates
3427 Miguelito Ct
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Subject: Application ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Determination of application completeness:
Dear Ms. Florence:
I write to inform you that after review of the materials submitted with your client’s Architectural Review application for development of the property at 841 Patricia Street with a single-family dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit, and additional information and materials submitted in response to our first “Incomplete Letter” dated February 12th, 2021, it has been determined that the application remains in an incomplete state, pending receipt of additional information or materials needed to complete the application.
Additionally, we note, in the Informational Notes at the end of this letter, several areas of concern about consistency of the proposed project with applicable policies and guidelines related to protection of creeks and wildlife corridors, and the design of new construction within existing residential neighborhoods which should be considered at this early stage of application review. The informational section also describes technical background materials, including a biological report and Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) that are requested in order to inform our preliminary review for potential significant environmental impacts.
Planning
1. Creek Setback. It is noted from your response to this request that you have depicted the edge of riparian vegetation on the Site Plan, labeled as “Edge of Dense Vegetation,” and have indicated that “there is no clearly defined top-of-bank.” RESPONSE: Plans have been updated to identify “Edge of Riparian Habitat” as surveyed.
The vegetation line work remains on the existing topography plan (A2), but has been removed from the Architectural Site Plan (A3) as this vegetation line is an independent feature from the edge of riparian habitat and not related to regulatory setbacks.
Riparian vegetation - For clarity and to remove ambiguity about the nature of the extentof vegetation depicted, please label the feature depicting extent of vegetation as “Extentof Riparian Vegetation” to more clearly indicate that it is the extent of the riparian vegetation associated with the creek.
RESPONSE: Callout has been updated to “Edge of Riparian Vegetation”, see revised sheets A2, A3 and C1.
Top of Bank and Setback - Guidance from the City Biologist indicates that the “creek
setback limits” depicted on the plan correspond to an approximate location of the top of bank, as discerned during a November site visit with you. As such, please label this feature accordingly (i.e. “top of creek bank” or “top of creek bank (approximate)”) and for clarity, omit from plans the reference to the City Biologist. Further description of thisfeature may be provided elsewhere (i.e. discussion of the November site visit in separatenarrative discussion) if necessary. The location of this feature is subject to confirmation by the Community Development Director.
RESPONSE: Callout has been updated to “Edge of Riparian Vegetation” with the “20-foot creek setback” line also labeled, see revised sheets A2, A3 and C1.
Review and verify the location of the Creek Setback depicted and correct the setback lineas appropriate. It is noted that the Creek Setback depicted is not consistent with the provisions for Measurement of Creek Setbacks described in Zoning Regulations (§17.70.030 (C)), which provide for the measurement of Creek Setbacks from the “top-of- bank” or the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the creek flow line. Based on the plans provided, it appears that the extent of riparian vegetation is farther from the creek flow line than the (approximate) top-of-bankand is the feature from which the Creek Setback should be measured. Label the dimension of the setback.
RESPONSE: Callout has been updated to “Edge of Riparian Vegetation” with the “20-foot creek setback” line also labeled, see revised sheets A2, A3 and C1.
2. Waterway (Creek). It is noted from your response that the depiction of the 30-foot drainage easement across the property is intended to also depict the location of the creek (waterway).
However, these are two distinct features. For clarity, revise plans as necessary to, at minimum, depict and label the location of the waterway (e.g. by depictionof a creek flow line).
RESPONSE: As the creek is braided, there is no distinct flow line to depict on the plans, the creek flow area is contained within the extents of the drainage easement.
3. Allowable Building Area. It is noted from your response to this request that the “Allowable Building Area” depicted on Site Plans is intended to depict the requiredCreek Setback, as measured from the edge of riparian vegetation.
For clarity, label the required Creek Setback, where depicted, as such, rather than as “Allowable Building Area” (see also Item 1, above). If it is found necessary to depict an “allowable building area,” depict this as a feature separate from the Creek Setback. However, “allowable building area” is not recognized as an applicable development standard and need not be depicted in plans if Creek Setback and building setback linesare already depicted.
Review the Creek Setback depicted (see also Item 1, above) and verify that it has been accurately measured and depicted, as described in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.030 (C) (Measurement of Creek Setbacks). While it appears that, according to Zoning Regulations, the Creek Setback is to be measured from the edge of riparian vegetation, asit is further from the creek flow line, the course of the feature you have depicted does notfollow that of the edge of vegetation you have shown on the Site Plan. Correct the courseof the Creek Setback depicted, as necessary.
RESPONSE: The “buildable area” shading has been removed. Applicable setbacks are
shown; the “20-foot creek setback” line has been clearly labeled, see revised sheets A2, and A3.
4. Statement (Exceptions). It is noted from your response to this request that you intend to seek an exception from Creek Setback standards described in Zoning Regulations §
17.70.030, and have provided preliminary information in support of this request.
Required findings - To complete your preliminary discussion in support of the required findings for such an exception, provide discussion of the feasibility of site development with a redesign of the project, and the manner in which redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property, in support of the remaining two required findings that must be made in order for such an exception to be granted (see Zoning §
17.70.030 (G) (4 (c) (7) & (8)). This information in support of the required findings is best provided as a separate narrative statement that can be attached to staff reports for consideration by the Administrative Hearing Officer at the Director’s Hearing.
RESPONSE: From a City-wide perspective, bridges have been and will continue to be designed, permitted, and constructed to enable crossing of one of our most precious assets – our creeks! Specific to the project, the request for an exception to allow a residential service/access bridge to encroach into the creek setback helps minimize the impacts of the site by placing the proposed accessory dwelling unit at the NE corner of the site which is a much lower contour level of the site. Limiting this area of the lot would deny the property owner less development than indicated by City’s zoning standards and recent legislation regarding ADUs.
The single-story design and lower elevation placement of the ADU within this allowed developed area of the site helps to maintain neighboring views from yard areas capturing solar access and views of Bishops Peak. The neighboring homes at this end of the lot have yards elevated a minimum of 6-feet or more above the proposed ADU finish floor elevation which allow views to overlook beyond the top of the proposed ridge line. Placement of the ADU on the opposite side of the creek towards the SW denies overall development allowed by zoning and would force more extensive site grading disturbance resulting in more grading cut and fill quantities. The goal is to place proposed structures in site locations where buildings are allowed, while taking into consideration the natural topography constraints.
While the proposed bridge minimally encroaches into the creek setback, the bridge design purposefully minimizes site area disturbance to the start and end of the bridge crossing. All other areas of the bridge are suspended above the creek minimize long term disturbance to water quality, creek habitat and other wildlife. Removing the bridge would create much more site grading disturbance and affect other sensitive areas of the site rendering the project infeasible.
Biological survey - Also provide a biological survey by a qualified, independent person to provide the basis for making the required findings (Zoning § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (d)) (see also Informational Note regarding Environmental Review, below).
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021.
5. Bridge Details. It is noted that details about the design of the bridge proposed to cross the
creek channel, and representative views of the type of bridge proposed, have been provided.
Additional details about the creek area that will be disturbed by bridge construction activity will be required, in order to evaluate the physical impact to the creek area, including a plan depiction of disturbed area, description of construction equipment required, and amounts of cut and fill (see also Informational Note regarding Environmental Review, below).
RESPONSE: This type of bridge was specifically selected based on cost of installation, low impact site disturbance, and low visual impact to the site. The bridge is a pre-manufacture bridge system composed primarily of welded top plates and supported by continuous steel beams running the length of the bridge span. Each end of the bridge is supported by concrete bridge abutments designed to support bridge bearing. This bridge system minimizes site disturbance solely to the concrete abutment supports only. No cut and fill quantities anticipated other than the soils excavated for the abutment footings. When excavating for the footings, the spoils will be placed uphill of the abutments to avoid impacts to the creek.
The equipment used to install the bridge in place would be a crane. The use of a crane would avoid vehicle disturbance within the creek and limit pedestrian disturbance, accordingly.
6. Affected Vegetation. It is noted in the information provided in response to this item that work associated with the project includes removal of trees. Tree removal is governed bythe provisions set out in Municipal Code § 12.24.090 (Tree Removal).
Application Requirements (Tree Removal) - Provide the materials for an application for tree removal, as described in Municipal Code § 12.24.090 (D) (2). Note that in addition to plans, diagrams, photographs, etc., an arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint, including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that
will remain, is required. Ensure that tree removal information is comprehensive, covering all tree removals proposed on the site.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021, Section 5.0 Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures.
7. Lot Coverage Calculation. It is noted that a lot area calculation and depiction of corresponding site areas has been provided.
Corrections - The “Lot Coverage Available Area” provided on the Title Sheet of plans appears incorrect (the sum of the two area values given is 38,262, and not 42,262). Review and, where necessary, correct the lot coverage calculation provided on the TitleSheet.
Components of Calculation - For clarity, show in the Lot Coverage Calculation on the Title Page of plans each of its components, including the total lot area (i.e. gross lot area),the total area subtracted from the gross lot area (i.e. the creek area), and the Net Lot Area (i.e. gross area minus creek area). Ensure that the proposed lot coverage (expressed as percentage) is updated to reflect any corrections made in the calculation.
RESPONSE: See attached revised Title Sheet that includes the lot coverage calculation; proposed coverage is 16.2% of net lot area.
Preliminary review is intended to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The above list includes all of the items identified as necessary to find your application complete for further processing. Your application will remain in an incomplete status until those items are received. Upon resubmittal, please provide a narrative response indicating where these items can be found in your plans or application materials.
Informational Notes:
In order to facilitate review of this application, we draw attention to the following primary areas of concern with the proposed project. Clarification and amplification of the information and supporting material provided will be requested through the course of application review, describing the elements of the project design which address and demonstrate consistency with relevant City policies, standards, and guidelines.
Environmental Review
Consistent with Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, we are conducting preliminary review of the project for environmental issues that may require additional explanation, to inform a determination of the appropriate level of environmental review.
Biological Report. To facilitate the evaluation of the potential for significant effects to the environment, we request that you provide a biological report by a qualified, independent person to provide information about the biological resources supported by the project site and the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on the site. Attached is a brief listing of topics to be addressed, at minimum, in this report. Please contact me at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at [email protected]) for further information about the preparation and submittal of this report. We note that the “blooming season” is underway and thus we encourage that this report be initiated as
soon as possible in order to facilitate the observation of plant species.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021.
Archaeological Resource Inventory (ARI). Pursuant to the §2.20 of the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines implementing policies of the General Plan (see Conservation and Open Space Element §3.5), an Archaeological Resource Inventory (ARI) is required when a project site is vacant and one acre or larger in size. We request that you provide this inventory, to be used to determine if archaeological resources may be present on the site.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Cultural Resources Survey of the Michaels Residence Project, Terry Joslin Azevedo, Ph.D, RPA Archaeologist, May 2021.
Creek and Wildlife Corridor
Figure 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) depicts a wildlife corridor over thesite area, and a creek depicted in Figure 9 traverses the site. Supporting policies for the protectionand enhancement of creeks and wildlife habitat and corridors are found in the Land Use Element and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (e.g. see LUE §§ 2.3.7, 6.6.3,& 6.6.4; COSE §§ 7.3.3, 7.7.8, & 7.7.9). These policies require that residential development respect natural features such as creeks and wildlife corridors, preserve and protect these importantfeatures, respect the separation from creek banks and natural features, and keep open channels open and free of structures in or over their banks.
Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors. To accomplish this, the City will require private developments to evaluate animal species and their movements within and through development sites and create habitats and corridors appropriate for wildlife (COSE 7.3.3). Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and protection of floodways and natural features. Features which normally would be outside the creek setback may be permitted to encroach where there is no practical alternative, to allow reasonable development of a parcel, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in this Element. Removal of any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions will provide for wildlife corridors, traffic circulation, access, utilities, and reasonable use of adjacent properties (COSE 7.7.9).
Information requested above, relevant to the creek and wildlife corridor, will inform considerationof whether the proposal is consistent with those General Plan policies, and whether project may impact on the wildlife corridor or creek habitat.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021
Creek Setback Exception. At this time, the information provided in support of a Creek Setback Exception does not support the restrictive findings set out in Zoning § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c), required to approve such an exception, particularly those regarding the presence of special circumstances, and feasibility of alternate designs allowing for reasonable use of the property. Toensure a complete application for this request, please ensure that the supporting information provided is supplemented with the additional information described in Item 4 of this letter, and consider how the information may be enhanced to provide compelling support for your request.
RESPONSE: The proposed bridge has been located in an area less densely vegetated than the balance of the corridor in order to avoid impacts to existing vegetation. (See sheet L-1) Upstream of the section of corridor located on the subject property, there is a confluence of two drainage swales – one taking concentrated flows from the hillside and culverted under Patricia Drive and the other taking concentrated flows from a swale located between Anacapa Circle and Twin Ridge Drive and, again, culverted under Patricia Drive. See aerial photograph. Given the existing improvements (i.e., culverts, roadways, buildings, etc.) that have impacted the riparian corridor, the addition of the proposed bridge carries a light footprint on the land.
Flooding concerns have analyzed by the project civil engineer, Ken Chacon, PE and memorialized in the provided design memorandum regarding the preliminary hydrology. This analysis established the locations and requisite bridge clearance of 2.5 feet above the creek bottom, which will provide the 100-year depth of flow plus 2-feet of freeboard. A section through the bridge can be seen on sheet C-1.
With its careful placement and analysis, the proposed
bridge will not limit the City’s design options for
providing flood control measures (it is noteworthy,
that we worked with the City’s biologist, Freddy
Otte, as he is responsible for managing the
appropriate level of flood control measures and
provided guidance for some judicious pruning and
deadwood removal within the corridor); nor
adversely impact the environmental setting and/or
conditions of the corridor. The project biologist will
be responsible for coordination with and lodging
permits with other agencies (i.e., Army Corps, US &
CA Fish & Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board ), as required.
Approval of the proposed bridge cannot be
considered a special privilege, as many bridges have
been approved for similar purposes throughout the City. Without the ability to cross the creek, the applicants have no access or reasonable use of the balance of their property. In addition, recent legislation has paved the way for the streamlined addition of accessory dwelling units. With that said, both the technical and environmental aspects of the proposed bridge have been analyzed, its location determined based upon those factors, and this location will minimize impacts, accordingly.
In addition, the project was designed “around” the existing sewer lateral and related elevation constraints. The building pad elevations are set to provide gravity flow and eliminate the need for mechanical assistance devices (i.e., a pump station). The ADU is proposed to be near the existing utility infrastructure to reduce project impacts surrounding the creek and grading limitations.
Keeping the ADU separate from the main residence addresses the City’s design recommendations to be mindful of overall building scale compatibility. The size and placement of the ADU reduces the visual impact from right-of-way views and most of the neighboring residences. Grading cut/fill quantities are reduced by designing relative to the existing topography, which is also encouraged by the City’s design guidelines.
Architectural Review
The City’s Community Design Guidelines for Infill Development encourage compatible scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings, particularly when a new house is proposed tobe larger than others in a neighborhood.
RESPONSE: We have studied the neighboring properties and found the surrounding neighborhood has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.19. This project’s proposed FAR is 0.10. The neighborhood and proposed project are under area zoning maximum FAR of 0.40. While the size of the subject property at 1.41 acres provides overall greater development opportunity than the surrounding parcel size with an average size of 0.25 acres, the home has been designed with the neighboring properties in mind. The portion of the residences visible from the driveway approach is designed with a single-story appearance. The setbacks along westerly property line exceed the development standards and existing neighboring setbacks and steps down from the existing fence with planted low terraces and rockery. The secondary story design has been visually minimized with step-backs, sloped roofs, and overhangs. The setbacks on the north and east side of the home are greater than any home in the immediate neighborhood.
Careful consideration to the building form and massing layout helps maintain a compatibility to the existing neighborhood character. The building footprint was designed with a composition of smaller building segments more linearly elongated rather than designing one larger concentrated building footprint. The overall depth of the building footprint has been designed to minimize the roof spans thereby reducing the overall height of the roof line. Smaller building segments and reduced roof spans are intentional design considerations in reducing overall visual mass and scale of the building which follow the building form of the surrounding neighborhood structures.
Building Scale and Windows: Infill residential development should be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood.
This is crucial when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the neighborhood. When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings (CDG §5.3). Also, the proposed window pattern appears to orient a large amount of glass window areas in the direction of neighboring properties.
RESPONSE: By design, a flag lot has four (4) sides that all face neighboring properties and, therefore, the structure will have windows facing neighboring yards. The lot was legally designed and approved for a single-family residence; however the available buildable areas are defined by setback requirements and responding to site topography. The applicant and design team have taken great care to focus the view of the home towards high views of Bishops Peak, distant views of hills to the east, and across the width of the property. Egress windows and non-egress windows provide natural light and ventilation on all sides of the home.
The design intent of the home focuses most of glazing towards the northeast – the largest part of the site to accommodate the home and related exterior amenities. This minimize any direct visual or overlook to neighboring properties as there is over a 120 feet of landscaping, lawns, patio, rockery, sloping topography, riparian vegetation, and neighing retaining walls and landscaping between the proposed home and neighbors. All bedrooms are required to have a minimum of one (1) egress, and the master bedroom is the only bedroom with a western view towards a neighboring property. All of the higher windows in the great room and along the interior hall circulation areas are clear story windows (above eye level) and provide only sky or hillside views, which allows for additional light
into the space. The majority of the windows along the west side of the building (in the hallway and staircase) provide natural daylight into these circulation spaces, where people move from room to room and do not congregate. The greenhouse on the west side of the building has a large extent of glass, but sits about 8-feet below the neighboring property and will be shielded by both rockery walls and the existing 6-foot fence.
The City may ask for clarification or amplification of information after an application is acceptedas complete. Contact me anytime at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at [email protected]) if you have any questions regarding this letter, or about the status or processing of your applications.
RESPONSE: We welcome your questions about our response, Walter, and look forward to acceptance of the project and moving it through the process.
Sincerely,
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Development Review
att: Biological Report details, Tree Removal Application Information Attachments:
• Revised Plan Sheets A1, A2, C1, & A3, RRM, 01 April 2021 • Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021
• Cultural Resources Survey of the Michaels Residence Project, Central Coast Archaeological Research Consultants, May 2021
City of San Luis Obispo, Comm unity D evelopment, 919 Palm Str eet, San Luis Obispo, C A, 93401- 3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
July 30, 2021
Eric and Julie Michaels
c/o Oasis Associates, Attn: Carol Florence
3427 Miguelito Ct
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Subject: Application ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Consistency of Project with plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, etc., per Government Code § 65589.5 (j) (2) (A) Dear Mr. & Mrs. Michaels,
Our initial review of your Architectural Review application reference above, for development of the property at 841 Patricia Avenue, indicates that your project is considered a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5). As such, the City is required to notify you in writing (within 30 days of the application being deemed complete) of the potential inconsistencies between the project design and the City’s “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards.” Your application was deemed complete, pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, on July 1st, 2021.
Based on staff’s review of the application materials submitted to date, staff considers the project to be inconsistent with the objective standards stated below. As a courtesy, we have also identified the ways in which staff believes the proposed housing development project is inconsistent and not in compliance with other City standards that may not qualify as “objective.” Objective standards are noted below with an “O,” while other standards are noted with an “S.”
The environmental document to be prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will further explore some of these issues of consistency, as may be required by CEQA. Prior to the public hearing for the project, and as part of the staff report, staff will provide further analysis of your project’s consistency with the City’s plans, programs, and other similar provisions.
Standard O/S Explanation
General Plan: Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 7.3.1 Protect listed species S The proposed project includes a vehicle path and bridge that crosses a mapped creek corridor (COSE
Figure 9 – Creeks and Wetlands), with associated
construction activity within and over the creek
Policy 7.3.2 Species of Local Concern S
Policy 7.3.3 Wildlife habitat and
corridors
S
Program 7.7.8. Protect wildlife
corridors
S channel, and subject to review by regulatory
authorities (i.e. RWQCB, Fish & Wildlife). A mapped
wildlife corridor (COSE Figure 3 – Wildlife Corridor)
travels across the site. Apart from sensitive species
observed in conduct of the biological survey provided
with this application, further environmental review
may reveal potential impacts to sensitive habitat and
plant and animal species.
Bridge construction activity, related vegetation
removal, placement of structure within the creek
setback and over the creek channel, and ongoing use
of the vehicle bridge over the creek channel do not
appear to be consistent with policies and programs to
ensure that important corridors for wildlife
movement and dispersal are protected, and for
protection of sensitive habitat, including creeks, from encroachment by human activities, or for the
preservation or creation of interconnecting open
spaces, wildlife habitat, and corridors, as the
proposed bridge would alter a portion of the creek
corridor and interrupt its continuity, thereby reducing linkages and connections between habitat areas.
Program 7.7.9 Creek Setbacks O
General Plan: Land Use Element
Policy 2.3.7 Natural Features S The project includes a vehicle bridge across a creek channel in an area with a mapped wildlife corridor.
Construction and use of the vehicle bridge is not
consistent with respect for site constraints or
preservation of natural site features, including creeks, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants as it encroaches into a required Creek Setback and over a
creek channel, and involves disturbance of associated
riparian vegetation and tree removal.
Policy 2.3.9 (G) Preservation of
Natural Features
S
Policy 2.3.10 Site Constraints S
Standard O/S Explanation
Zoning Regulations
§ 17.70.130 – Creek Setbacks O The proposed bridge places improvements exceeding 120 square feet in area within a required 20-foot
creek setback. It is a vehicle bridge, functionally
beyond the limits of a “pervious walkway” or even an
“impervious pedestrian walkway” or bicycle path.
Compliance with Creek Setback standards appears to
be practical, with feasible design alternatives that
would allow for reasonable development of the
property with reduced potential for impacts to creek,
wildlife, and habitat resources, such that no basis for an exception to Creek Setback standards exists.
Standard O/S Explanation
Community Design Guidelines
5.3 (A-C) General Principles, Building
design, Visual impacts from building
height
S The proposed primary dwelling employs a design that
devotes extensive floor area to a wide range of
amenities, with considerably extensive window area
provided at upper floor living areas. At the proposed
height and bulk, the design exhibits some measure of
incompatibility in scale, siting, and window spacing
with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate
neighborhood. Further design refinement is
necessary to address privacy for adjacent property
and enhance compatibility with the neighborhood
pattern, to avoid negative impacts on adjacent
buildings.
7.1 (B) Special Design Considerations,
Creekside Development
Creek Setback Development
Guidelines
S Construction and use of a vehicle bridge within a
Creek Setback and across a creek channel is
inconsistent with design guidelines for creek setback
development. It is considered to be an “other
structure,” road, parking access, parking space, and
paved area, which these guidelines discourage. The
surface of the vehicle access path and bridge are not
permeable, and do not enhance protection of
riparian resources or minimize runoff to the creek
channel. The proposed vehicle bridge involves fill
within the creek channel and setback area, and
removal of vegetation.
Please note that this letter presents staff’s initial evaluation of your project’s potential consistencies with the City’s plans and policies. A formal decision regarding your project’s consistency with applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, and requirements will be made by the appropriate City decision-making body for the project, such as the Planning Commission or City Council, at a public hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at [email protected]).
Sincerely,
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Development Review
1 Oetzell, Walter
From: Oetzell, Walter
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 4:14 PM
To: Carol Florence
Cc: Emily Ewer
Subject: RE: 841 Patricia Drive SFR + ADU
Categories: 2021-0040-ARCH (841 Patricia)
Hello Carol,
The short answer is that the project is “Under Review.” But more to the point, out of our internal discussions we’ve reached a consensus that the project cannot benefit from the application of a Categorical Exemption from environmental review under CEQA and that therefore an Initial Study will need to be prepared in order to better understand the potential environmental impacts before any action could be taken on the application. Of central concern is the potential for impacts to the creek corridor, mapped wildlife corridor, and related plant and animal habit arising from installation and construction of the proposed bridge across the creek.
We have also identified, for purposes of complying with the provisions of the state’s Housing Accountability Act, areas of inconsistency between the proposed project and the City’s plans, programs, policies, ordinance, standards, requirements, etc., pursuant to Government Code §65589.5(j)(2)(A), which I have just emailed to you (and have also sent by standard mail).
You will see that the inconsistencies identified pertain largely to the proposal for crossing the creek with the bridge depicted in plans. In addition to these inconsistencies, we find that the property lacks the type of physical circumstances and constraints that would support a solid basis for granting an exception from Creek Setback provisions, and as proposed we are not supportive of such an exception. Given that, it may be prudent to consider project design alternatives that would preserve the integrity of the creek setback corridor and not require an exception.
We will want to discuss, then, the possibility of alternative designs and the process for having the Initial Study prepared (i.e. filing of an Environmental Impact Determination application with associated fee and arranging consultant services to have the Study prepared). Obviously there is little time left to accomplish any of that this week, but I will be back in the office Tuesday, and we can pick up the discussion from there.
I hope that is helpful information for updating your client, and that you will have an enjoyable weekend… Walter Oetzell
Assistant Planner
Community Development
Development Review
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E [email protected]
T 805.781.7593
slocity.org
2 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Carol Florence <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 8:08 AM
To: Oetzell, Walter <[email protected]>
Cc: Emily Ewer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 841 Patricia Drive SFR + ADU
Importance: High
Good Summer Morning, Walter!
Since there is a rather dramatic time difference between my client’s home base of Russia and SLO, I’m hoping to give them the status of their project this morning. Thanks for the consideration.
As always,
C.M. Florence, AICP
Principal Planner
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
P: 805.541.4509 Ext 11 I F: 805.546.0525 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For EID 0547-2021
1. Project Title:
Michaels Residence (ARCH-0040-2021)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
(805) 781-7593
4. Project Location:
841 Patricia Drive (APN 052-520-063), San Luis Obispo, California
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Eric and Julie Michaels
c/o Oasis Associates
3427 Miguelito Ct
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Attn: Carol Florence
6. General Plan Designations:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Low Density Residential with Planned Development Overlay (R-1-PD)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed Michaels Residence project (project) includes construction of a new 4,941-square-foot (sf) two-story single-family residence and an 825-sf accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a 1.41-acre parcel. The proposed project site is a flag lot that was created as part of a subdivision approved by the City in 1985 (Tract 1182). The lot is in the northwestern portion of the city of San Luis Obispo at Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 052-520-063. The proposed project would be accessed from Patricia Drive by a private, gated driveway. The project site is surrounded by low-density residential development associated with the Tract 1182 subdivision. Bishop Peak and Felsman Loop trailhead are located to the west. Figure 1 below shows the project location.
In addition to the residence and the ADU, the proposed project includes a three-car garage, a 128-sf storage shed, and a small access bridge over Twin Ridge Creek, a portion of which traverses the site. The bridge access would be a maximum of 55 feet long and 12 feet wide and is envisioned to accommodate small vehicles (e.g., electric
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 cart) to allow access to the ADU. Proposed site amenities include an infinity pool, an outdoor kitchen, outdoor decking, a gym/spa, and outdoor shade structures. Figures 2 through 4 show, respectively, a site plan map, a conceptual design plan of the residence, and a conceptual design plan of the ADU (RRM Design Group 2021).
New development would be in a contemporary craftsman architectural style, which includes a covered front porch, exposed rafter tails, overhanging eaves, and shingle roofs and siding. Other design features include concrete steps, stone paving, grass paving, and a stone-clad wall. The project would include landscaping surrounding and throughout the proposed development, including a variety of trees and shrubs and a natural lawn.
The property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. Consistent with this General Plan land use designation, the property is zoned as Low Density Residential within a Planned Development Overlay zone (R-1-PD). The Planned Development Overlay was established as part of the area’s annexation into the City in 1978 (Ferrini Annexation Prezone, file PD 0632) and was further defined with the subdivision of Tract 1182 in 1985. The Planned Development Overlay provides for deviations from development standards of Municipal Code Title 17, where determined necessary and justifiable to accommodate the development of a project (17.48.030.D).
The new single-family residential unit and the ADU combined would cover 11% of the existing 61,419-sf (1.41- acre) lot. The proposed project includes a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.10 (6,320 sf/61,419 sf). The primary residence would be 25 feet in height and the detached ADU would be 16 feet in height. The project, as proposed, would provide a minimum setback of 5 feet from the interior side yards, 15 feet from the rear property line, and 20-feet from a line representing the edge of riparian vegetation associated with the creek.1 Table 1 shows major elements
of the development program for the proposed project and how they compare to the applicable requirements.
Table 1. Project Development Program
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required
Maximum Residential Density 1 residential single-family unit (density is not applicable to ADU) 7 units per acre
Maximum FAR 0.10 0.40
Minimum Setbacks
Interior Side: Primary Residence 5 feet 5 feet
Rear: ADU 15 feet 4 feet2
Creek Setback 20 feet 20 feet
Maximum Height: Primary Residence 25 feet 25 feet
Maximum Height: ADU 16 feet 16 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 11% 40%
Minimum Lot Area 61,419 square feet 6,000 square feet
The size of the proposed ADU would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.86.020, which requires that detached ADUs do not exceed 850 square feet for a one-bedroom unit.
The project includes a proposed Creek Setback Exception to allow an exception to the creek setback requirement for the placement of the bridge and associated footings and supports within this setback area, and for any encroachment of associated paving and vehicle parking area into the required Creek Setback area (including, e.g., the internal access road and 5.5-foot-tall retaining wall; refer to Figure 2). The requested exception would thus 1 The City Biologist established the location and course of the edge of riparian vegetation associated with the creek based on conditions observed during a site visit conducted in November 2020 and verified this as the edge of riparian vegetation during a subsequent site visit conducted June 30, 2022. This line is depicted and labeled in plans as “Edge of Riparian Vegetation” (Sheet A2) and “Surveyed Vegetation Line” (Sheet AS-1). The distances noted in Table 1 are to the nearest residential structure; the project includes a proposed Creek Setback Exception.
2 Municipal Code 17.86.020 (B) (5) (a).
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 allow the use of the eastern portion of the site for the ADU residential unit and associated improvements. Without the bridge crossing, this eastern portion of the site would not be accessible by vehicle. In order to approve the requested creek setback exception, the City must make the required findings described in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.030 (G)(4)(c).
The project site is characterized by relatively flat topography in an area of prior disturbance at the western portion of the property and is mostly undeveloped except for a gated driveway and shed structure, which is estimated to have been placed or constructed on the site in 2016. A portion of Twin Ridge Creek runs north to south through the eastern portion of the site, and the property slopes down from either side of the creek toward a shallow creek channel. The creek begins at a culvert that is located in the northern portion of the project site; the culvert conveys runoff from Bishop Peak. It supports riparian vegetation including arroyo willow thicket, coast live oak, big leaf maple, and planted sycamore. The riparian corridor associated with Twin Ridge Creek is considered a wildlife corridor in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). Other habitats on-site include annual grassland, semi-annual brome grassland, non-native annual grasses, broadleaf plant species, and a few native forbs and wildflowers.
The project site is located within the Upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The project is in Watershed Management Zone 1 (WMZ1) per the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. As such, it would be required to meet Performance Requirements 1 through 4 of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements for development projects. Proposed stormwater reduction measures include retaining natural pervious surfaces, implementing grass lawns and landscaping, and using pervious pavers where feasible.
Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and the project would require an additional water demand of approximately 0.8 acre-feet per year (af/yr), with 0.491 acre of that estimate being landscaping. The project would be served by the City’s sewer system and would generate approximately 255 gallons of wastewater per day. The project would be served by San Luis Garbage Company for solid waste pick-up and disposal. Electricity for the project would be provided by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE).
The project site includes existing utility infrastructure from the Tract 1182 subdivision within existing driveway easement and along Patricia Drive including sewer lines, water lines, and electricity lines. The project would include the installment of expanded infrastructure to connect new development to existing City facilities. Utilities serving the ADU would need to cross the on-site portion of Twin Ridge Creek. The project’s development plans include two potential approaches for the necessary extension of utilities to the ADU: 1) trenching/undergrounding the utilities below the creek, or 2) including the utilities in the bridge span, either hanging from the bridge or within the bridge decking/enclosure. Because both possibilities are shown on the project plans, this environmental assessment assumes that the project proposal could include the trenching/undergrounding of the utilities below the creek as this approach would be the most environmentally impactful due to additional undergrounding, trenching, and/or ground disturbance below the riparian corridor and/or within the creek that would be required.
Project construction would require approximately 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 650 cy of fill, for a total of 2,582 cy total cut/fill. Construction is anticipated to last approximately 24 months. Construction would result in approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground disturbance and would replace approximately 12,540 square feet of pervious surface area.
9. Project Entitlements:
Architectural Review (Minor Development Review)
Creek Setback Exception
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
x North: single-family residential development
x South: single-family residential development
x East: single-family residential development
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 x West: single-family development between Patricia Drive and the portion of the site proposed for development; to the west of Patricia Drive, Bishop Peak and Felsman Loop trailhead
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified on August 17, 2021, about the project consistent with City and State of California regulations, including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill 52. As of November 23, 2021, responses have been received from three tribes: the Northern Chumash Tribe, the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, and the Salinan Tribe.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Figure 1. Project location map.
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Figure 2. Site plan map.
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
C
ER # EID-0547-2021
ITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Figure 3. Conceptual design plan – residence.
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
C
ER # EID-0547-2021
ITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Figure 4. Conceptual design plan – ADU.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ܆ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ܈ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation ܈ Air Quality ܈ Hydrology and Water Quality ܆ Transportation ܈ Biological Resources ܈ Land Use and Planning ܈ Tribal Cultural Resources ܈ Cultural Resources ܆ Mineral Resources ܈ Utilities and Service Systems ☐ Energy ܈ Noise ܆ Wildfire
܆ Geology and Soils ܆ Population and Housing ܈ Mandatory Findings of Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
܆
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination).
܈
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
܈
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g., Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ܆
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ܈
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ܆
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed ܆
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
܆
July 15, 2022
Signature Date
Brian Leveille, Senior Planner For: Michael Codron
Printed Name Community Development Director
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on projectspecific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, “Earlier Analysis,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 2, 3 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 4 2,
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1, 2,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 5 4, 3,
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 5 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ Evaluation
The proposed project site is a mostly undeveloped flag lot from a previous subdivision (Tract 1182) located in the northwestern portion of the city of San Luis Obispo. The site is surrounded by existing single-family residential homes associated with the previous Tract 1182 subdivision. The site is accessed from a private, gated driveway off Patricia Drive.
Existing development on the project site is limited to a storage shed and gated driveway. Natural features of the site include a creek and associated riparian corridor that bisects the project site, non-native annual grassland, and gently sloping topography.
The topography of the city is generally defined by several low hills and ridges, such as Righetti Hill, Bishop Peak, and Cerro San Luis. These are three of the nine peaks known as the Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the city. In the project vicinity, intermittent views of nearby natural landmarks are available, including views of Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak. The project area and surrounding areas are characterized by relatively flat to slightly sloping topography. Elevation at the project site is approximately 340 to 350 feet above mean sea level.
Based on the COSE map of scenic roadways and vistas, the project site is not located near a designated scenic roadway or vista. The project site is in the Low Density Residential land use designation. The site is also within a Low Density Residential zone with a PD Overlay (R-1-PD). The PD Overlay provides for deviations from development standards of Municipal Code Title 17 as determined necessary and justifiable to accommodate the development of a project (17.48.030.D). The project’s consistency with the applicable development standards is evaluated in Table 1 in the Project Description.
a) A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can be seen from public viewpoints. Based on the City’s COSE, the project site is not located within or within close proximity to a designated scenic vista. Development of a single-family residence and ADU on the project site would therefore not change existing views within a designated scenic vista. In addition, due to the site’s topography and natural vegetation, as well as existing development in the project area, implementation of the project would not result in development that would significantly change or impede any scenic views of Bishop Peak, located directly west of the project site. The project would comply with the City’s zoning standards, including maximum height requirements, and would be consistent with the height and level of surrounding development in the area.
In addition, the project site is not located near any scenic roadways designated by the City’s COSE. The nearest designated roadway with high scenic value is the portion of State Route (SR) 1 within the city, approximately
0.75 mile southeast of the project site, and the nearest designated roadway with moderate scenic value is Foothill Boulevard, located 0.7 mile south of the project site. The project site is not visible from SR 1 or Foothill Boulevard
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 due to distance and intervening residential and commercial development. Therefore, the project would not be visible to travelers along those routes. The project would not block or result in significant adverse change in a scenic vista; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is located approximately 1.7 miles northwest of U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) and 0.75 mile northwest of the portion of SR 1 that is within the city and 0.35 mile west of the portion of SR 1 outside of the City’s limits.
Based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highways online mapping tool, the section of US 101 and SR 1 within the city are eligible for State of California (State) scenic highway designation but is not officially designated and the portion of SR 1 outside of the City’s limits is an officially designated State scenic highway. The City’s COSE also identifies Foothill Boulevard, located approximately 0.7 mile south of the project site, as a roadway with moderate scenic value. The project site would not be visible to viewers traveling along US 101, SR 1, or Foothill Boulevard due to the distance from the project site and intervening commercial and residential development. Further, there are no scenic resources in the project area that would be damaged because of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage any of these resources and there would be no impact.
c) The project site is in an urbanized area of the city in the R-1 land use designation and has a PD Overlay (R-1-PD).
The project is subject to the R-1 zone design standards identified in City Municipal Code 17.16.020. The project is also subject to other applicable building standards identified in City Municipal Code 17.70 and COSE Policy 9.1.2, which outlines view guidelines regarding urban development. The COSE states that urban development should reflect its architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban development, and that are compatible with historical and architectural resources. The project site’s PD Overlay provides for deviations from development standards of Municipal Code Title 17 that were determined necessary and justifiable by the City.
Construction views associated with the project would be temporary in nature and similar to other projects within the city and would not result in permanent alteration of the existing visual character of the area. Project construction requires the removal of 17 coast live oak saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from approximately four trees within the riparian corridor associated with the on-site creek for construction of the proposed span bridge and associated footings and supports; however, none of the trees that would be removed have unusual or historical value.
Additionally, the project includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-gallon trees (10 on each side of the creek corridor), four California bay laurel one-gallon trees (two on each side of the creek corridor), four California sycamore one-gallon trees (two on each side of the creek corridor), and 20 willow sprig trees (throughout the creek channel).
Therefore, long-term views associated with vegetation removal at the project site would not occur.
The proposed single-family residence and ADU would be consistent with the maximum standard building height for the R-1 zone, which is 16 feet for an ADU and 25 feet for a dwelling or other structure. In addition, the proposed project would also be similar in nature to the density and style of surrounding low-density residential development.
As described in threshold (a) above, the project would not result in adverse views from designated scenic areas because the site is not within a designated scenic vista and is not visible from designated scenic roadways identified in the City’s COSE. For these reasons, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site, nor would the project conflict with regulations that have been established for the purpose of preserving scenic quality or resources. Thus, the project would be consistent with zoning regulations and impacts to visual character would be less than significant. d) Existing sources of nighttime lighting near the project site include residential street lighting and intermittent vehicle lighting from vehicles traveling along Patricia Drive. Construction activities would only occur during daylight hours and would not require nighttime lighting. Nighttime lighting for the residence is required to comply with the Lighting and Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (17.70.100) standards for outdoor lighting and new development, which include, but are not limited to, requirements for new outdoor light sources to be shielded and directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, requirements for minimum levels of lighting consistent with public safety standards, and limits to hours of lighting operation. Therefore, impacts from new sources of light or glare would be less than significant.
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The project site is not a scenic vista, does not include scenic resources, nor is it within the viewshed of a designated scenic highway. The project site is within an urbanized area and is not subject to public vantage points. The project does not conflict with City of San Luis Obispo regulations that have been established to preserve scenic quality or resources and would not result in a significant source of additional nighttime lighting. No potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetic resources would occur and mitigation measures are not required.
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? ܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 6
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 7 ?contract Act Williamson
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 7
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1, 7 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 7
Evaluation
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP. The project site is not located on local Prime Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, Farmland of Local Potential, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland according to Figure 10 of the City’s COSE.
The project site is zoned as R-1-PD within the northwestern portion of the city. The project site is not located within or immediately adjacent to land zoned for agricultural uses, land under an active Williamson Act contract, or land currently supporting agricultural uses.
According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site does not support any forest land or timberland and is not surrounded by forest land or timberland. a) According to the FMMP, the project site and surrounding land uses are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Since the project site is not located on or adjacent to designated Prime Farmland, the project would not result in the conversion of Prime or other Farmland to non-agricultural use, and no impacts would occur. b) The project site is not located within or adjacent to land zoned for agriculture or under an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would occur.
c) The project site does not include land designated or zoned for forest land or timberland. Additionally, the project site does not contain 10% tree cover that would classify the site as forest land. Therefore, the project would not conflict with zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and no impacts would occur. d) The project site does not include land designated for forest land and does not support 10% tree cover that would classify the project site as forest land. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion or loss of forest land to non-forest use and impacts, and no impacts would occur. e) The project includes the development of a 4,941-sf single-family residence and detached 825-sf ADU. The site is directly adjacent to existing single-family residences in all directions. The nearest agricultural uses are approximately 1 mile west of the project site, beyond Bishop Peak. The proposed project would be consistent with surrounding uses and with existing zoning designated for the project site and would not adversely affect agricultural water supplies or other agricultural support facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial changes in the environment that could result in conversion of nearby agricultural land or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use, and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The project site is in an urbanized area and is not within or adjacent to Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or forest land use, or land under a Williamson Act contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture or forest land would occur, and mitigation measures are not required.
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
1, 8, 9,
10, 11,
64 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
1, 8,
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 13 10,
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1, 10,
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 14 13,
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
1, 10,
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 14
Evaluation
The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions, including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD).
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the State standards for ozone, partial nonattainment for federal ambient standards for ozone (in eastern San Luis Obispo County, outside of the project area), and nonattainment for the State standards for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). The City’s COSE identifies goals and policies to achieve and maintain air quality that supports health and enjoyment for those who live in, work in, and visit the city. These goals and policies include meeting federal and State air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-powered motor vehicles and to encourage walking, biking, and public transit use.
The SLOAPCD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated with a November 2017 Clarification Memorandum) to evaluate project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant impacts could result from a project. To evaluate long-term emissions and cumulative effects and to establish countywide programs to reach acceptable air quality levels, the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (2001 Clean Air Plan) was prepared and adopted.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. The CARB has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution (i.e., sensitive receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The locations where these sensitive receptors congregate are considered sensitive receptor locations and may include, but are not limited to, hospitals, schools, and day care centers. The SLOAPCD identifies sensitive receptor locations as schools, parks, playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units.
The project site is surrounded by existing single-family residential units; therefore, there are sensitive receptor locations located in all directions.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance proposed in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates that the project site is in an area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur. Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) is any material that contains more than one percent of asbestos and is considered hazardous due to its connection with diseases and other health concerns. ACM is presumed to be found in building materials used prior to the year 1980.
Buildings that were developed prior to the year 1980 have the potential to release ACM upon demolition. The project site
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 is mostly undeveloped except for a driveway and a shed structure. The shed was constructed sometime after 1980 (estimated as 2016); thus, there are no on-site structures that are anticipated to have hazardous building materials, including ACM. a) To be considered consistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan, a project must be consistent with the land use planning and transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the Clean Air Plan. The project includes the development of a new 4,941-sf single-family residence and an 825-sf ADU on a single flag lot in the R-1-PD zone. The project site is located approximately 1.2 mile northwest of a commercial center with restaurants, a market, and other commercial development. There are several transit stops located within 1 mile of the proposed site. The nearest transit stop is located approximately 0.4 mile south. There are Class III bike lanes located approximately 0.4 mile south that connect to a Class II bike lane associated with Foothill Drive. Therefore, the project site is in an area that would facilitate alternative modes of travel. The project would generate less than 110 trips per day. Due to the proximity of transit stops and bicycle lanes and the walkability of the project vicinity, the project would be consistent with the land use and transportation planning methods included in the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The project would also be consistent with policies and programs included in the City’s Circulation Element and Active Transportation Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM10 under State ambient air quality standards. Construction of the project would result in short-term emissions of ozone precursors including reactive organic gasses (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), and PM10. After construction, the project would result in emissions of ozone precursors associated with mobile source emissions and other stationary sources.
Construction Emissions
The project would result in approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy of cut and 650 cy of fill (2,582 cy of total cut/fill). Construction of the proposed project has the potential to result in a short-term increase in dust and vehicle emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROGs, NOx, and PM10.
Estimated construction emissions from the project were calculated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod 2021; see Attachment 2). Emissions were quantified based on the default construction schedules, equipment use, and construction vehicle trips contained in the model. Potential emissions contained in the model represent a conservative estimation of short- and long-term emissions. Fugitive dust control measures were not included in the modeling assumptions. Construction emissions modeling assumptions are summarized in Attachment 2. Table 2 summarizes the estimated short-term construction emissions.
Table 2. Project Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Highest
Emissions
SLOAPCD Screening
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Summer Conditions Reactive Organic Gases + Nitrogen Oxide 69.3 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No Diesel Particulate Matter 2.8 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Winter Conditions Reactive Organic Gases + Nitrogen Oxide 69.4 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No Diesel Particulate Matter 2.8 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Uncontrolled Annual Construction Emissions
Reactive Organic Gases + Nitrogen Oxide 2.46 tons/year 2.5 tons/quarter No Diesel Particulate Matter 0.09 tons/year 0.13 tons/quarter No Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.14 tons/year 2.5 tons/quarter No Source: CalEEMod 2021 (v. 2020.4.0); SLOAPCD 2012, 2017 As shown in Table 2, short-term construction emissions are not anticipated to exceed established thresholds. Although the project would not result in significant construction-related emissions, SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook recognizes special conditions, such as proximity to sensitive receptors, that require implementation of standard