Planning Commission upholds director approval for Rachel Court duplexes despite neighbor objections

The San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission voted unanimously Jan. 29 to deny an appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of a minor development review allowing two multi‑story duplexes at 920 and 930 Rachel Court, including a narrow exception to the city’s hillside retaining‑wall height limit.

Staff recommended upholding the director’s Jan. 15 approval, and Assistant Planner Ethan Estrada told commissioners the plan complies with the city’s standards except for five small portions of retaining walls that exceed a 4‑foot height limit by between 2 inches and 1 foot 4 inches. Estrada said the director made the findings required by the zoning code to grant an exception and that the proposed design includes standard measures — structural plans, grading and building plan check — to ensure safety.

The appeal was filed by Mike McCormack, who identified himself as vice president for facilities management and university housing at Cal Poly. McCormack said his concern is not opposition to housing but that a 20‑foot section of retaining wall at the southwest corner of the site would sit about 12 inches from a neighboring, historic nonconforming house at 2098 Rachel Street. He told the commission that the proximity would block windows, limit access for routine maintenance and painting, and could lead to permanent damage and deterioration of the historic structure. “This is not a maybe… this will happen if the development proceeds,” McCormack said.

The applicant and design team said the project went through multiple redesigns to respond to neighbors and to match surrounding architecture. The project team said some retaining walls are needed for drainage and to prevent water from running onto adjacent properties, and that the southwest wall will be constructed with an offset footing and shoring confined to the applicant’s property. The architect said parts of the walls are only inches out of conformance and explained tradeoffs the design team made to balance ADU height limits, grade and slope to reduce additional retaining walls elsewhere on the site.

Several neighbors testified during public comment that surveys were not disclosed when they purchased properties and that the development would create an unmaintainable, 12‑inch passage along the side of a neighboring house with potential fire‑access and safety implications. City staff, including the supervising civil engineer, said the legal lot lines are supported by recorded surveys and a certificate of compliance and that building and fire code review during plan check would address construction and safety protections.

Commissioners questioned whether the narrow exceedances of a few inches rise to a level that is detrimental to adjacent properties. Multiple commissioners said staff and the building permit plan‑check process would examine structural and construction safeguards. Commissioner Tolley moved to deny the appeal and uphold the director’s decision; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote with all commissioners voting yes.

The commission’s decision preserves the director’s approval, including the limited exception to the hillside retaining‑wall standard. Staff advised that any issues that arise during the building permit and plan‑check phase — including structural, grading and fire‑safety concerns — must be resolved before construction can proceed.

What happens next: With the appeal denied, the project approval stands and the applicant may proceed to building permit submittals, subject to plan‑check requirements. Neighbors may pursue civil remedies regarding property‑line disputes or building impacts outside the planning appeal process if they believe their legal property rights are affected.