Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-1-2017 ARC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Architectural Review Commission Monday, May 1, 2017 5:00 pm REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Wynn ROLL CALL: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Brian Rolph, Allen Root, Greg Starzyk, Richard Beller, Vice-Chair Angela Soll, and Chair Greg Wynn PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: At this time, the general public is invited to speak before the Commission on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission that does not appear on this agenda. Although the Commission will not take action on any item presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a future agenda for formal discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: Any court challenge to the actions taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. 1. 279 Bridge Street. ARCH-4293-2016: Continued design review of three shell buildings (including a caretaker quarters) totaling approximately 23,397 square feet, with associated site improvements and identified tree removals, with a determination that the project is consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; M zone; Devin Gallagher, applicant. (Shawna Scott) 2. 1035 Madonna Road. ANNX 1502-2015: Final review of the Draft Design Guidelines for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project; Final EIR is being prepared for project under CEQA; Specific Plan Area 2; Coastal Community Builders, applicant. (John Rickenbach) Architectural Review Commission Agenda Page 2 COMMENT & DISCUSSION 1. STAFF a. Agenda Forecast ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Architectural Review Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 1 5, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room: 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPEALS Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $281 and must accompany the appeal documentation. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participa te in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781 -7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805)781-7107. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Continued design review of three shell buildings (including a caretaker quarters) totaling approximately 23,397 square feet, with associated site improvements and identified tree removals, with a determination that the project is consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7176 e-mail: sscott@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-4242-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy DirectorDD RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, and finds the project consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Devin Gallagher Representative John Knight, J. Knight Consulting Submittal Date 09/19/2014 Complete Date 02/23/2015 Resubmittal Date 12/20/2016 Zoning M (Manufacturing) General Plan Services & Manufacturing Site Area 2.73 acres Environmental Status A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the ARC on June 1, 2015. SUMMARY The applicant proposes to develop a Manufacturing zoned property with three shell buildings totaling approximately 23,397 square feet. The proposed contemporary industrial designed buildings include colors, materials, articulation, and detailing that are consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. The project was previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on June 1, 2015 (refer to Attachment 4, ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015). At that time, the ARC adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and approved a pre-fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek, including an associated creek setback exception. In addition, the ARC provided three directional items specific to the site design and Meeting Date: May 1, 2017 Item Number: 1 ARC1-1 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 2 location of loading docks and trash enclosures (refer to Section 3.0 Project Analysis) and continued design review of the three proposed shell buildings to a date uncertain. During review of the re-submitted plans, Staff met with interested parties and received correspondence regarding the project (refer to Attachment 6, Public Correspondence). Therefore, this report focuses on the applicant’s response to the ARC’s directional items and key public comments and concerns. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to the review the proposed project, in terms of the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Table 2.1 Site Information and Setting Please refer to Attachment 4 (ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015) for additional site and setting information. 2.2 Project Description. A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans): 1. Three commercial shell buildings in the Manufacturing zone: a. Building A: 8,736 square feet including mezzanine level b. Building B: 9,957 square feet c. Building C: 4,704 square feet including a 1,770-square foot second floor “caretaker’s residence” with outdoor patio. 2. Tree removals (Chinese pistache, California pepper tree cluster and Italian stone pine) in the location of proposed paving (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet A1 Architectural Site Plan). These removals and onsite tree plantings have been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 3. Associated site improvements including a decorative concrete main access way, pavement, porous pavers, parking, trash enclosures, 6,893-square foot outdoor yard between Buildings A and B, a 2,934-square foot yard south of Building B, and site landscaping. Site Size 2.73 acres Present Use & Development Vacant; newly constructed bridge across Meadow Creek Land Use Designation Manufacturing (M) Access Bridge Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Light Industrial/Office (M & C‐S‐PD zoning) South: Single‐family residences under construction & Open Space beyond (R‐2‐PD & C/OS zoning) East: Existing single‐family residences (R‐2‐SP zoning) West: Live/work units under construction (M‐PD zoning) ARC1-2 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 3 4. Contemporary industrial design incorporating exposed metal beams, corrugated cor-ten (rusting) steel siding, corrugated galvanized roofing and siding, wood siding, zinc metal lap siding, board-form concrete, wood decking, stucco, and anodized aluminum windows and roll-up doors (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet A9, Materials Board). Project statistics, including a comparison of the project previously reviewed by the ARC and the proposed re-submitted project, are provided in Table 2.2 below. Table 2.2 Project Statistics Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans, reviewed by ARC on June 1, 2015 2. Applicant’s re-submitted plans, dated March 30, 2017 3. City Zoning Regulations, March 2015 4. Measured from the edge of the yard 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project analysis below focuses on the applicant’s response to the ARC directional items and responses to public comments and concerns regarding the project. 3.1 Response to Directional Items: The applicant submitted revised project plans and responses to directional items identified by the ARC at the June 1, 2015 meeting. Plan excerpts are provided below for reference; please refer to Attachment 3 for the complete project plan set. Directional Item #1: Relocate Building A to be further from adjacent residential uses in order to preserve views from the 215 Bridge Street project and providing additional buffering from the proposed commercial building. Item Previously Reviewed Project1 Current Project2 Ordinance Standard3 Side Yard Setbacks East (R‐2) West (M) South (R‐2), Bldg. A South (R‐2), Bldg. B North (creek) 12.3 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet4 20 feet 16 feet, 6 inches 12 feet 20 feet 12 feet4 20 feet 11.5 feet 0 feet 8 feet 20 feet frm top of bank Max. Height Building A Building B Building C 29 feet 29 feet 31 feet 27 feet, 4 inches 25 feet, 10 inches 31 feet 35 feet Coverage 15% 15% 75% Floor Area Ratio 0.19 0.19 1.5 Parking spaces 1 space per 376 square feet (62 spaces) 1 space per 376 square feet (63 spaces) Requirement based on tenants (generally not greater than 1 space per 500 sf) ARC1-3 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 4 Response: The proposed location of Building A has been shifted eight feet to the north, increasing the building setback from the southern property line from 12 to 20 feet (refer to Figures 1 and 2, below). A planted bioswale and a variety of trees including coast live oak, California sycamore, and desert willow are proposed to be planted between Building A and the western and southern property lines (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet L1). Additional discussion regarding site design and neighborhood compatibility is provided in Section 3.2 Public Comments, of this report. Figure 1. Previously-reviewed Project Figure 2. Currently proposed project Figure 3. Previously-reviewed Project Figure 4. Currently proposed project Directional Item #2: Relocate loading docks and trash enclosures as far away as possible from adjacent residential uses. Loading docks should be provided on the north side of the proposed buildings or between clustered buildings to buffer noise from adjacent residential uses. Response: The overhead doors and loading docks on the south side of Building B (see Figure 3) have been relocated to the north side of the building, facing away from the adjacent residential uses (see Figure 4). Trash enclosures have been relocated from the southern portion of the property, as shown in Figure 3, to the center of the property, north of Building B (refer to Figure 4). The Building A loading dock and overhead door remain on the north side of the building, in 12’ setback 20’ setback Creek setback (20’) Creek setback (20’) Trash Overhead doors & loading docks Trash Overhead doors ARC1-4 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 5 addition to overhead doors (but no identified loading dock) on the east side of the building. There are overhead doors on the south side of Building C; however, the loading docks were removed in a previous redesign presented to the ARC. Directional Item #3: Revise the site plan to include one parking lot tree per every six parking spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces per parking and driveway standards. Response: The site plan has been revised to include one parking lot tree per every six parking spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces, resulting in the planting of three additional trees (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet L1). 3.2 Public Comments: Public comments at the previous ARC hearing on this item included concerns regarding the location, size, and height of proposed manufacturing shell buildings relative to adjacent residential development, in addition to potential noise, lighting, flooding, and traffic impacts. Review of the re-submitted plans included reaching out to interested parties who previously provided comments on the proposed project, and similar issues were raised by the public (see Attachment 6, Public Correspondence). The applicant’s response to these issues is provided in Attachment 7, and additional responses to these concerns are presented below. Neighborhood Compatibility, Caretaker’s Unit, Increased Setbacks, Size of Buildings. Proposed Building C would be located approximately 16 feet, 6 inches to the west of the eastern property line and an existing residence and garage located on the Exposition Drive cul-de-sac. At the previous ARC hearing, the applicant presented a revised design for Building C, which shifted the building to the south and west of its originally-proposed location and eliminated the loading docks on the south side of the building. With these changes, the outdoor upper-story patio and adjacent caretaker’s bedrooms and office would be located on the eastern side of the structure, facing the adjacent residential neighborhood (Attachment 3, Sheet A3, Building C Floor Plan). It is the applicant’s intention that the Building C caretaker would provide onsite security, and would be a contact for the adjacent neighborhood (Attachment 7, Applicant Response Letter). The height of the east-facing wall, including the raised building foundation, would be 21.5 feet above grade, and roughly 2.5 feet above the height of the proximate residence and garage (Attachment 3, Sheet A7, Site Sections, Section AA). A new six-foot wood fence and landscaping is proposed along the property line. The applicant provided additional information including: visual simulations, which show the project as seen from the Exposition Drive cul-de-sac; massing renderings to demonstrate the appearance of Buildings A and C relative to proximate development; and a shadow analysis, which shows the shadows created by the proposed project at various times during the year, with the longest shadows cast to the east and northeast during the late afternoon hours (Attachment 8, Photo-simulations, Renderings, and Shadow Study). One of the concepts identified by the adjacent neighbors is a 25-foot or greater setback along the western, eastern, and southern property lines. In addition, Staff initially recommended the following directional item: “Relocate the proposed buildings to be further from adjacent residential uses in consideration of providing additional buffering between residential uses and potential future uses that would be allowed at the subject location. The buildings should be oriented closer to the creek and clustered to achieve more of a ‘village’ or ‘campus-like’ setting ARC1-5 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 6 rather than spread throughout the site” (Attachment 4, ARC Agenda Report dated June 1, 2015). This concept would provide opportunities for additional noise buffering by locating loading docks and storage yards internal to the site and use of the buildings themselves to provide additional noise attenuation. At the June 1, 2015 hearing, the ARC did not direct the applicant to pursue this comprehensive site plan revision. As noted by the applicant, development constraints include the minimum creek setback along the northern portion of the project site and provision of adequate circulation and parking while maintaining the approximate size of the proposed structures. Therefore, in response to ARC direction, the setback for Building A increased from 12 to 20 feet as measured from the southern property line and roll-up doors and loading docks facing adjacent residential properties have been eliminated from Buildings B and C. Noise and Lighting. The project does not currently include a noise wall along the property boundary, and the adopted MND determined that potential noise impacts would be adequately mitigated to less than significant by orienting loading facilities away from residential development and use of the buildings themselves for noise attenuation (Attachment 9, MND, Section 12. Noise). Potential impacts from individual uses will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. Regarding exterior lighting, while project lighting will be visible, the project is required to comply with the City’s Night Sky Ordinance. All exterior lighting would be reviewed during the building plan process and compliance confirmed in the field prior to occupancy. Parking and Trail Use. The proposed project would include 63 onsite parking spaces, and no parking space reductions are requested. No single use, or cumulative uses, would be allowed to exceed 63 spaces, as calculated pursuant to Zoning Regulations Table 6, Parking Requirements by Use. The project does not include a connection to the existing South Hills Open Space Trail or Trailhead, and the site would be surrounded by fencing, which would prevent access to the trail from the project site. Flooding. The adopted MND included an assessment of potential hydrology and flood zone impacts, as documented in the supportive evidence (Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis; 2014) and as reviewed by the City Public Works Department (Attachment 9, MND, Section 9 Hydrology and Water Quality). The Public Works Department also reviewed the re- submitted plans. Based on these reviews and documentation, the project would not result in any significant flooding impacts. In addition, the project is required to demonstrate management of stormwater and flood waters such that the project would not result in peak flow runoff exiting the property, in compliance with the Waterways Management Plan and associated Drainage Design Manual. Traffic. Based on the adopted MND for the project and review by the City Public Works Department, the project would not generate trips that would exceed the capacity of the existing street network (Attachment 9, MND, Section 16 Transportation/Traffic). The existing roadways and intersections, including Bridge Street, South Street, and South Higuera, comply with City roadway standards, which are designed to accommodate passenger vehicles and large trucks. The trips generated by the proposed project would not warrant off-site road or intersection improvements, as these trips would be adequately accommodated by the existing road network. ARC1-6 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 7 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted for the project as a whole on June 1, 2015 (see Attachment 9). Based on the minor changes to the project to address ARC directional items, and inclusion of previously adopted mitigation measures into the recommended conditions of approval, Staff recommends that the ARC find that the environmental effects of the modified project have been adequately addressed in the previously adopted MND. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the Conditions of Approval. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. This alternative is not recommended, because further architectural review could be accommodated in the review process. 6.2 Continue the project to a date uncertain, with specific directional items provided. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Re-submitted Project Plans 4. ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015 5. Previously-reviewed Plans 6. Public Correspondence 7. Applicant Response Letter 8. Photo-simulations, Renderings, and Shadow Study 9. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ER # 0286-2014 Included in Commissioner’s Packet: Re-Submitted Project Plans (11x17) Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board ARC1-7 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN OF THREE MANUFACTURING SHELL BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND TREE REMOVALS, AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 1, 2017 279 BRIDGE STREET (ARCH-4293-2016) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 1, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0286-2014, Devin Gallagher, applicant, and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, and approved a pre-fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek and an associated creek setback exception; and continued review of the three shell buildings and associated site improvements and tree removals to a date uncertain, and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 1, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-4293-2016, Devin Gallagher, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval to application ARCH-4293-2016, based on the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations since the proposed building and site design complies with height, coverage, and setbacks for the Manufacturing zone. ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-8 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 3. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, which establishes Community Goals for Society and Economy to retain and accommodate the expansion of existing businesses that promote the economic well-being of the community. The project includes three shell buildings that can support new businesses and employment opportunities consistent with the uses envisioned by the Services and Manufacturing District. 4. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan policies applicable to development in a Services and Manufacturing area. 5. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3 (Residential Next to Non-residential) because the design incorporates elements to protect the adjacent residential atmosphere by locating loading docks as far as feasible from proximate residential uses, and providing setbacks, landscaping, and fencing along the shared property boundaries. 6. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to industrial development because the proposed buildings incorporate clean and simple lines while including durable and aesthetic materials that provide color change and variety, and the proposed design is well articulated to create interest and shadow lines, with entries designed as an obvious component to each structure. The project provides setbacks greater than the minimum standard to provide a balance of scale and reduce visual imposition on neighboring uses, and loading facilities and accessory yards would be screened by perimeter landscaping and fencing. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby finds the project consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted for the project (ER# 0289-2014), finding that it adequately identifies the project’s potentially significant impacts with incorporation of the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs: Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light post shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans. Monitoring Plan, AES 1: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for consistency with City standards and to ensure that light spillage into the creek corridor or across property lines will not occur, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks. Monitoring Plan, AES 2: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall ensure that all lighting is outside required yard and creek setbacks, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-9 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 3 Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a) Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-10 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 4 during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c) All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e) Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l) All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m) The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-11 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 5 Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: i. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and, ii. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. 3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 6 Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AQ 6: Confirmation with compliance with APCD regulations shall be provided with business permit applications as applicable. All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks. Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Community Development staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the final geotechnical engineering report and use of caisson foundations, and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-13 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 7 determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non- disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for non-listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less- than-significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any Corps permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-14 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 8 Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CWA/Corps compliance. Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City-required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any CDFW permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CDFW compliance. Geology & Soils Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits. Noise Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise-sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-15 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 9 will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Monitoring Plan, NOI 1: The Architectural Review Commission will review the site plan to ensure loading docks are located to attenuate generated noise effect on adjacent residential land. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval to application ARCH-4293-2016, with incorporation of the following conditions and code compliance notes: Conditions and Code Requirements Planning 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. The Architectural Review Commission’s approval of this project will expire after three years if construction has not started. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single, one-year extension. 3. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application. 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. 6. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 10 wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. 7. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate screening. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building modifications and improvements. 8. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The landscape plan, including creek restoration plantings, shall not include Boston ivy or cork oak. 9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 10. A comprehensive sign program for the project shall be developed to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for the building and the overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site’s setting. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations and is in keeping with the design characteristics of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 11. No structure shall include a loading dock that faces residential uses to the south or east. ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-17 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 11 12. To satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements, applicant shall either pay Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees equal to 5% of building valuation or dedicate affordable housing unit(s) consistent with Table 2 of the General Plan Housing Element for Commercial Developments. If paying in-lieu fees, Inclusionary Housing Requirements shall be satisfied at time of building permit issuance. If dedicating affordable units, Inclusionary Housing Requirements shall be satisfied prior to occupancy of first commercial space. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development 13. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC.12.16.050 14. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference. 15. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternative paving materials are recommended for water quality and/or control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternative paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 17. The applicant/developer shall consider the use of a shared accessible path of travel from the public right-of-way with the adjoining property located at 285 Bridge Street. The existing sidewalk serving 285 Bridge appears to be established to a point near the bridge crossing. A shared path could limit the amount of existing landscape and/or trees to be removed and could potentially preserve the existing parking layout and limit the area of site disturbance. A separate access easement or amendment of the existing easement agreement may be required. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All new wire services shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown and noted. 19. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. The trash enclosure shall be designed in accordance with the City Design Guidelines and City Engineering Standard 1010.B for water quality treatment. ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-18 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 12 20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site or adjoining sites. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 21. The building plan submittals shall include a complete drainage report. The report shall show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. 22. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, all new structures and appurtenant utilities shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. 23. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2’ above adjacent grade. The structure and any exterior building service equipment including the sewer lift station must be raised, floodproofed, or proved to be inherently flood resistant to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 24. The property owner and/or future tenants shall manage any outdoor storage so that materials and accessory structures do not have a significant impact on the floodzone in accordance with the Drainage Design Manual and the Floodplain Management Regulations. 25. The project shall comply with Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building plan submittal shall include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Checklist as available on the City’s website. 26. A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) shall be provided in a format provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the building plan submittal for all post construction BMPs. 27. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). 28. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-19 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 13 required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference. 29. Work adjacent to or within a channel or creek may require the approvals of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), The Army Corp of Engineer’s, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of any required permits or a written permit waiver or exemption for the same shall be provided to the City prior to demolition, grading, and/or building permit issuance. 30. The building plan submittal, grading plans, and drainage report shall incorporate any project specific permitting requirements from any higher governmental authority. The applicant/developer shall comply with the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) standards and permit requirements related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. APCD approval shall be secured prior to any ground disturbing activities. 31. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. 32. The existing willow and walnut trees located on the property shall be retained unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist and the Community Development Director. A tree removal proposal will require a report from a certified arborist with a summary of why the tree(s) can’t be saved. If approved for removal, compensatory tree(s) shall be incorporated into the building plan submittal. 33. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 to review and establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. 34. The proposed 6’ privacy fencing located along the southerly property line shall be located at the top of bank or at a reasonable setback from the top of bank to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, Public Works Department, and Natural Resources Manager. The fence shall be extended to the easterly property line and then northerly to connect with the proposed privacy fence located along the easterly property line. If required by the City or other agencies with permit jurisdiction over the swale and brambles, a section(s) of the fence may need to be constructed with open fencing to support the migration of riparian wildlife. Utilities Department ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-20 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 14 Condition(s) 35. All utility easements dedicated to the City shall comply with the latest engineering design standards, and shall have reasonable alignments needed for maintenance of public infrastructure. 36. The proposed gravity sewer system shall use HDPE pipe, or an approved equal that meets or exceeds the performance needed to eliminate groundwater infiltration. Code Requirement(s) 37. Water service meter(s) shall be adequately sized to serve the project’s proposed units, and residential or caretaker units shall be separately metered from commercial units. 38. All water service(s) zoned for manufacturing shall provide a reduced pressure backflow preventer downstream of the meter. 39. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards in effect during the time a building permit is obtained, and shall have reasonable alignments and clearances needed for maintenance. 40. Potable water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. 41. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared drought emergency (estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum applied water allowance or (MAWA)). Fire Department 42. Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air-handling systems, automatic fire-protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating “Fire Sprinkler Riser” and “Fire Alarm Control Panel”. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. Show Riser room on floor plans. 43. Show proposed location of onsite (private) fire hydrant. Code Requirements: 44. All exterior construction methods and material shall comply with Chapter 7A (ignition resistant construction) of the Building Code, except for windows, for buildings located in wildfire prone areas. ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-21 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 15 45. Permeable pavers installed on fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall be capable of bearing 60,000 lb fire truck. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Architectural Review Commission ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1-22 M C/OS-40 M M R-2 R-4 R-4-SP C/OS-5 C-S-MU C/OS-40-SP C-S-PD R-4 R-2-PD C/OS-40-SP R-1-SP R-2-SP R-2-SP R-2 R-1-SP C-S-MU R-2-SP C-S R-4-SP M-PD R-1-SP C-S-MU SOUTH BRIDGE BE E B E E EX P O S I T I O N CORRIDA W O O D B R I D G E PA R K E R VICINITY MAP File No. 4293-2016279 BRIDGE ¯ ARC1-23 S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A L I F O R N I A SH E E T I N D E X TI T L E / C O D E : T1 TITLE SHEET T2 SITE PHOTOS T3 A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E T4 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE T5 A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E T6 A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E CI V I L : C1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C2 P R E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N C3 P R E L I M I N A R Y S I T E S E C T I O N S AR C H I T E C T U R A L : A1 SITE PLAN A2 BUILDING A & B FLOOR PLANS A3 B U I L D I N G C F L O O R P L A N A4 BUILDING A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 BUILDING B EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A6 BUILDING C EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7 SITE SECTIONS A8 SITE SECTIONS A9 MATERIALS BOARD LA N D S C A P E : L1 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN L2 PLANT LEGEND, WATER USE CALCS., LIGHTING PLAN L4 CREEK SETBACK EXHIBIT (WITHOUT AERIAL) L5 CREEK SETBACK EXHIBIT (WITH AERIAL) PR O J E C T D A T A PR O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : TH I S P R O J E C T P R O P O S E S T H R E E S E P A R A T E B U I L D I N G S T O B E U S E D FO R M A N U F A C T U R I N G , A S W E L L A S A C C E S S O R Y A R E A S A N D A CA R E T A K E R ' S R E S I D E N C E . PR O J E C T A D D R E S S : 2 7 9 B R I D G E S T R E E T SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 AP N : 00 4 - 8 1 1 - 0 3 6 SI T E A R E A : 11 8 , 9 1 9 S F ( 2 . 7 3 A C R E S ) ZO N I N G : M / M A N U F A C T U R I N G PR O P O S E D U S E : MA N U F A C T U R I N G OC C U P A N C Y : F- 2 & R - 3 CO N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E : TY P E I I - B SP R I N K L E R S : YE S # O F S T O R I E S : 2- S T O R Y BU I L D I N G H E I G H T A L L O W E D : 35 ' - 0 " BU I L D I N G H E I G H T P R O P O S E D : BU I L D I N G A 28 ' - 9 " BU I L D I N G B 28 ' - 4 " BU I L D I N G C 31 ' - 0 " LO T C O V E R A G E A L L O W E D : 75 % ( 2 . 0 5 A C R E S / 8 9 , 1 9 0 S . F . ) LO T C O V E R A G E P R O P O S E D : 15 % (1 3 , 6 5 0 S . F . ) TO T A L B U I L D I N G A R E A : 21 , 4 4 5 S . F . IM P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E S RO O F 16 , 7 9 1 S . F . HA R D S C A P E 37 , 8 3 4 S . F . PE R V I O U S S U R F A C E S PA V I N G 16 , 8 7 2 S . F . LA N D S C A P E 26 , 3 1 5 S . F . PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G A R E A S : BU I L D I N G A MA N U F A C T U R I N G 5, 7 1 1 S . F . EQ U I P . M E Z Z A N I N E 2, 7 5 4 S . F . BU I L D I N G B MA N U F A C T U R I N G 4, 8 4 7 S . F . ME Z Z A N I N E 3, 4 2 9 S . F . BU I L D I N G C MA N U F A C T U R I N G 2, 9 3 4 S . F . RE S I D E N C E 1, 7 7 0 S . F . TO T A L 21 , 4 4 5 S . F . PA R K I N G PA R K I N G S P A C E S P R O V I D E D 63 S P A C E S (I N C . 3 A D A S P A C E S ) (R A T I O = 1 S P A C E / 3 4 0 S . F . ) BI C Y C L E P A R K I N G R E Q U I R E D 15 % O F A U T O S P A C E S 1 0 O R MO R E 10 S H O R T - T E R M S P A C E S RE Q U I R E D 2 L O N G - T E R M S P A C E S RE Q U I R E D 8 (L O N G - T E R M S P A C E S T O B E P R O V I D E D IN S I D E B U I L D I N G S ) MO T O R C Y C L E P A R K I N G RE Q U I R E D 4 PR O V I D E D 12 ARC REVISIONS - APRIL 18, 2017P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423 Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975 KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER 49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.235.2406 jknight@jknightconsulting.com TITLE SHEET T1ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-24 6,7(3+2726 T2 A B D E F EA S T SO U T H SO U T H W E S T WEST WE S T NORTHWEST WE S T NO R T H E A S T SO U T H EAST C NO R T H NO R T H W E S T 127726&$/( KE Y P L A N 1 1 ARC REVISIONS - SEPTEMBER 21, 2015P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423 Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975 KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER 49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.235.2406 jknight@jknightconsulting.com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ox 832, Atascadero, CA 93423 Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975 KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER 49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.235.2406 jknight@jknightconsulting.com BUILDING A & B FLOOR PLANS A2 LO W E R F L O O R P L A N - B U I L D I N G A 1 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42 LO W E R F L O O R P L A N - B U I L D I N G B 2 SC A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-34 D A C 3 A C D 1 B B E E D 1 A C 3 A C D 3 1 2 B B E E UP UP UP DN DE C K EN T R Y DE C K DE C K DE C K EN T R Y EN T R Y MA N U F A C T U R I N G I F- 2 O C C . MA N U F A C T U R I N G I I F- 2 O C C . MA N U F A C T U R I N G I I I F- 2 O C C . CA R E T A K E R ' S RE S I D E N C E R- 3 O C C . OF F I C E 18 ' x 1 0 ' PO T E N T I A L D E M I S I N G WA L L , T Y P . R A M P LI V I N G 18 ' x 1 5 ' KI T C H E N 14 ' x 9 ' BE D R O O M 13 ' x 1 5 ' MA S T E R BE D R O O M 13 ' x 1 7 ' M. BA T H UP EN T R Y LO W E R F L O O R P L A N - B U I L D I N G C 1 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21 UP P E R F L O O R P L A N - B U I L D I N G C 2 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42 1 32 CL O . BR E A K F A S T NO O K 9' x 6 ' RO O F 89 ' - 0 " 26 ' - 8 " 26 ' - 8 " 26 ' - 8 " 9' - 0 " 3 6 ' - 0 " 3 6 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 1 8 ' - 6 " 5 ' - 6 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 6'-0" 12 ' - 0 " 8' - 8 " 8' - 4 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 4 " 8' - 2 " 89 ' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 26 ' - 8 " 26 ' - 8 " 26 ' - 8 " 1' - 4 " 3' - 3 " 6' - 9 " 6' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 4' - 8 " 6' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 4' - 8 " 6' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 2'-4"36'-0" CL O . PA T I O CL O . BA T H 92 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 6 " 13 ' - 0 " 5' - 4 " 13 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 6 " 6 ' - 0 " 2 9 ' - 0 " 2' - 6 " 6' - 0 " 6 " T Y P . 2 4 ' - 0 " E Q . E Q . 92 ' - 0 " 54 ' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 36'-0"20'-8"11'-0"14'-6" 12 ' - 6 " 15 ' - 6 " 4'-4" OP E N T O BE L O W DE C K DE C K 2 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 0 " 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42 PL A N T E R 1- H R R A T E D F I R E BA R R I E R , T Y P FI R E R I S E R R O O M ARC REVISIONS - NOVEMBER 14, 2016P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423 Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975 KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER 49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.235.2406 jknight@jknightconsulting.com BUILDING C FLOOR PLAN A3 AL L O W A B L E A R E A A N A L Y S I S OC C U P A N C Y (C A L C U L A T E D S E P A R A T E L Y P E R C B C 5 0 8 . 1 ) AL L O W A B L E A R E A AC T U A L A R E A F- 2 UN L I M I T E D (P E R C B C 5 0 7 . 5 ) 2, 8 7 7 S F R- 3 UN L I M I T E D (P E R C B C T A B L E 5 0 6 . 2 ) 1, 8 4 9 S F 1- H O U R H O R I Z O N T A L F I R E B A R R I E R B E T W E E N O C C U P A N C I E S P E R C B C 5 0 8 . 4 . 4 & 7 1 1 ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-35 12 5 7 + ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6& $ / ( # [ * ) ( ' & % $ 0( 7 $ / 3 , 3 ( 5$ , / , 1 * # [ *$ / 9 $ 1 , = ( ' 62 ) ) , 7 3 $ 1 ( / 62 / , ' * 5 $ < 67 2 5 ( ) 5 2 1 7 3$ 1 ( / $1 2 ' , = ( ' $/ 8 0 , 1 8 0 67 2 5 ( ) 5 2 1 7 6< 6 7 ( 0 3$ , 1 7 ( ' 0 ( 7 $ / )$ 6 & , $ 1( : ) ( 1 & ( 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 62 8 7 + ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6& $ / ( # [ * $ *$ / 9 $ 1 , = ( ' &2 5 5 8 * $ 7 ( ' 5 2 2 ) , 1 * # [ &2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( % $ 6 ( 1( : ) ( 1 & ( 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( ($ 6 7 ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6&$/( #[ )) )) 0$;%/'*+7 73 0$;$//2:('+7 $%29($9*1$7*5$'( &2 5 5 8 * $ 7 ( ' &2 5 7 ( 1 6 , ' , 1 * #[%2$5')250 &21&5(7(5$03 $9*1$7*5$'( 73 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( :22''(&.,1* 1( : ) ( 1 & ( :( 6 7 ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6&$/( #[ #[ $5&5(9,6,216129(0%(532%R[$WDVFDGHUR&$ 3KRQH )D[ .9&URZH#&KDUWHUQHW.HLWK9&URZH3(-2+1.1,*+7352-(&73/$11(5 0$5,326$'56$1/8,62%,632&$ MNQLJKW#MNQLJKWFRQVXOWLQJFRP %8,/',1*$(;7(5,25 (/(9$7,216 $ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-36 62 8 7 + ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6& $ / ( # [ =, 1 & 0 ( 7 $ / / $ 3 6 , ' , 1 * # [ & $ $1 2 ' , = ( ' $ / 8 0 , 1 8 0 67 2 5 ( ) 5 2 1 7 6 < 6 7 ( 0 12 5 7 + ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6& $ / ( # [ & $ # [ :2 2 ' 62 ) ) , 7 :2 2 ' 6 , ' , 1 * 29 ( 5 + ( $ ' '2 2 5 7 < 3 3$ , 1 7 ( ' 0 ( 7 $ / )$ 6 & , $ % =, 1 & 0 ( 7 $ / /$ 3 6 , ' , 1 * :( 6 7 ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6&$/( #[ #[ :2 2 ' 6, ' , 1 * =,1&0(7$//$36,',1* 3$ , 1 7 ( ' 0 ( 7 $ / )$ 6 & , $ 3523(57</,1(9$5,(65()(5726,7(3/$1216+((7$ 0,11(: )(1&( ($ 6 7 ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6&$/( #[ 0$;%/'*+7 73 0$;$//2:('+7 $%29($9*1$7*5$'( =, 1 & 0 ( 7 $ / / $ 3 6, ' , 1 * #[ :2 2 ' 6 , ' , 1 * $9*1$7*5$'( 73 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 1( : ) ( 1 & ( :22''(&.,1* 73 $5&5(9,6,216129(0%(532%R[$WDVFDGHUR&$ 3KRQH )D[ .9&URZH#&KDUWHUQHW.HLWK9&URZH3(-2+1.1,*+7352-(&73/$11(5 0$5,326$'56$1/8,62%,632&$ MNQLJKW#MNQLJKWFRQVXOWLQJFRP %8,/',1*%(;7(5,25 (/(9$7,216 $ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-37 62 8 7 + ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6& $ / ( # [ # [ $ & ' :2 2 ' 6 2 ) ) , 7 *5 ( < 6 7 8 & & 2 :2 2 ' 6 , ' , 1 * ( 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 9$ 5 , ( 6 &2 5 5 8 * $ 7 ( ' *$ / 9 $ 1 , = ( ' 0 ( 7 $ / :2 2 ' ' ( & . , 1 * : 0( 7 $ / 3 , 3 ( 5 $ , / , 1 * $1 2 ' , = ( ' $ / 8 0 , 1 8 0 $1 ' * / $ 6 6 52 / / 8 3 ' 2 2 5 6 1( : : 2 2 ' : $ / / 12 5 7 + ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6& $ / ( # [ ( $ & 3$ , 1 7 ( ' 0 ( 7 $ / ) $ 6 & , $ *5 ( < 6 7 8 & & 2 :2 2 ' 6 , ' , 1 * &2 5 5 8 * $ 7 ( ' *$ / 9 $ 1 , = ( ' 0 ( 7 $ / %2 $ 5 ' ) 2 5 0 ( ' &2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 3 / $ 1 7 ( 5 $1 2 ' , = ( ' $ / 8 0 , 1 8 0 $1 ' * / $ 6 6 52 / / 8 3 ' 2 2 5 6 # [ #[ $9*1$7*5$'( )) 73 ($ 6 7 ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6&$/( #[ 72: 0$;%/'*+7 0$;$//2:('+7 $%29($9*1$7*5$'( #[ $9*1$7*5$'( )) )) 73 :( 6 7 ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6&$/( #[$5&5(9,6,216129(0%(5P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423 Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975 KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER 49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.235.2406 jknight@jknightconsulting.com %8,/',1*&(;7(5,25 (/(9$7,216 A6 ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-38 #[ #[ 6( & 7 , 2 1 $ $ 6&$/( #[ 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 0$;$//2:('%/'*+7 $9*1$7*5$'( $9*1$7*5$'( 0$;%/'*+7 ),16/$% ),15$,6(')/225 0$;$//2:('%/'*+7 ( $'-$&(17 %/'*%(<21' )8 7 8 5 ( $' - $ & ( 1 7 %/ ' * ( :22')(1&( %8 , / ' , 1 * $ %8 , / ' , 1 * & 6( & 7 , 2 1 % % 6&$/( #[ 1( : : $ / / 9$ 5 , ( 6 :$//+7 6(&21')/225+7 $'-$&(17%/'*($9(+7 $'-$&(17%/'*)) 0$;%/'*+7 ),1,6+)/225 / , 9 ( : 2 5 . 3/ $ 1 $5&5(9,6,2166(37(0%(532%R[$WDVFDGHUR&$ 3KRQH )D[ .9&URZH#&KDUWHUQHW.HLWK9&URZH3(-2+1.1,*+7352-(&73/$11(5 0$5,326$'56$1/8,62%,632&$ MNQLJKW#MNQLJKWFRQVXOWLQJFRP 6,7(6(&7,216 $ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-39 6( & 7 , 2 1 ' ' 6&$/( #[ %8 , / ' , 1 * % 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 1( : ) ( 1 & ( #[ $ 9 * 1 $ 7 * 5 $ ' ( 0 $ ; $ / / 2 : ( ' % / ' * + 7 0 $ ; % / ' * + 7 ) ) #[ & 5 ( ( . 6 ( 7 % $ & . 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 6( & 7 , 2 1 & & 6&$/( #[ %8 , / ' , 1 * $ 1( : ) ( 1 & ( 63 , 5 $ / 67 $ , 5 & $ 6 ( %( < 2 1 ' 63 , 5 $ / 67 $ , 5 & $ 6 ( %( < 2 1 ' ) , 1 5 $ , 6 ( ' ) / 2 2 5 $9 * 1 $ 7 * 5 $ ' ( 0 $ ; $ / / 2 : ( ' % / ' * + 7 0 $ ; % 8 , / ' , 1 * + ( , * + 7 &$621$3/$1)8785($'-$&(17%/'*&$621$3/$1 )8 7 8 5 ( $ ' - $ & ( 1 7 % / ' * $5&5(9,6,216129(0%(532%R[$WDVFDGHUR&$ 3KRQH )D[ .9&URZH#&KDUWHUQHW.HLWK9&URZH3(-2+1.1,*+7352-(&73/$11(5 0$5,326$'56$1/8,62%,632&$ MNQLJKW#MNQLJKWFRQVXOWLQJFRP 6,7(6(&7,216 $ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-40 $5&5(9,6,2166(37(0%(532%R[$WDVFDGHUR&$ 3KRQH )D[ .9&URZH#&KDUWHUQHW.HLWK9&URZH3(-2+1.1,*+7352-(&73/$11(5 0$5,326$'56$1/8,62%,632&$ MNQLJKW#MNQLJKWFRQVXOWLQJFRP 0$7(5,$/6 %2$5'$ =, 1 & $ / 8 0 , 1 8 0 0 ( 7 $ / / $ 3 6 , ' , 1 * %8 , / ' , 1 * % : $ / / 6 60 2 2 7 + 6 7 8 & & 2 ) , 1 , 6 + %8 , / ' , 1 * & 8 3 3 ( 5 : $ / / 6 : $ / / 6 &2 5 5 8 * $ 7 ( ' & 2 5 7 ( 1 6 7 ( ( / %8 , / ' , 1 * $ : $ / / 6 %2 $ 5 ' ) 2 5 0 ( ' & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( %8 , / ' , 1 * $ % $ 6 ( $ ' $ 5 $ 0 3 : $ / / 6 *$ / 9 $ 1 , = ( ' & 2 5 5 8 * $ 7 ( ' 6 , ' , 1 * %8 , / ' , 1 * 6 $ $ 1 ' & : $ / / 6 5$ , 6 ( ' : 2 2 ' 6 , ' ( : $ / . :2 2 ' 5 $ , 1 6 & 5 ( ( 1 %8 , / ' , 1 * 6 % & : $ / / 6 3( 5 0 ( $ % / ( 3 $ 9 ( 5 6 6 $ 1 ' 6 7 2 1 ( % / ( 1 ' 3$ 5 . , 1 * 1 ( $ 5 % 8 , / ' , 1 * 6 $ % '$ 5 . % 5 2 1 = ( $ / 8 0 , 1 8 0 :, 1 ' 2 : $ 1 ' ' 2 2 5 ) 5 $ 0 ( 6 $ 7 % 8 , / ' , 1 * 6 $ % & ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-41 ARC REVISION 1 - NOVEMBER 14, 2016ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-42 SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 1, 2015 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice -Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, and City Clerk Anthony Mejia ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as proposed. MINUTES: The minutes of May 18, 2015, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 279 Bridge Street. ARCH - 0286 -2014; Design review of three shell buildings including a caretaker quarters) totaling approximately 24,000 square feet, with associated site improvements. Project includes a creek setback exception request for addition of a pre- fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek. Project also includes review of an environmental determination which incorporates measures to reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level; M zone; Devin Gallagher, applicant. Associate Planner Carloni presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission continue review of the building designs and site layout to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant on project revisions, grant approval for the proposed creek - crossing bridge, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Mr. Carloni clarified that the environmental document was being presented for adoption prior to approval of project uses in order to commence the approval process for the bridge, allowing site access. Commrs. Nemcik, Commr. Soll and Vice -Chair Edhaie commented on potential concerns relating to the building's roll -up doors, particularly those facing residential uses. Devin Gallagher, Applicant, New Zealand, summarized the history of the project; noted constraints relating to the creek. Jim Duffy, project architect, SLO, made a presentation; summarized the vision for the project site as a neighborhood destination with high - quality architecture. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-43 ARC Minutes June 1, 2015 Page 2 John Knight, project planner, summarized project constraints and potential mitigations, particularly relating to noise impact upon neighboring residences. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Judy Nielsen, neighboring resident, SLO, inquired as to the purpose of discussing the disposition of loading docks and bay doors at a time when future building uses are undetermined. Seth McCormick and Justin Slade, neighboring property owners, SLO, commented on the impact this project and their project, which is under construction, would have on each other; spoke in support of the project's architectural styling; spoke in opposition to the site layout, particularly relating to the proximity of Building A to their residential uses. Fred Kessler, nearby resident, SLO, spoke in opposition to the project; noted concern about obstruction of access to open space and the impact of noise and light pollution upon residential uses. Gina Cindrich, nearby resident, SLO, spoke in support of the project's architectural styling; noted concern about obstruction of views and public access to open space, and negative noise impacts upon residential uses. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: In response to concern from Commr. Curtis regarding the ability to limit future uses, Associate Planner Carloni commented that future conditions or a recorded agreement may be applied to the project, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration may be amended if needed. Chair Wynn and Commr. Root spoke in opposition to limiting uses by deed restriction. Commissioner Curtis stated that the environmental document is inadequate in that it does not address the impacts of all uses allowed by the site's zoning, and in that the limited set of uses proposed by the applicant would not be binding on future owners. Curtis spoke in support of the approach of a recorded agreement that would be discoverable by prospective owners via a title search. On motion by Commr. Root, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to adopt a resolution granting approval for the proposed creek - crossing bridge, and adopting the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration. AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, and Wynn NOES: Commr. Curtis RECUSED: None ABSENT: None ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-44 ARC Minutes June 1, 2015 Page 3 The motion passed on a 6:1 vote. Commr. Root spoke in support of the architectural styling in general; noted concern about the proposed wood siding; spoke in support of relocating the roll -up doors and trash enclosure, and ensuring open space access for the public. Commr. Nemcik spoke in support of the proposed location of the roll -up doors, so long as sound impacts are adequately mitigated, and enclosing refuse areas; spoke in opposition to clustering of buildings. Commr. Curtis spoke in support of the project's architectural styling, moving building A farther away from residential uses, and the size of the caretakers' quarters; noted no objection to the proposed location of the roll -up doors; noted concern about offset of any vegetation removed from the creek. Commr. Andreen felt the roll -up doors and trash enclosures need to be relocated and spoke in support of redesigning to protect views and privacy. Commr. Soil spoke in support of the project's architectural styling, minimizing all impacts to neighboring residential uses, and relocating building A to protect views; noted no objection to the proposed location of the roll -up doors. Vice -Chair Ehdaie spoke in support of the project's architectural styling, moving building A farther away from neighboring residences, and enhancing connections between residential uses and open space areas. Chair Wynn spoke in support of the project as presented; commented that attenuation of sound and uses was unnecessary due to the site's zoning and other intensive uses in the area. On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Curtis, to continue the project's design review to a date uncertain, with the following direction to the applicant: 1. Relocate Building A to be further from adjacent residential uses in order to preserve views from the 215 Bridge Street project and providing additional buffering from the proposed commercial building. 2. Relocate loadings docks and trash enclosures as far away as possible from adjacent residential uses. Loading docks should be provided on the north side of the proposed buildings or between clustered buildings to buffer noise from adjacent residential uses. 3. Revise the site plan to include one parking lot tree per every six parking spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces per parking and driveway standards. AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soil, and Wynn NOES: None ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-45 ARC Minutes June 1, 2015 Page 4 RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. The Commission recessed at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 p.m. with all members present. 2. 2120 Santa Barbara Avenue. ARCH - 0917 -2015; Review of a mixed -use project with 69 multi - family units and 3,000 square feet of retail space; C -S -H zone; Covelop Management, Inc., applicant. Chair Wynn announced his recusal due to a professional conflict of interest and left the meeting. Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the project design based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Steve Rigor, project architect, summarized the history of the project and revisions to the proposal in response to recent direction from the Planning Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Glen Matteson, San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum, commented that applicants and staff have taken steps to address the Museum's concern about the impact of the project upon their neighboring property, particularly relating to access. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commrs. Andreen and Soll spoke in support of the project design. Commr. Curtis noted concern about the lack of vertical articulation of the project's north elevation and the mansard roof; noted desire to see taller tower components as in previous iterations of the design, better - incorporated roof lines and improved pedestrian context. Commr. Root noted support for the design overall; noted desire for further vertical articulation. Commr. Nemcik noted desire for taller tower components as in previous iterations of the design, as well as improved horizontal articulation of tower locations. Vice -Chair Ehdaie concurred; spoke in support of the project in general. There were no further comments from the Commission. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-46 ARC Minutes June 1, 2015 Page 5 On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to adopt a resolution approving the design of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions contained in staff's report, with the following revisions: A. Greater horizontal articulation shall be applied to the easternmost buildi tower, such that it resembles the towers on the west end of the project._ AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll NOES: Commr. Curtis RECUSED: Commr. Wynn ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 5:1 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast Senior Planner Dunsmore gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items; noting a joint Architectural Review Commission — Cultural Heritage Committee design workshop to be held June 10 -11, 2015. 4. Commission: The Commission discussed a potential change to its July 2015 schedule. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Erica Inderlied Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on June 15, 2015. Laurie homas Administrative Assistant III ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-47 RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1011-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING A CREEK-CROSSING BRIDGE ASSOCIATED WITH A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JUNE 1, 2015 279 BRIDGE STREET (M ZONE; ARCH-0286-2014) WHEREAS, on June 1, 1015, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0289-2014, Devin Gallagher, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval of a creek-crossing bridge, based on the following findings: 1. That, as conditioned, the proposed bridge will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the bridge will provide safe access to the property and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. Creek Setback Findings 2. That, the proposed bridge is necessary to provide access to the property due to the shape (flag-lot design) and location of the parcel (17.16.025.G.4d (iv, v, vii, viii)) and will not be detrimental to public welfare (vi) as described in finding 1 above. The design and installation is adequately addressed by mitigation measures within the Mitigated Negative Declaration which minimizes potential impacts to the creek and riparian habitat, including biological resources identified in the Biological Resources Assessment dated July 2014 (i). The bridge is designed to allow sufficient flow during times of flood and will not limit the City’s design options for providing floor control measures (ii) and the proposed bridge will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans (iii). SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact finding that it adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with incorporation of the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs: ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-48 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 2 Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light post shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans. Monitoring Plan, AES 1: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for consistency with City standards and to ensure that light spillage into the creek corridor or across property lines will not occur, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks. Monitoring Plan, AES 2: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall ensure that all lighting is outside required yard and creek setbacks, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-49 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 3 persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a) Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c) All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e) Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l) All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-50 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 4 m) The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: i. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and, ii. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-51 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 5 b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. 3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AQ 6: Confirmation with compliance with APCD regulations shall be provided with business permit applications as applicable. All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-52 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 6 Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Community Development staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the final geotechnical engineering report and use of caisson foundations, and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non- disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than- significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for non-listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-53 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 7 Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any Corps permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CWA/Corps compliance. Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City-required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any CDFW permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CDFW compliance. Geology & Soils Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-54 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 8 report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site- specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits. Noise Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise-sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Monitoring Plan, NOI 1: The Architectural Review Commission will review the site plan to ensure loading docks are located to attenuate generated noise effect on adjacent residential land. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval of a creek-crossing bridge, with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning Division – Community Development Department Condition(s) 1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate the color and finish materials for the proposed bridge. These plans shall also include final railing design which shall be compatible with the overall project design. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department Condition(s) 3. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC.12.16.050 ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-55 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 9 4. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference. 5. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 6. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternative paving materials are recommended for water quality and/or control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternative paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 7. The applicant/developer shall consider the use of a shared accessible path of travel from the public right-of-way with the adjoining property located at 285 Bridge Street. The existing sidewalk serving 285 Bridge appears to be established to a point near the bridge crossing. A shared path could limit the amount of existing landscape and/or trees to be removed and could potentially preserve the existing parking layout and limit the area of site disturbance. A separate access easement or amendment of the existing easement agreement may be required. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All new wire services shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown and noted. 9. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site or adjoining sites. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 10. The building plan submittals shall include a complete drainage report. The report shall show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. 11. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, all new structures and appurtenant utilities shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. 12. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2’ above adjacent grade. The structure and any exterior building service equipment including the sewer lift station must be raised, floodproofed, or proved to be inherently flood resistant to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-56 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 10 or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 13. The project shall comply with Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building plan submittal shall include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Checklist as available on the City’s Website. 14. A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) shall be provided in a format provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the building plan submittal for all post construction BMP’s. 15. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). 16. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference. 17. Work adjacent to or within a channel or creek may require the approvals of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), The Army Corp of Engineer’s, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of any required permits or a written permit waiver or exemption for the same shall be provided to the City prior to demolition, grading, and/or building permit issuance. 18. The building plan submittal, grading plans, and drainage report shall incorporate any project specific permitting requirements from any higher governmental authority. The applicant/developer shall comply with the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) standards and permit requirements related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. APCD approval shall be secured prior to any ground disturbing activities. 19. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approval by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-57 Resolution No. ARC-1011-15 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0289-2014 Page 11 20. The existing willow and walnut trees located on the property shall be retained unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist and the Community Development Director. A tree removal proposal will require a report from a certified arborist with a summary of why the tree(s) can’t be saved. If approved for removal, compensatory tree(s) shall be incorporated into the building plan submittal. 21. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 to review and establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. On motion by Commissioner Root, seconded by Commissioner Nemcik, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Root, Nemcik, Ehdaie, Wynn, Andreen, and Soll NOES: Commr. Curtis REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1st day of June, 2015. _____________________________ Phil Dunsmore, Secretary Architectural Review Commission ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-58 Meeting Date: June 1, 2015 Item Number: 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Design review of three shell buildings (including a caretaker quarters) totaling approximately 24,000 square feet, with associated site improvements. Project includes a creek setback exception request for addition of a pre-fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek. Project also includes review of an environmental determination (Mitigated Negative Declaration) which incorporates measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0286-2014 FROM: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Continue review of the building designs and site layout to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant on project revisions, grant approval for the proposed creek-crossing bridge (Attachment 1, Draft Resolution), and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 6). SITE DATA Applicant Devin Gallagher Representative John Knight, J. Knight Consulting Submittal Date 09/19/2015 Complete Date 02/23/2015 Zoning M (Manufacturing) General Plan Services & Manufacturing Site Area 2.73 Acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration recommended for adoption SUMMARY The proposed project is to develop a Manufacturing zoned property with three shell buildings totaling approximately 24,000 square feet. The proposed contemporary industrial designed buildings include colors, materials, articulation and detailing that are consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. However, staff finds the proposed site plan layout to be inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines - Commercial and Industrial Project Design standards (see section 3.0 below). Staff recommends the ARC continue the project to a date uncertain and provide direction on project revisions including clustering the proposed buildings and moving them farther from adjacent residential uses (closer to the creek), relocating trash enclosures and loading docks, and removing roll- up doors adjacent to residential uses. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-59 ARCH-0286-2014 (279 Bridge Street) Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City standards. The ARC is also tasked with the review and adoption of the project’s environmental document, in this case a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment 6). Approval of the environmental document will allow the applicants to begin the process of pursuing construction permits to allow the bridge over the creek, providing access to the property. If substantial changes are incorporated into the project following approval of the environmental document, an addendum to the MND may be necessary. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting The project site is a 2.73-acre flag lot with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street. The northern “flag” portion of the site is developed with a drive aisle and ten parking spaces that serve an existing building on an adjacent property. The property is an existing legal parcel with no developed access from Bridge Street or any other public rights-of-way. Currently undeveloped, the property is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses. It is bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor, and to the south by an ephemeral swale. This site is located in an “AO” flood zone. This zone indicates that there is a potential of flooding up to two-feet over the existing grade during the 100 year storm. The site is bordered by existing commercial and industrial uses to the north, by a 17 unit mixed use project to the west and south (currently under construction), by the South Hills Natural Reserve to the Southeast, and two existing single family homes to the east. 2.2 Project Description A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Three commercial shell buildings in the Manufacturing zone: a. Building A: 8,332 square feet including mezzanine level b. Building B: 9,957 square feet c. Building C: 3,380 square feet with 1,718 square foot second floor “caretakers residence” with outdoor patio. Upon discussions with the adjacent neighbor, the applicant has provide an alternative design for Building C (see Attachment 4, Building C Alternative Design). 2. Installation of a pre-fabricated “Conspan” bridge across Meadow Creek (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets C1 through C9). a. Creek setback exception required for bridge installation. Property Size 2.73 Acres Present Use & Development Vacant Land Use Designation Manufacturing (M) Access Bridge Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Light Industrial/Office (M & C-S-PD zoning) South: Single-Family Residences Under Construction & Open Space beyond (R-2-PD & C/OS zoning) East: Existing Single-family Residences (R-2-SP zoning) West: Live-Work Units Under Construction (M-PD zoning) ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-60 ARCH-0286-2014 (279 Bridge Street) Page 3 3. Tree removals to accommodate the proposed bridge and two additional removals (Italian Stone Pine and Chinese Pistache) in the location of proposed paving (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet 2). 4. Associated site improvements including a decorative concrete main access way, pavement, porous pavers, parking, trash enclosures, outdoor gravel yard between Buildings A and B, a smaller outdoor yard north of Building B, and site landscaping. 5. Contemporary industrial design incorporating exposed metal beams, corrugated cor-ten (rusting) steel siding, corrugated galvanized roofing and siding, wood siding, zinc metal lap siding, board-form concrete, wood decking, stucco, and anodized aluminum windows and roll-up doors (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A8). 6. Applicant proposes a modified use list to aid in land use compatibility between the subject location (Manufacturing zone) and adjacent residential uses. The proposed list limits the uses that would normally be allowed in the Manufacturing zone (Attachment 5, Modified Use List). Table 2.2: Project Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2 Side Yard Setbacks East (R-2) West (Manufacturing) South (R-2) North (Creek) 12.3 feet 12 feet 12 feet 20 feet 11.5 feet 0 feet 8 feet 20 feet from top of bank Max. Height of Structure(s) 29 feet 35 feet Coverage (buildings & paving) 15% 75% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.19 1.5 Parking Spaces Vehicle 1 space per 376 Sq.Ft. (62 spaces) Requirement based on tenants (generally not greater than 1 space per 500 Sq.Ft.) Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans 2. City Zoning Regulations Building A Building B Building C Bridge Concept ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-61 ARCH-0286-2014 (279 Bridge Street) Page 4 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.1 Bridge and Setback Exception: The proposed bridge (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets C1 through C9) is needed in order to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the existing parcel from Bridge Street. The proposed bridge was evaluated in the Biological Resources section of the Initial Study (Attachment 6). The bridge design and Biological Survey were reviewed by the Natural Resources Manager and the City Biologist during the Initial Study preparation process and mitigations were incorporated into the resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The Zoning Regulations (Section 17.16.025 Creek Setbacks) require eight findings be made in order to approve a setback exception. The proposed bridge is designed to minimize impacts to the riparian habitat, is sufficiently sized to allow water flow in the case of a 100 year floor (consistent with the City’s Waterways Management Plan), and is necessary as the only point of vehicular/pedestrian access to the property. Findings of support for the creek setback exception are provided in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). 3.2 Design: Staff supports the proposed contemporary industrial style as compatible with the existing neighborhood, especially when comparing the proposed design to typical manufacturing/industrial buildings which are often unarticulated and monotonous metal shop buildings. Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (Industrial Project Design Guidelines, in particular), the proposed buildings include clean/simple lines while including durable and aesthetic materials1 that provide color change and variety2. The proposed design is well articulated to create interest and shadow lines and entries are design as an obvious component to each structure3. 3.2.1 Roll-Up Doors: Building B (south elevation) includes five large roll-up doors that directly face, and are approximately 60 feet from, adjacent residences under construction. Similarly, Building C includes six large roll-up doors (three facing north toward the creek and three facing south). The location of these roll-up doors present noise concerns due to adjacent residential zoning and the likely future tenants that will occupy these buildings. The ARC should direct removal of roll-up doors that are adjacent to or face toward adjacent residences (see Directional Item #1). 3.3 Site Plan: The General Plan Land Use Element indicates when “designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority” (LUE Policy 2.3.3 Residential Next to Non-residential). The CDG Commercial Project Design Guidelines require new proposals “to demonstrate consideration for the existing conditions on and off the site, including the uses on, and site layout of neighboring properties” (Section 3.1.C1) and the CDG Industrial Project Design Guidelines 1 Community Design Guidelines – Industrial Project Design Guidelines Chapter 3.3.B1: Architectural Style. The architectural style of buildings in the business park/industrial category should incorporate clean simple lines. Buildings should project an image of high quality through the use of appropriate durable materials and well-landscaped settings. 2 Community Design Guidelines – Industrial Project Design Guidelines Chapter 3.3.B2.d: A compatible variety of siding materials (i.e., metal, masonry, concrete texturing, cement or plaster) should be used to produce effects of texture and relief that provide architectural interest. 3 Community Design Guidelines – Industrial Project Design Guidelines Chapter 3.3.B2.b: Entries to structures should portray a quality appearance while being architecturally tied into the overall building composition and scale. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-62 ARCH-0286-2014 (279 Bridge Street) Page 5 further indicate that “building setbacks should be provided proportionate to the scale of the structure and in consideration of existing adjacent development [larger structures require more setback area for a balance of scale and so as not to impose visually on neighboring uses]” (Section 3.3.A3). Additionally, the grouping or clustering of buildings to create plazas, courtyards, and more of a “village” or “campus-like” setting is highly encouraged, as is the screening of outdoor storage, work areas, and equipment4. 3.3.1 Staff Response: The project site is adjacent to residential (R-2) zoning on the south and east (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A1). The proposed site plan includes large commercial buildings, outdoor gravel yards, trash enclosures, and loading docks which would be within close proximity to existing and under construction single family residences. Building A, in particular, will obscure primary views from the adjacent under construction residences (See Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A7 – Section CC) (See Attachment 7, 215 Bridge Street Plans, Sheet ARC-7 – South Elevation & Character Images) (See Attachment 7, 215 Bridge Street Plans, Sheet ARC-11 – Character Image 03). As such, the proposed site plan layout creates potential incompatibility issues which are not consistent with LUE Policy 2.3.3 or the referenced CDG sections. For consistency with the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines, staff recommends the ARC provide the following direction on project revisions: 1. Relocate/Cluster Proposed Buildings. Cluster the proposed buildings closer to one another and relocate the buildings closer to the creek, and further from adjacent residential uses (see Directional Item #2) 2. Relocate Loading Docks and Trash Enclosures. Relocate loading docks (south sides of Building B & Building C) and trash enclosures as far away as possible from adjacent residential uses (see Directional Item #3). 3.4 Other Discussion Items: The following are identified for ARC discussion but are not specifically identified as directional items. 1. Outdoor Unpaved Yard. Consider whether the outdoor unpaved yard (between Buildings A and B) should be relocated, resized, or removed for compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Please note: the modified use list for the project site (Attachment 5) requires a Use Permit for most outdoor uses (e.g. outdoor storage yard or outdoor manufacturing) and screening or noise attenuation measures could be required through the Use Permit process. 2. Outdoor Decks Adjacent to Residential. The ARC should discuss the appropriateness of outdoor decks adjacent to residential uses. In particular, the deck associated with Building A (east side of the building) and the decks (north elevation and second floor outdoor space) associated with Building C. 3. Caretakers Dwelling (Building C): Per Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.100 a caretakers dwelling is to be secondary or accessory to the primary use of the property 4 Community Design Guidelines – Industrial Project Design Guidelines Chapter 3.3.A.5: The main elements of preferred business park/industrial site design include the following: d) Screening of outdoor storage, work areas, and equipment; f) Placement of buildings to provide plazas and courtyards; h) Multiple buildings on the same site clustered to create a campus-like setting that takes advantage of shared open space and pedestrian amenities. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-63 ARCH-0286-2014 (279 Bridge Street) Page 6 and used for housing a caretaker employed on the site, where needed for security or 24-hour care for the site. The proposed “caretakers residence” appears to be designed as a 1,718 square foot two-bedroom residence rather than a traditional caretakers dwelling. The ARC may consider modifications to the proposed caretaker’s dwelling. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 6, Mitigated Negative Declaration). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, and noise will be less than significant. A summary of the potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures is provided below: Aesthetics: Potential glare from parking lot and building light poles affecting adjacent residences. Aesthetics Mitigation: Replace freestanding light posts with bollard lighting that is outside required setbacks. Air Quality: Construction phase potentially significant effects and APCD review of future tenants. Air Quality Mitigation: Project routed to APCD and their recommendations are incorporated as mitigations. Biological Resources: Project adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek potential construction related effects. Biological Resources Mitigation: Final geotechnical engineering report shall include caisson foundations adjacent to creek, established narrower construction timelines due to nesting birds, pre-construction survey 30-days prior to ground disturbance, Army Corps of Engineers permitting, Department of Fish & Wildlife Permits. Geology/Soils: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report and Foundation Alternative Memo were prepared for the project and conclude that the project is structurally feasible and the site is well-suited for a project of this type. Geology/Soils Mitigation: provide final geotechnical engineering investigation and comprehensive design level report based on final design of the project. Noise: Loading docks facing residential uses have the potential to create excessive noise. Noise Mitigation: relocate loading facilities to be oriented away from residential uses on adjacent properties. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION Continue the project to a date uncertain with the following directional items: 1. Remove roll-up doors that are adjacent to, or face toward, adjacent residences. 2. Relocate the proposed buildings to be further from adjacent residential uses in consideration of providing additional buffering between residential uses and potential future uses that ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-64 ARCH-0286-2014 (279 Bridge Street) Page 7 would be allowed at the subject location. The buildings should be oriented closer to the creek and clustered to achieve more of a “village” or “campus-like” setting rather than spread throughout the site. 3. Relocate loadings docks and trash enclosures as far away as possible from adjacent residential uses. Loading docks should be provided on the north side of the proposed buildings or between clustered buildings to buffer noise from adjacent residential uses. 4. Revise the site plan to include one parking lot tree per every six parking spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces per parking and driveway standards. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Approve the project based on findings of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant Project Description 1. Draft Resolution (Approving the Bridge and MND) 2. Vicinity map 3. Project Plans 4. Building C Alternative 5. Modified Use List 6. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7. 215 Bridge Street ARC Approved Plans Included in Committee member portfolio: Project Plans Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-65 279 Bridge Street Narrative for ARC Submittal September 18, 2014 1. Applicant Request: Devin Gallagher, as Trustee of the Koru Living Trust, requests Architectural Review approval to develop a Business Park with light industrial and manufacturing uses on a 2.73 acre site located at 279 Bridge Street. The applicant proposes to develop three buildings totaling 22,758 square feet with 13,525 square feet of coverage. The submittal request includes a bridge over Meadow Creek to provide access to the site. 2. Project Vision: We envision the project to be clean, contemporary and industrial in nature but with an emphasis and leaning towards the new ‘maker’ spirit with multiple smaller shops of craftsmen, artisans, manufacturers, inventors and entrepreneurs focused on creating the future. Complimentary uses such as winery, brewery and coffee roasting business are also envisioned. In addition, a commercial nursery use will be sought to tie the various building areas together. With close proximity to the bike system through Meadow park, bike oriented business will be strongly encouraged. 3. Zoning Information: The Site is zoned Manufacturing (M) and is located in an area with a mix of light industrial, manufacturing, offices, service commercial and residential uses (see Zoning Map and Aerial Map below). There are several zoning designations directly adjacent to the site. These include M (to the north and northwest), R-4-SP (to the northeast), R-2-SP (to the east), C-OS-40-SP (to the southeast), R -2-PD (to the South) and M-PD (to the west). Zoning Map ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-66 4. Existing and Surrounding Uses: There are a variety of uses adjacent to and near the site. These include business parks and a parking lot to the north; an existing office building (owned by King Ventures and often referred to as the glass building) to the northeast; two single family homes (off Exposition Drive) to the east; Meadow Park to the east; the South Hills Open Space to the southeast; a new residential mixed-use development (currently under construction) to the south; Architectural Iron Works (an industrial use) to the northwest; and the Old Mission Cemetery to the west. Aerial Map ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-67 5. Architecture: The architectural style, massing and site layout of the buildings was developed to reflect the industrial history of the property and take advantage of the site features including the topography, views, creek setting and solar orientation. The simple building massing evokes historic industrial buildings but with contemporary details utilizing traditional building materials including metal, glass steel, wood and concrete. These materials compliment both the adjacent Architectural Ironworks building and King Venture’s glass building and will complement the future adjacent development at Tract 2560. The buildings are sited to take advantage of the creek side setting as well as views both to and from the site. The unique nature of this property nestled between the riparian corridor of Meadow Creek and the South hills provides an opportunity to create a development with a distinctive sense of place. The location and placement of the buildings are intended to work the site to create attractive and functional outdoor rooms in which to enjoy and appreciate the natural setting. Building overhangs and patios further enhance the indoor-outdoor connection. Careful consideration was given to building articulation and 4-sided architecture to ensure quality design was given to each façade of the buildings. Building height was also considered in relation to neighboring properties with rooflines stepping or sloping down where close to property lines. The project was conceived and developed to emphasize sustainable design throughout. The following outline summarizes the green features incorporated into the project. Site design • On-site storm water management • Drought tolerant & native landscaping • Parking lot trees to reduce heat island • Rainwater management & low impact development features • Bike friendly setting Water efficiency • Roof water transmitted to groundwater via systems under the buildings • Grey water system Energy efficiency • Passive ventilation • Daylighting • Solar orientation for rooftop photovoltaics • Outdoor patio shading Materials • High recycled content • Durable & low maintenance • Locally sourced building products • Non-toxic & low VOC materials ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-68 6. Proposed Uses: Three buildings are proposed to be developed on the site totaling 22,758 square feet. The buildings are designed as “shells” to allow a variety of uses that are permitted in the Manufacturing (M) Zone. The applicant is considering the following uses which are designated in the Zoning Code as “Allowed” Uses (no Conditional Use Permit required). Bakery (Wholesale) Furniture/Cabinet Shop Laboratory – Medical, analytical, research, testing Laundry/Dry Cleaning Manufacturing – Light (including the possibility of a Brewery) Photo/Film Processing Printing/Publishing Storage Yard Warehousing, indoor storage Wholesaling & Distribution Caretakers Quarters Auto Parts Sales w/Installation Building and Landscape Materials Sales (both indoor and outdoor) Farm Supply/Feed Stores Business Support Services Offices – Accessory to the Primary Uses Catering Copying/Printing Equipment Rental Maintenance Services Repair Services – Equipment, Large Appliances Vehicle Repair & Maintenance Note that the upstairs portion of Building C includes a 1,709 square foot Caretakers Quarters (an Allowed Use) to provide night-time, on-site security for the proposed Business Park. The Caretakers Quarters is intended to help control the transient problem partially caused by the easy access to the site from Meadow Park through the Meadow Creek corridor. The exact hours of operation are not known at this time. However, the hours are likely to be similar to a typical light industrial, business park; which would be from approximately 7am to 6pm. Business may occasionally be conducted outside these hours; however, this would primarily be conducted inside the building and would not result in significant noise or traffic impacts on nearby uses. The Caretakers Quarters is anticipated to be occupied primarily between 6pm and 7am. The goods and services offered would be light industrial or manufacturing in nature and would be consistent with the list of uses noted above. The number of employees is not known at this time. 7. Environmental & Site Characteristics: The site is mostly vacant. On the main southern portion of the site it is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses. It is bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and to the south by an ephemeral swale. The northern “flag” portion of the site, has an existing parking lot with ten spaces that serve the adjacent “glass building”. ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-69 There are a total of five existing trees on the site (outside the creek corridor). These include two trees on the southern part of the site and three trees on the northern, flag portion of the site. These trees are (1) a California Pepper Tree, (2) an Italian Stone Pine (located in the southeast corner of the site), (3) a Coastal Live Oak, (4) a Pepper Tree (both located near the entrance on Bridge Street), and (5) a Chinese Pistache (located between the 10 parking spaces). Proposed tree removal includes the Italian Stone Pine (which appears to be in poor health); the Chinese Pistache; and several trees/willow clusters in the riparian corridor (to allow for the bridge crossing). Refer to the Biological Report and Tree Removal Exhibit for additional information. Note that the botanical surveys resulted in no observations of any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species within the project site. Furthermore, the observable and identifiable plants, habitats, and soils suggest the site does not support habitat for special-status plants. Regarding wildlife, no special status animal species were identified or anticipated to occur on the site. “Given the urban setting with a limited extent of grassland and riparian habitats, and the seasonal nature of Meadow Creek, the project site does not support suitable habitat for any special-status wildlife species (excerpt from Sage Biological Assessment).” Refer to the “Biological Resource Assessment” for additional information on biological resources and proposed vegetation removal. 8. Parking and Access: a. Parking: A total of 67 vehicle spaces, 10 bike spaces and 12 motorcycle spaces are proposed on the site. Note that there are an existing ten spaces provided on the north side of the bridge. These 10 spaces are primarily used by the building immediately to the east of these spaces (the glass building owned by King Ventures). The parking ratio south of the bridge is 1 space per 340 square feet of building. Table 6 of Section 17.16.060 of the Zoning Code primarily requires that light industrial and manufacturing uses provide parking at either 1 space per 300 square feet or 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. The provided ratio of 1 space per 340 square feet should be adequate to provide parking for nearly any mix of light industrial and manufacturing uses. Note that the Zoning Code allows parking reductions (by Administrative Use Permit) for mixed-use, shared parking, and automobile trip reduction programs. Although these may be requested in the future, no reductions are requested at this time. b. Access: Access to the site will be provided via construction of a new bridge over Meadow Creek. This bridge would be accessed from Bridge Street by driving through the existing red brick parking lot used by the adjacent glass building (owned by King Ventures). Note that there are joint access and parking easements for the glass building but the property is actually a “flag” that is owned by the applicant (Devin Gallagher/Koru Trust). The brick parking areas will be reconstructed as part of the development. Most of the parking will remain in brick but the access/drive aisle will be replaced with concrete. ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-70 It’s important to note that the site is currently “land locked” and has no vehicular access. In the past, the owner has explored the possibility of joint access over the bridge for the new mixed-use/residential project being constructed south of the site (Tract 2560). However, the adjacent developer was not interested in joint access because they did not want to mix their residential traffic with the industrial traffic of the proposed project. 9. Flood Zone: The site is located in an “AO” flood zone. This zone indicates that there is a potential of flooding up to 2’ over the existing grade during a 100 year storm. This issue has been addressed by elevating the first floor by approximately 3’ above the existing ground. Furthermore, the buildings are designed to allow flood waters to pass underneath the buildings in the event of a flood. This ensures that development on the site does not cause flooding problems for other properties in the vicinity or downstream. Additional detail is provided in the Flood Study. Flood Map Excerpt 10. Signage: A site project sign is proposed on Bridge Street just before you turn into the main entry to the project site. A directory sign is proposed immediately after the bridge crossing. The details of the signs will be provided in a separate submittal at a later date. 11. Art: A proposal for public art is not included at this time and will be submitted at a later date. However, the intention is to incorporate the Art Feature into the bridge surface and/or bridge railing. 12. Energy Conservation: The buildings are sited so that they take advantage of the sun’s rays and include plenty of glass and clerestory windows to maximize the use of natural light. In addition, the roofs of buildings A and B are tilted to the south to maximize solar orientation for solar panels; which will be provided for all the buildings on the site. Shade is provided by incorporating outdoor patios. 13. Affordable Housing: The housing fee will be paid at the appropriate time. ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-71 49 Mariposa Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805-235-2406 F: 805-783-0329 March 27, 2015 Marcus Carloni Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Via e-mail mcarloni@slocity.org Re: Bridge St – Revised Uses for Project Description Dear Mr. Carloni: In accordance with our recent discussions with City staff and the neighbors; we believe it to be in everyone’s best interest to voluntarily prohibit or restrict specific Uses on our Bridge Street project. We request that the attached “Amended Use List” be included as part of our Project Description and be used to regulate Uses on the site in the future. Please refer to the attached document for a full list. However, I would like to draw your attention to some examples below. Prohibited Uses: These uses are either allowed or conditionally allowed in the M Zone. We agree to voluntarily exclude them from the site in an effort to avoid future neighbor conflicts. • Auto parts sales with installation – concerns about potential noise • Cemetery, Mausoleum, Columbarium – including mortuaries • Construction & Heavy Equipment Sales & Rental – outdoor equipment storage and noise • Fuel Dealer – hazardous materials • Laundry, dry cleaning plant – hazardous materials • Nightclub – noise, vehicle trips, late hours • Petroleum Product Storage & Distribution – hazardous materials • Public Utility Facilities – vehicle trips and hazardous materials • Railroad Facilities • Recycling Facilities & Scarp Yard – outdoor storage and noise • Restaurant with Late Hour Alcohol Service – late hours and noise • Transit Station or Terminal • Truck or Freight Terminal – vehicle trips and trucks • Vehicle Service, Repair & Maintenance – concerns about potential noise associated with equipment (such as tire sales/installation) as well as hazardous materials/chemicals (such as auto body repair) ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-72 49 Mariposa Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805-235-2406 Restricted Uses – Director’s Review: These uses are currently allowed in the M Zone. Some of these uses have the potential to have adverse impacts on the neighbors. We agree that these will require a separate “Director’s Action” prior to occupancy on the site (requires public notification and posting and appealable to the Planning Commission). • Equipment Rental, Outdoor • Furniture & Fixtures Manufacturing (Cabinet Shop) • Photo and Film Processing Lab • Printing & Publishing • Wholesaling & Distribution Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to suggest any revisions. I would like to thank you and Jaime Hill for the assistance we received in refining the Amended Use List. Sincerely, John Knight jknight@jknightconsulting.com Attachments – Amended Use List cc: Jaime Hill JHill@slocity.org Doug Davidson ddavidson@slocity.org Devin Gallagher galpro@mac.com Jim Duffy jimd@tenoverstudio.com ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-73 Updated: March 27, 2015 279 Bridge Street List of Allowed Uses: To reduce potential of exposure of the public and the environment to significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, exposure of sensitive receptors to potential decreases in air quality or objectionable odors, or inappropriate levels of noise, a truncated list of allowed or conditionally allowed uses on the site, shall be used in place of Municipal Code Chapter 17.22, Table 9: Use Regulation when reviewing future uses at the site. Conditionally allowed uses shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department Director, or approval of an Administrative Use Permit or Planning Commission Use Permit, as identified below, upon findings that the proposed use will not result in a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, exposure of sensitive receptors to potential decreases in air quality or objectionable odors, or inappropriate levels of noise. The following Use List shall prevail: Allowed Uses ATMs Auto parts sales with installation Auto parts sales without installation Bakery, Wholesale Building and landscape materials sales, indoor Landscape materials sales, outdoor Business support services (examples noted below) blueprinting computer-related services (rental, repair) copying and quick printing services film processing and photofinishing (retail) mailing and mail box services outdoor advertising services protective services (other than office related) security systems services Caretakers quarters Catering service Equipment rental, indoor Equipment rental, outdoor Farm supply and feed store Fitness/health facility Fuel dealer (propane, etc.) Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet shop Home Occupation (with Home Occupation permit) Laboratory, medical, analytical, research, testing Laundry, dry cleaning plant Live/work units Maintenance service, client site services Manufacturing, light – when work is conducted inside a building Media production, broadcast studio Office, accessory Photo and film processing lab Printing and publishing Public utility facilities Railroad facilities Recycling facilities, small collection facility Repair service – equipment, large appliances, etc., indoor ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-74 Allowed Uses (continued) School, specialized education/training Storage, personal storage facility - indoor Storage yard, as a Principal Use Transit station or terminal Transit stop Truck or freight terminal Warehousing, indoor storage Wholesaling and distribution Conditionally Allowed Uses (Directors Action) Photo and film processing lab Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet shop Printing and publishing Wholesaling and distribution Conditionally Allowed Uses (Administrative Use Permit) Ambulance, taxi, and/or limousine dispatch Antennas and telecommunications facilities Auto parts sales with installation Bakery, retail Banks and financial services (4) Bar/Tavern Building materials sales, outdoor Construction and heavy equipment sales and rental Convenience store Crop Production Day care center (child/adult) (9) Extended hour retail Equipment rental, outdoor Food bank/packaged food distribution center Furniture and Fixtures Manufacturing, cabinet shop Industrial research and development Manufacturing – light, outdoor Media production- Backlots/outdoor facilities and soundstages Nightclub Office, business and service Office, processing Office, production and administrative Outdoor BBQ/Grill, accessory to restaurant Parking facility Parking facility, temporary Petroleum product storage and distribution Public utility facilities Recycling facilities- collection and processing Recycling facilities- scrap and dismantling yard Religious facility (7) Restaurant Restaurant with late hour alcohol service Social service organization Special event Storage yard, as a Principal Use Vehicle services repair and maintenance (major or minor) Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, large animal ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-75 Conditionally Allowed Uses (Administrative Use Permit) Wine tasting room, off-site Wholesaling and distribution Work/live units Conditionally Allowed Uses (Planning Commission Use Permit) Airport Auto and vehicle sales and rental Cemetery, mausoleum, columbarium Commercial recreation facility, indoor Heliport Homeless shelter Manufacturing, heavy Parking facility – Multi-level Sports and active recreation facility Sports and entertainment assembly facility Theatre, Drive-in Mixed-use project Mobile home, RV, and boat sales Note – several of the above uses include footnotes in parentheses. Refer to Table 9 of Chapt. 17.22 of the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations. ARC JUNE 1, 2015: ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1-76 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 7 7 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 7 8 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 7 9 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 8 0 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 8 1 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 8 2 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 8 3 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 8 4 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 8 5 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 8 6 A R C J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 5 : A T T A C H M E N T 7 A T T A C H M E N T 4 A R C 1 - 8 7 49 Mariposa Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805-235-2406 F: 805-783-0329 May 21, 2015 Marcus Carloni City of San Luis Obispo Development Review 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Re: 279 Bridge Street , Building C Alternative Dear Marcus, As a result of discussions with one of our residential neighbors, Jim & Judy Nielsen, we are requesting consideration of a design Alternative for Building C. The revision shifts Building C to the south and to the west to better preserve their view to the west. We have also modified the outdoor balcony for the Caretakers Unit on the 2nd story. The deck has also been shifted west to provide additional privacy for the Nielsens. Please note that in order to shift the building to the south; we have narrowed the drive aisle from 24’ to 20’ directly in front of Building C. This change affects five sheets. The Site Plan (A1), the Floor Plan (A3), the Elevations (A6), the Sections (A7), and the Title Sheet (T1). Both the original Site Plan and the Alternative concept for Building C are acceptable to us. Please contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, John Knight jknight@jknightconsulting.com cc: Jim & Judy Nielsen (via e-mail ) Devin Gallagher, Property Owner (via e-mail galpro@mac.com) Jim Duffy, Jim Duffy Architecture (via e-mail jimd@tenoverstudio.com) ATTACHMENT 5 ARC1-88 E X I S T I N G W O O D F E N C E A S S E E N O N T 2 N E W 6 ' H I G H W O O D P R I V A C Y F E N C E T O E X T E N D F R O M ( E ) M E T A L F E N C E SECOND STORYABOVE DASHEDBIKE PARKING T Y P I C A L P A R K I N G S T A L L S I Z E S 9 ' x 1 8 ' U . N . O . A ( E ) R E S I D E N C E B U I L D I N G C 4 , S . F . 20'-0" 2 4 ' - 0 " 4 0 ' - 0 " 6 0 ' - 0 " 29'-0" 1 8 ' - 0 " 24'-0"60'-0"60'-0" 9'-0" 8'-212" 27'-0"5'-0" UP U P 7'-0" 1 7 ' - 0 " ALTERNATE LOCATION FOR BUILDING C SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 04.06.2015 P A R K I N G C O U N T B L D G C A R E A ( S Q . F T . ) V E R S I O N O R I G I N A L 6 2 5 , 0 2 0 A L T E R N A T E 6 2 S C A L E 1 " = 2 0 ' B u i l d i n g C - S i t e D e s i g n A l t e r n a t i v e S e t - B u i l d i n g S h i f t e d w e s t t o I n c r e a s e S e t b a c k t o E x . R e s i d e n c e t o E a s t - B u i l d i n g S h i f t e d s o u t h t o i m p r o v e v i e w s w e s t f o r E x . R e s i d e n c e - B u i l d i n g r e d u c e d i n s i z e b y a p p r o x . 3 0 0 s . f . - O f f i c e a d d e d t o 2 n d S t o r y C a r e t a k e r s U n i t t o a l l o w " L i v e / W o r k " f u n c t i o n - D e c k s o v e r l o o k i n g c r e e k a d d e d o n 1 s t S t o r y - S t a i r f o r 2 n d S t o r y m o v e d t o W e s t E n d o f B u i l d i n g - 2 n d S t o r y D e c k m o v e d b a c k t o i n c r e a s e p r i v a c y f o r e x . r e s i d e n c e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j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 14, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m T I T L E S H E E T T 1 2 , 8 7 7 S . F . 1 , 8 4 9 S . F . 2 3 , 0 1 5 S . F . A L T E R N A T E A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 9 3 S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A L I F O R N I A S H E E T I N D E X T I T L E / C O D E : T 1 T I T L E S H E E T T 2 S I T E P H O T O S T 3 A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E T 4 A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E T 5 A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E T 6 A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E T 7 S I T E P E R S P E C T I V E S C I V I L : C 1 P R E L I M I N A R Y G R A D I N G P L A N C 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N C 3 P R E L I M I N A R Y S I T E S E C T I O N S C 4 B R I D G E I S O M E T R I C C 5 B R I D G E P L A N C 6 B R I D G E E L E V A T I O N S A R C H I T E C T U R A L : A 1 S I T E P L A N A 2 B U I L D I N G A & B F L O O R P L A N S A 3 B U I L D I N G C F L O O R P L A N A 4 B U I L D I N G A E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A 5 B U I L D I N G B E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A 6 B U I L D I N G C E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A 7 S I T E S E C T I O N S A 8 M A T E R I A L S B O A R D L A N D S C A P E : L 1 L A N D S C A P E D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N L 2 P L A N T L E G E N D , W A T E R U S E C A L C S . , L I G H T I N G P L A N L 3 T R E E R E M O V A L E X H I B I T L 4 C R E E K S E T B A C K E X H I B I T ( W I T H O U T A E R I A L ) L 5 C R E E K S E T B A C K E X H I B I T ( W I T H A E R I A L ) P R O J E C T D A T A P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : T H I S P R O J E C T P R O P O S E S T H R E E S E P A R A T E B U I L D I N G S T O B E U S E D F O R M A N U F A C T U R I N G , A S W E L L A S A C C E S S O R Y A R E A S A N D A C A R E T A K E R ' S R E S I D E N C E . P R O J E C T A D D R E S S : 2 7 9 B R I D G E S T R E E T S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 A P N : 0 0 4 - 8 1 1 - 0 3 6 S I T E A R E A : 1 1 8 , 9 1 9 S F ( 2 . 7 3 A C R E S ) Z O N I N G : M / M A N U F A C T U R I N G P R O P O S E D U S E : M A N U F A C T U R I N G O C C U P A N C Y : F - 2 C O N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E : T Y P E I I - B S P R I N K L E R S : Y E S # O F S T O R I E S : 2 - S T O R Y B U I L D I N G H E I G H T A L L O W E D : 3 5 ' - 0 " B U I L D I N G H E I G H T P R O P O S E D : B U I L D I N G A 2 9 ' - 0 " B U I L D I N G B 2 9 ' - 0 " B U I L D I N G C 3 1 ' - 0 " L O T C O V E R A G E A L L O W E D : 7 5 % ( 2 . 0 5 A C R E S / 8 9 , 1 9 0 S . F . ) L O T C O V E R A G E P R O P O S E D : 1 5 % ( 1 3 , 5 2 5 S . F . ) T O T A L B U I L D I N G A R E A : 2 3 , 3 0 9 S . F . I M P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E S R O O F 1 6 , 5 0 9 S . F . H A R D S C A P E 3 7 , 8 3 4 S . F . P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E S P A V I N G 1 6 , 8 7 2 S . F . L A N D S C A P E 2 6 , 3 1 5 S . F . P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G A R E A S : B U I L D I N G A M A N U F A C T U R I N G 8 , 3 3 2 S . F . B U I L D I N G B M A N U F A C T U R I N G 9 , 9 5 7 S . F . B U I L D I N G C M A N U F A C T U R I N G 3 , 3 0 2 S . F . R E S I D E N C E 1 , 7 1 8 S . F . T O T A L 2 3 , 3 0 9 S . F . P A R K I N G P A R K I N G S P A C E S P R O V I D E D 6 2 S P A C E S ( I N C . 3 A D A S P A C E S ) ( R A T I O = 1 S P A C E / 3 7 6 S . F . ) B I C Y C L E P A R K I N G R E Q U I R E D 1 5 % O F A U T O S P A C E S 1 0 O R M O R E 1 0 S H O R T - T E R M S P A C E S R E Q U I R E D 2 L O N G - T E R M S P A C E S R E Q U I R E D 8 ( L O N G - T E R M S P A C E S T O B E P R O V I D E D I N S I D E B U I L D I N G S ) M O T O R C Y C L E P A R K I N G R E Q U I R E D 4 P R O V I D E D 1 2 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 14, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m T I T L E S H E E T T 1 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 9 4 SITE PHOTOS T 2 A B D E F E A S T S O U T H S O U T H W E S T W E S T W E S T N O R T H W E S T W E S T N O R T H E A S T S O U T H E A S T C N O R T H NOR T H W E S T N O T T O S C A L E K E Y P L A N 1 N 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(:- NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m F E D C B A B R I D G E S T R E E T A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 9 5 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE T 3 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 9 6 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE T 4 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 9 7 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE T 5 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(:- NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 9 8 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE T 6 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 9 9 SITE PERSPECTIVE T 7 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 14, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 0 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 1 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 2 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 3 ) $ ; & $ 2 ) % U L G J H 6 W U H H W 3 K D V H FRQGLWLRQVDUHHQFRXQWHUHGDVVLWHZRUNSURJUHVVHVWKHVHGLVFUHSDQFLHV P X V W E H U H S R U W H G W R & R Q W H F K LPPHGLDWHO\IRUUHHYDOXDWLRQRIWKHGHVLJQ&RQWHFKDFFHSWVQROLDELOLW\ I R U G H V L J Q V E D V H G R Q P L V V L Q J ' < 2 % LQFRPSOHWHRULQDFFXUDWHLQIRUPDWLRQVXSSOLHGE\RWKHUV 3 5 2 - ( & 7 1 8 0 % ( 5 6 + ( ( 7 1 2 ' ( 6 , * 1 ( ' & + ( & . ( ' ' $ 7 ( ' 5 $ : 1 $ 3 3 5 2 9 ( ' ' < 2 % 7KHGHVLJQDQGLQIRUPDWLRQVKRZQRQWKLVGUDZLQJLVSURYLGHGDVDVHUYL F H W R W K H S U R M H F W R Z Q H U H Q J L Q H H U DQGFRQWUDFWRUE\&RQWHFK(QJLQHHUHG6ROXWLRQV//&RURQHRILWVDIILOLDW H G F R P S D Q L H V & R Q W H F K 1HLWKHUWKLVGUDZLQJQRUDQ\SDUWWKHUHRIPD\EHXVHGUHSURGXFHGRU P R G L I L H G L Q D Q \ P D Q Q H U Z L W K R X W W K H SULRUZULWWHQFRQVHQWRI&RQWHFK)DLOXUHWRFRPSO\LVGRQHDWWKHXVHU V R Z Q U L V N D Q G & R Q W H F K H[SUHVVO\GLVFODLPVDQ\OLDELOLW\RUUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUVXFKXVH,IGLVFUHSDQFLHVEHWZHHQWKHVXSSOLHGLQIRUPDWLRQXSRQZKLFKWKHGUDZLQ J L V E D V H G D Q G D F W X D O I L H O G 6 D Q / X L V 2 E L V S R & H Q W U H 3 R L Q W H ' U 6 X L W H : H V W & K H V W H U 2 + /HQJWK $QJOH ( Q G + H L J K W ' R Z Q V W U H D P 8 S V W U H D P %5,'*(6800$5<:LQJZDOO FHOORI&2163$1%ULGJH6\VWHP 6 S D Q [ 5 L V H /HQJWK +HLJKW IUR P D U F K F U R Z Q 'RZQVWUHDP+HDGZDOO +HLJKW IURP D U F K F U R Z Q 8SVWUHDP+HDGZDOO /HQJWK $QJOH ( Q G + H L J K W :LQJZDOO /HQJWK $QJOH ( Q G + H L J K W :LQJZDOO /HQJWK $QJOH ( Q G + H L J K W :LQJZDOO , 6 2 0 ( 7 5 , & 9 , ( : 32' +/- C 4 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 4 ) $ ; 6 D Q / X L V 2 E L V S R & $ % U L G J H 6 W U H H W 3 K D V H FRQGLWLRQVDUHHQFRXQWHUHGDVVLWHZRUNSURJUHVVHVWKHVHGLVFUHSDQFLHV P X V W E H U H S R U W H G W R & R Q W H F K LPPHGLDWHO\IRUUHHYDOXDWLRQRIWKHGHVLJQ&RQWHFKDFFHSWVQROLDELOLW\ I R U G H V L J Q V E D V H G R Q P L V V L Q J ' < 2 % LQFRPSOHWHRULQDFFXUDWHLQIRUPDWLRQVXSSOLHGE\RWKHUV 3 5 2 - ( & 7 1 8 0 % ( 5 6 + ( ( 7 1 2 ' ( 6 , * 1 ( ' & + ( & . ( ' ' $ 7 ( ' 5 $ : 1 $ 3 3 5 2 9 ( ' ' < 2 % 7KHGHVLJQDQGLQIRUPDWLRQVKRZQRQWKLVGUDZLQJLVSURYLGHGDVDVHUYL F H W R W K H S U R M H F W R Z Q H U H Q J L Q H H U DQGFRQWUDFWRUE\&RQWHFK(QJLQHHUHG6ROXWLRQV//&RURQHRILWVDIILOLDW H G F R P S D Q L H V & R Q W H F K 1HLWKHUWKLVGUDZLQJQRUDQ\SDUWWKHUHRIPD\EHXVHGUHSURGXFHGRU P R G L I L H G L Q D Q \ P D Q Q H U Z L W K R X W W K H SULRUZULWWHQFRQVHQWRI&RQWHFK)DLOXUHWRFRPSO\LVGRQHDWWKHXVHU V R Z Q U L V N D Q G & R Q W H F K H[SUHVVO\GLVFODLPVDQ\OLDELOLW\RUUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUVXFKXVH,IGLVFUHSDQFLHVEHWZHHQWKHVXSSOLHGLQIRUPDWLRQXSRQZKLFKWKHGUDZLQ J L V E D V H G D Q G D F W X D O I L H O G 2 ) & H Q W U H 3 R L Q W H ' U 6 X L W H : H V W & K H V W H U 2 + 8 S V W U H D P ' R Z Q V W U H D P % 5 , ' * ( 3 / $ 1 : L Q J Z D O O 6 S D Q : L Q J Z D O O : L Q J Z D O O : L Q J Z D O O 3 2 ' + / - C 5 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 5 :LQJZDOO 3UHFDVW5LVH 6 S D Q :LQJZDOO ' 2 : 1 6 7 5 ( $ 0 ( 1 ' ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 8 3 6 7 5 ( $ 0 ( 1 ' ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 ) $ ; 6 D Q / X L V 2 E L V S R & $ % U L G J H 6 W U H H W 3 K D V H FRQGLWLRQVDUHHQFRXQWHUHGDVVLWHZRUNSURJUHVVHVWKHVHGLVFUHSDQFLHV P X V W E H U H S R U W H G W R & R Q W H F K LPPHGLDWHO\IRUUHHYDOXDWLRQRIWKHGHVLJQ&RQWHFKDFFHSWVQROLDELOLW\ I R U G H V L J Q V E D V H G R Q P L V V L Q J ' < 2 % LQFRPSOHWHRULQDFFXUDWHLQIRUPDWLRQVXSSOLHGE\RWKHUV 3 5 2 - ( & 7 1 8 0 % ( 5 6 + ( ( 7 1 2 ' ( 6 , * 1 ( ' & + ( & . ( ' ' $ 7 ( ' 5 $ : 1 $ 3 3 5 2 9 ( ' ' < 2 % 7KHGHVLJQDQGLQIRUPDWLRQVKRZQRQWKLVGUDZLQJLVSURYLGHGDVDVHUYL F H W R W K H S U R M H F W R Z Q H U H Q J L Q H H U DQGFRQWUDFWRUE\&RQWHFK(QJLQHHUHG6ROXWLRQV//&RURQHRILWVDIILOLDW H G F R P S D Q L H V & R Q W H F K 1HLWKHUWKLVGUDZLQJQRUDQ\SDUWWKHUHRIPD\EHXVHGUHSURGXFHGRU P R G L I L H G L Q D Q \ P D Q Q H U Z L W K R X W W K H SULRUZULWWHQFRQVHQWRI&RQWHFK)DLOXUHWRFRPSO\LVGRQHDWWKHXVHU V R Z Q U L V N D Q G & R Q W H F K H[SUHVVO\GLVFODLPVDQ\OLDELOLW\RUUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUVXFKXVH,IGLVFUHSDQFLHVEHWZHHQWKHVXSSOLHGLQIRUPDWLRQXSRQZKLFKWKHGUDZLQ J L V E D V H G D Q G D F W X D O I L H O G 2 ) & H Q W U H 3 R L Q W H ' U 6 X L W H : H V W & K H V W H U 2 + :LQJZDOO :LQJZDOO C 6 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 6 U P 23'-0" 1 9 ' - 0 " 6'-8" 5 4 ' - 0 " 28'-10" 24'-0"72'-0" 54'-0" 42'-0" 36'-0" 5 4 ' - 0 " 9 0 ' - 0 " 50' - 6 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 4 0 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 12'-0"12'-0" 6 0 ' - 0 " 42'-0" 24'-0" 2 9 ' - 0 " 1 8 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 6 0 ' - 0 " 60'-0" 24'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0" 27'-0"5'-0"5'-0"36'-0" 6 2 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 1 9 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 4 5 ' - 0 " C A EN T R Y UPBUILDING A8,332 S.F.RAISED DECK R A I S E D D E C K BRIDGE WALK T R A S H B U I L D I N G B 9 , 9 5 7 S . F . B U I L D I N G C 5 , 0 2 0 S . F . E N T R Y U P U P ( E ) C A . P E P P E R T R E E C L U S T E R T O R E M A I N ( E ) I T A L I A N S T O N E P I N E T R E E T O B E R E M O V E D SLABON GRADE HATCHE D S E C O N D S T O R Y A B O V E D A S H E D OFFICE MEZZANINEABOVE DASHED R A I S E D D E C K YARD S E C O N D S T O R Y A B O V E D A S H E D ( E ) B U I L D I N G ( E ) R E S I D E N C E FUTURE RESIDENTIALF U T U R E R E S I D E N T I A L F U T U R E R E S I D E N T I A L FUTURELIVE/WORKUNITSM ZONE -INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING F U T U R E R E S I D E N T I A L (E) 57 SP A C E S U P B I K E P A R K I N G B I K E P A R K I N G D I R E C T O R Y S I G N P R O J E C T S I G N P O S S I B L E F U T U R E C O N N C E C T I O N T O O P E N S P A C E M O T O R C Y C L E P A R K I N G 4 ' x 8 ' S T A L L T Y P . T Y P I C A L P A R K I N G S T A L L S I Z E S 9 ' x 1 8 ' U . N . O . B ( E ) C H I N E S E P I S T A C H E T O B E R E M O V E D W I L L O W C L U S T E R T O B E R E M O V E D 8 " C A L . W A L N U T S T O B E R E M O V E D 4 " C A L . W A L N U T T O B E R E M O V E D 8 " C A L . W A L N U T T O B E T R I M M E D W A L N U T C L U S T E R T O B E T R I M M E D W I L L O W C L U S T E R T O B E T R I M M E D W I L L O W C L U S T E R T O B E T R I M M E D E X I S T I N G W O O D F E N C E A S S E E N O N T 2 ( E ) C O A S T L I V E O A K T O R E M A I N ( E ) C A . P E P P E R T R E E T O R E M A I N B 72'-0" B B E W I NTIIAL B E O T T IDIRRR R T O B E BBB D D E D E E D RRA UUU 033333303688 R N R R B A S S S L O 5 5 - 0 ' 4 KAL8 8 C ) O T P P A . P R E P I S S T A " 23'-6" 12'-0" P O S S I B L E F U T U R E N U R S E R Y Y A R D 6 5 4 8 S F 20'-0" 32'-6" D N E W 6 ' H I G H W O O D P R I V A C Y F E N C E T O E X T E N D F R O M ( E ) M E T A L F E N C E 8 ' - 0 " S L I D I N G G A T E 6 ' W O O D P R I V A C Y F E N C E ( E ) R E S I D E N C E 42'-0" C O N C R E T E P A V I N G P E R M E A B L E P A V E R S A S P H A L T P A V I N G P E R M E A B L E B O A R D W A L K P E R M E A B L E D E C K I N G B U I L D I N G F O O T P R I N T P R O P E R T Y L I N E 2 ' - 6 " V E H I C L E O V E R H A N G 6 ' P R I V A C Y F E N C E L A N D S C A P E A R E A E D G E O F V E G E T A T I O N D E C O M P O S E D G R A N I T E ( D G ) , C L A S S 2 R O A D B A S E O R S I M I L A R C R E E K S E T B A C K ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A 1 6 & $ / ( # [ # [ A R C H I T E C T U R A L S I T E P L A N 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 14, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m 1 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 7 A B C D E F G A B D F G 1 2 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 U P U P U P D E C K D E C K O . H . D O O R E N T R Y L O A D I N G M A N U F A C T U R I N G U P O . H . D O O R P L A N T E R P L A N T E R PLANTER R A M P 1 0 1 ' - 5 " 5 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 3 5 ' - 2 " 1 1 ' - 8 " 3 6 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 4 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 6 " 1 ' - 1 0 " 4 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 6 " 86'-6" 5'-912"11'-8"13'-6"53'-4" 7'-10"16'-0"11'-6"10'-0"8'-0"4'-5"4'-8"4'-5" 65'-7" 3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"38'-3"5'-912" 2'-1" 3 2 ' - 0 " 1 8 ' - 0 " 6 " 1 4 ' - 6 1 2 " 1 8 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 6 " 1 0 1 ' - 5 " 3 ' - 0 " 4 7 ' - 8 " 4 5 ' - 3 " 5 ' - 6 " A2B C 134 1 4 A C UP UP UPUP U P D E C K DECK ENTRY M A N U F A C T U R I N G RAMP P O T E N T I A L D E M I S I N G W A L L S , T Y P . 9 8 ' - 6 " 27'-6" 7 1 ' - 0 " 3'-0"12'-0"12'-0"6"7'-0"12'-0" 3 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 0 " 54'-0"15'-0"24'-0"15'-0"3'-0"6'-0"6'-0"9'-0" 54'-0" 9 8 ' - 6 " 1'-6"18'-0"12'-0"3'-0"12'-0" 3 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 0 " D N 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m BUILDING A & B FLOOR PLANS A 2 L O W E R F L O O R P L A N - B U I L D I N G A 1 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 LOWER FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING B2 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 8 B D 1 A B C 3 A C D 3 1 2 E E 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 4 ' - 6 " 9 4 ' - 6 " 9 4 ' - 6 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 4 ' - 6 " 36'-0" 20'-0" 4 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 3 " 8 ' - 3 " 1 ' - 6 " 1 2 ' - 0 " A 1 B C D A B C D 3 1 3 2 E E U P U P U P D N 9 7 ' - 6 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 9 " 20'-0" 6 " 6" 36'-0" 6'-6"28'-6" 3'-0"12'-0"3'-0"2'-0"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6"3'-0" D E C K E N T R Y L O A D I N G D E C K D E C K D E C K E N T R Y L O A D I N G E N T R Y L O A D I N G M A N U F A C T U R I N G I M A N U F A C T U R I N G I I M A N U F A C T U R I N G I I I C A R E T A K E R ' S R E S I D E N C E E N T R Y P A T I O P O T E N T I A L D E M I S I N G W A L L , T Y P . O . H . D O O R , T Y P . R A M P 3 ' - 0 " 2 1 ' - 9 " 8 ' - 3 " 3 ' - 8 " 9 7 ' - 6 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 8 ' - 3 " 2 1 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 3 " 5 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 3 " EQ.8'-0"EQ. 4 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " L I V I N G K I T C H E N B E D R O O M B A T H M . B A T H M A S T E R B E D R O O M O F F I C E 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m BUILDING C FLOOR PLAN A 3 L O W E R F L O O R P L A N - B U I L D I N G C 1 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ [ 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ [ U P P E R F L O O R P L A N - B U I L D I N G C 2 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 0 9 NORTH ELEVATION4 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 GFE D C B A M E T A L P I P E R A I L I N G 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 GALVANIZEDSOFFIT PANEL S O L I D G R A Y S T O R E F R O N T P A N E L AN O D I Z E D AL U M I N U M ST O R E F R O N T SY S T E M P A I N T E D M E T A L F A S C I A SOUTH ELEVATION2 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 G A G A L V A N I Z E D C O R R U G A T E D R O O F I N G 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 C O N C R E T E B A S E E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 3 ' - 1 " F . F . 1 6 5 . 0 ' 1 3 ' - 7 " F . F . 1 7 7 . 5 ' 2 9 ' - 1 " M A X . B L D G . H T . 1 9 3 . 0 ' 1 8 ' - 2 " T . P . 1 8 2 . 1 ' 3 5 ' - 0 " M A X . A L L O W E D H T A B O V E A V G . N A T . G R A D E 2 3 4 C O R R U G A T E D C O R - T E N S I D I N G 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 B O A R D - F O R M C O N C R E T E R A M P 6 1 7 0 ' - 0 " A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 6 3 . 9 ' 2 7 ' - 1 " T . P . 1 9 1 . 0 ' PROPERTY LINE 1 2 ' - 0 " W O O D D E C K I N G N E W 6 ' W O O D W A L L W E S T E L E V A T I O N 3 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 2 5 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 1 7 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m BUILDING A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A 4 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 0 SOUTH ELEVATION2 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 Z I N C M E T A L L A P S I D I N G 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 C A A N O D I Z E D A L U M I N U M A N D G L A S S R O L L - U P D O O R , T Y P . NORTH ELEVATION4 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 C A 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 W O O D S O F F I T W O O D S I D I N G A N O D I Z E D A L U M I N U M S T O R E F R O N T S Y S T E M P A I N T E D M E T A L F A S C I A B ZINC METALLAP SIDING W E S T E L E V A T I O N 3 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 4 2 3 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 1 W O O D S I D I N G Z I N C M E T A L L A P S I D I N G P A I N T E D M E T A L F A S C I A PROPERTY LINE 3 2 ' - 6 " N E W 6 ' W O O D W A L L E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 3 ' - 4 " F . F . 1 6 9 . 0 ' 2 9 ' - 0 " M A X . B L D G . H T . 1 9 5 . 0 ' 1 8 ' - 4 " T . P . 1 8 4 . 0 ' 3 5 ' - 0 " M A X . A L L O W E D H T A B O V E A V G . N A T . G R A D E Z I N C M E T A L L A P S I D I N G 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 4 1 2 3 W O O D S I D I N G 0 ' - 0 " A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 6 5 . 7 ' 2 6 ' - 9 " T . P . 1 8 9 . 5 ' PROPERTY LINE 3 2 ' - 6 " N E W 6 ' W O O D W A L L W O O D D E C K I N G 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m BUILDING B EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A 5 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION2 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 AB C W O O D S O F F I T G R E Y S T U C C O W O O D S I D I N G E PROPERTY LINE 1 2 ' - 0 " C O R R U G A T E D G A L V A N I Z E D M E T A L W O O D D E C K I N G W / M E T A L P I P E R A I L I N G A N O D I Z E D A L U M I N U M A N D G L A S S R O L L - U P D O O R S N E W 6 ' W O O D W A L L NORTH ELEVATION4 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 E A C P A I N T E D M E T A L F A S C I A G R E Y S T U C C O W O O D S I D I N G C O R R U G A T E D G A L V A N I Z E D M E T A L B O A R D - F O R M E D C O N C R E T E P L A N T E R A N O D I Z E D A L U M I N U M A N D G L A S S R O L L - U P D O O R S 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 R O L L - U P D O O R 3 1 0 ' - 0 " A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 6 8 . 9 ' 3 ' - 1 " F . F . 1 7 2 . 0 ' 2 7 ' - 0 " T . P . 1 9 5 . 9 ' 2 4 ' - 3 " T . P . 1 9 3 . 1 E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 3 1 ' - 1 " M A X . B L D G . H T . 2 0 0 . 0 ' 3 5 ' - 0 " M A X . A L L O W E D H T A B O V E A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 0 ' - 0 " A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 6 8 . 9 ' 3 2 1 1 5 ' - 7 " F . F . 1 8 4 . 5 ' 3 ' - 1 " F . F . 1 7 2 . 0 ' 3 0 ' - 0 " T . P . 1 9 8 . 8 ' W E S T E L E V A T I O N 3 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m BUILDING C EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A 6 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 2 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 1 7 0 ' 1 8 0 ' 1 9 0 ' 2 0 0 ' 0 + 0 0 0 + 2 5 0 + 5 0 0 + 7 5 1 + 0 0 1 + 2 5 1 + 5 0 1 7 0 ' 1 8 0 ' 1 9 0 ' 2 0 0 ' 0 + 0 0 1 + 0 0 1 + 7 5 1 6 0 ' 1 7 0 ' 1 8 0 ' 1 9 0 ' 2 0 0 ' 0 + 0 0 0 + 2 5 0 + 5 0 0 + 7 5 1 + 0 0 1 + 2 5 1 + 5 0 1 6 0 ' 1 7 0 ' 1 8 0 ' 1 9 0 ' 2 0 0 ' 0 + 0 0 1 + 0 0 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 1 6 0 ' 1 7 0 ' 1 8 0 ' 1 9 0 ' 2 0 0 ' 0 + 0 0 0 + 2 5 0 + 5 0 0 + 7 5 1 + 0 0 1 + 2 5 1 7 0 ' 1 8 0 ' 1 9 0 ' 2 0 0 ' 0 + 0 0 1 + 0 0 1 6 0 ' 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 3 0 x 4 2 S E C T I O N A A 3 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 CREEK SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE S E C T I O N C C 1 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 1 2 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 2 8 ' - 0 " T . P . M A X 1 9 6 . 9 ' 3 1 ' - 1 " M A X . B L D G . H T . 2 0 0 . 0 ' V A R I E S 1 2 ' - 3 " M I N 1 2 ' - 6 " M A X 0 ' - 0 ' " A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 6 8 . 9 ' 3 ' - 1 " F . F . 1 7 2 . 0 ' 3 5 ' - 0 " M A X . A L L O W E D B L D G . H T . 2 0 3 . 8 ' 1 ' - 1 " F I N . S L A B 1 6 5 . 0 ' 0 ' - 0 " A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 6 3 . 9 ' 2 9 ' - 1 " M A X . B L D G . H T . 1 9 3 . 0 ' 3 ' - 1 " F I N . R A I S E D F L O O R 1 6 7 . 0 ' 3 5 ' - 0 " M A X . A L L O W E D B L D G . H T . 1 9 8 . 9 ' 1 3 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 1 " F I N . S L A B 1 6 5 . 0 ' A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 6 3 . 9 ' 2 9 ' - 1 " M A X . B L D G . H T . 1 9 3 . 0 ' 3 5 ' - 0 " M A X . A L L O W E D B L D G . H T . 1 9 8 . 9 ' V A R I E S ( 2 2 ' - 1 " M A X ) 1 8 6 . 0 ' E X I S T I N G A D J A C E N T B L D G B E Y O N D F U T U R E A D J A C E N T B L D G F U T U R E A D J A C E N T B L D G ( E ) W O O D F E N C E B U I L D I N G A B U I L D I N G A B U I L D I N G C S E C T I O N B B 2 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 SECTION DD4 S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " @ 1 5 x 2 1 160'170'180'190'200'0+000+250+50 0 + 7 5 1 6 0 ' 1 7 0 ' 1 8 0 ' 1 9 0 ' 2 0 0 ' 0+00BUILDING B F U T U R E A D J A C E N T B L D G PROPERTY LINE N E W W O O D W A L L 3 ' - 0 " F . F . 1 6 9 . 0 ' 0 ' - 0 " A V G . N A T . G R A D E 1 6 6 . 0 ' 2 5 ' - 0 " 1 9 1 . 0 ' 3 5 ' - 0 " M A X . A L L O W E D B L D G . H T . 2 0 1 . 0 ' TRASHENCLOSUREBEYONDNEW WOODWALL 2 9 ' - 0 " M A X . B L D G . H T . 1 9 5 . 0 ' N E W W O O D W A L L F . F . E . A P P R O X . 1 7 3 . 5 ' (E) ADJACENTBUILDINGBEYOND 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m $5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m SITE SECTIONS A 7 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 3 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 19, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m MATERIALS BOARD A 8 ZINC ALUMINUM METAL LAP S I D I N G BUILDING B WALLSSMOOTH STUCCO FI N I S H BUILDING C UPPER WALLS WALL S C O R R U G A T E D C O R T E N S T E E L B U I L D I N G A W A L L S B O A R D - F O R M E D C O N C R E T E B U I L D I N G A B A S E , A D A R A M P W A L L S G A L V A N I Z E D C O R R U G A T E D S I D I N G B U I L D I N G S A A N D C W A L L S RAISED WOOD SIDEWAL K W O O D R A I N S C R E E N B U I L D I N G S B & C W A L L S P E R M E A B L E P A V E R S - S A N D S T O N E B L E N D P A R K I N G N E A R B U I L D I N G S A & B D A R K B R O N Z E A L U M I N U M W I N D O W A N D D O O R F R A M E S A T B U I L D I N G S A , B , & C A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 4 P L A R A C P L A R A C PLARACPRUILI P R U I L I P R U I L I P R U I L I P R U I L I P R U I L I Q U E A G R Q U E A G R Q U E A G R Q U E A G R P L A R A C P L A R A C P L A R A C U M B C A L U M B C A L UMBCAL P L A R A C U M B C A L QUEAGRQUEAGR Q U E A G R Q U E A G R Q U E A G R C E R O C C C H I L I N P L A R A C P L A R A C P L A R A C P L A R A C C H I L I N C H I L I N C E R O C C C E R O C C C E R O C C P L A R A C P L A R A C P L A R A C P L A R A C QUEAGR QUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRPLARAC C H I T A S C H I T A S A R B M A R A R B M A R A R B M A R A R B M A R A R B M A R A R B M A R P Y R S P P P Y R S P P P Y R S P P G I N B I L P Y R S P P T A S P I N Q U E A G R Q U E A G R Q U E A G R Q U E A G R HYDROZ O N E # 2 1,375 SFHYDR O Z O N E # 1 0 1,150 S F H Y D R O Z O N E # 8 3 , 5 9 0 S F C A R E X E M P L O Y E E B R E A K A R E A D G P A T H DECOMPOSEDGRANITE H Y D R O Z O N E # 1 7 0 0 S F 2 0 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 4 " 5 ' - 8 " H Y D R O Z O N E # 3 3 , 6 7 0 S F U M B C A L Q U E A G R Q U E A G R Q U E A G R P R U I L I U M B C A L P L A R A C P L A R A C P L A R A C Q U E A G R Q U E A G R Q U E A G R QUEAGR A R B M A R Q U E A G R C H I T A S C H I T A S A R B M A R P Y R S P P G I N B I L G I N B I L G I N B I L G I N B I L O R N A M E N T A L P L A N T I N G S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E A R B M A R A r b u t u s ' M a r i n a ' M a r i n a S t r a w b e r r y T r e e C H I T A S C h i t a l p a t a s h k e n t e n s i s ' P i n k D a w n ' P i n k D a w n C h i t a l p a G I N B I L G i n k o b i l o b a ' P r i n c e t o n S e n t r y ' M a i d e n h a i r T r e e P Y R C A L P y r u s c a l l e r y a n a ' C a p i t a l ' o r ' C h a n t i c l e e r ' C a p i t a l P e a r / C h a n t i c l e e r P e a r S H R U B S & P E R E N N I A L S S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E G r e v i l l e a ' R e d H o o k s ' N C N L e p t o s p e r m u m ' D a r k S h a d o w s ' N C N L o b e l i a l a x i f l o r a N C N L o m a n d r a l o n g i f o l i a N y a l l a N y a l l a M a t R u s h P h o r m i u m ' Y e l l o w W a v e ' N e w Z e a l a n d F l a x M i s c a n t h u s t r a n s m o r r i s o n e n s i s E v e r g r e e n M i s c a n t h u s M u l h e n b e r g i a c a p i l a r i s ' W h i t e C l o u d ' W h i t e A w n M u h l y S a l v i a s p p . o r ' P o z o B l u e ' S a g e G R O U N D C O V E R S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E C a r e x t e s t a c e a O r a n g e S e d g e C e a n o t h u s g r i s e u s h o r i z o n t a l i s ' D i a m o n d H e i g h t s ' D i a m o n d H e i g h t s C a r m e l C r e e p e r C o t o n e a s t e r d a m e r i i ' L o w f a s t ' B e a r b e r r y V I N E S S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E P a r t h e n o c i s s u s t r i c u s p i d a t a B o s t o n I v y R o s a b a n k s i a e ' L u t e a ' Y e l l o w L a d y B a n k ' s R o s e M I T I G A T I O N P L A N T I N G - R I P A R I A N S E T B A C K S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E P R U I L I P r u n u s i l i c i f o l i a s s p . l y o n i i C a t a l i n a C h e r r y P L A R A C P l a t a n u s r e a c e m o s a C a l i f o r n i a S y c a m o r e Q U E A G R Q u e r c u s a g r i f o l i a C o a s t L i v e O a k U M B C A L U m b e l l u l a r i a c a l i f o r n i c a C a l i f o r n i a B a y S H R U B S & P E R E N N I A L S S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E A r c h t o s t a p y l o s h o o k e r i M o n t e r e y M a n z a n i t a A r t e m e s i a c a l i f o r n i c a C a l i f o r n i a S a g e B r u s h C a r e x p r a e g r a c i l l i s C l u s t e r e d F i e l d S e d g e C e a n o t h u s h e a r s t i o r u m H e a r s t R a n c h B u c k b r u s h E r i o g o n u m f a s i c u l a t u m C a l i f o r n i a B u c k w h e a t H e t e r o m e l e s a r b u t i f o l i a T o y o n M i m u l u s a u r a n t i a c u s S t i c k y M o n k e y F l o w e r M u h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s D e e r G r a s s R h a m n u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' E v e C a s e ' C o f f e e b e r r y R o s a c a l i f o r n i c a C a l i f o r n i a R o s e S a l v i a m e l i f e r a B l a c k S a g e B I O - S W A L E P L A N T I N G S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E C E R O C C C e r c i s o c c i d e n t a l i s W e s t e r n R e d b u d C H I L I N C h i l o p s i s l i n e a r i s D e s e r t W i l l o w Q U E A G R Q u e r c u s a g r i f o l i a C o a s t L i v e O a k P L A R A C P l a t a n u s r a c e m o s a C a l i f o r n i a S y c a m o r e S H R U B S , P E R E N N I A L S , G R O U N D C O V E R , G R A S S E S S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E B a c c h a r i s p i l u l a r i s C o y o t e B r u s h C a r e x p a n s a C a l i f o r n i a M e a d o w S e d g e C h o n d r o p e t a l u m t e c t o r u m S m a l l C a p e R u s h J u n c u s p a t e n s B l u e R u s h L e y m u s c o n d e n s a t u s ' C a n y o n P r i n c e ' C a n y o n P r i n c e W i l d R y e M u h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s D e e r G r a s s S a l v i a s p a t h a c e a H u m m i n g b i r d S a g e S a l v i a u l i g i n o s a B o g S a g e PREL I M I N A R Y P L A N T I N G P L A N P L A N T I N G L E G E N D S E E S H E E T : L - 2 F O R C O M P L E T E P L A N T I N G L E G E N D 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMITTAL - SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m LANDSCAPEDEVELOPMENTPLAN L 1 A r b u t u s ' M a r i n a ' C e r c i s o c c i d e n t a l i s C h i t a l p a t a s h k e n t e n s i s ' P i n k D a w n ' P r u n u s i l i c i f o l i a l y o n i i U m b e l l u l a r i a c a l i f o r n i c a P l a t a n u s r a c e m o s a P y r u s c a l l e r y a n a ' C a p i t a l ' o r ' C h a n t i c l e e r ' Q u e r c u s a g r i f o l i a P R O P O S E D T R E E S G i n k o b i l o b a ' P r i n c e t o n S e n t r y ' A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 5 ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAME Q T . S I Z E S P A C I N G W U C O L S / N O T E S ARB MARArbutus 'Marina'Marina Strawberry Tree X 3 6 " B o x / 2 " C a l . P e r P l a n M O D / M u l t i - T r u n k O R M u l t i - T r u n k M a t u r e S i z e : 2 0 ' x 2 0 ' CHI TASChitalpa tashkentensis 'Pink Dawn' Pink Dawn Chitalpa 2 4 " B o x / 2 " C a l . P e r P l a n M O D / S t a n d a r d T r u n k O R M u l t i - T r u n k M a t u r e S i z e : 2 0 ' x 2 0 ' GIN BILGinko biloba 'Princeton Sentry'Maidenhair Tree 2 4 " B o x P e r P l a n M O D / S t a n d a r d T r u n k PYR CALPyrus calleryana 'Capital' or 'Chanticleer' Capital Pear / Chanticlee r P e a r X 2 4 " B o x / 2 " C a l . P e r P l a n L O W / S t a n d a r d T r u n k M a t u r e S i z e : 3 5 ' x 2 0 ' SHRUBS & PERENNIALSSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAME Q T . S I Z E S P A C I N G W U C L O S / N O T E S Grevillea 'Red Hooks'NCN T B D 1 5 G a l . P e r P l a n M O D / Leptospermum 'Dark Shadows'NCN T B D 5 G a l . P e r P l a n L O W / Lobelia laxifloraNCN T B D 5 G a l . 6 ' - 0 " O C M O D / Lomandra longifolia NyallaNyalla Mat Rush T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C M O D / Phormium 'Yellow Wave'New Zealand Flax T B D 1 G a l . 6 ' - 0 " O C M O D / Miscanthus transmorrisonensisEvergreen Miscanthus T B D 1 G a l . 4 ' - 0 " O C M O D / Mulhenbergia capilaris 'White Cloud' White Awn Muhly T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L O W / Salvia spp. or 'Pozo Blue'Sage T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L O W / GROUNDCOVERSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAME Q T . S I Z E S P A C I N G W U C O L S / N O T E S Carex testaceaOrange Sedge T B D 1 G a l 2 ' - 6 " O C L O W - M O D / Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'DiamondHeights'Diamond Heights CarmelCreeper T B D 1 G a l 6 ' - 0 " O C M O D / Cotoneaster damerii 'Lowfast'Bearberry T B D 1 G a l 6 ' - 0 " O C M O D / VINESSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAME Q T . S I Z E S P A C I N G W U C O L S / N O T E S Parthenocissus tricuspidataBoston Ivy T B D 1 G a l V a r i e s M O D / T R A I N O N ( E X ) W A L L Rosa banksiae 'Lutea'Yellow Lady Bank's Rose T B D 5 G a l V a r i e s M O D / T R A I N O N ( E X ) F E N C E M I T I G A T I O N P L A N T I N G - R I P A R I A N S E T B A C K S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E Q T . S I Z E S P A C I N G W U C O L S / N O T E S P R U I L I P r u n u s i l i c i f o l i a s s p . l y o n i i C a t a l i n a C h e r r y T B D 5 G a l . / 1 2 " C a l . P e r P l a n L O W / M a t u r e S i z e : 2 0 ' x 3 0 ' P L A R A C P l a t a n u s r e a c e m o s a C a l i f o r n i a S y c a m o r e 1 5 G a l . / 1 " C a l . P e r P l a n M O D / M a t u r e S i z e : 2 0 ' x 4 0 ' Q U E A G R Q u e r c u s a g r i f o l i a C o a s t L i v e O a k T B D 1 5 G a l . / 1 " C a l . P e r P l a n L O W / M a t u r e S i z e : 3 0 ' x 3 0 ' U M B C A L U m b e l l u l a r i a c a l i f o r n i c a C a l i f o r n i a B a y T B D 1 5 G a l . / 1 2 " C a l . P e r P l a n M O D / M a t u r e S i z e : 2 0 ' x 4 0 ' S H R U B S & P E R E N N I A L S S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E Q T . S I Z E S P A C I N G W U C L O S / N O T E S A r c h t o s t a p y l o s h o o k e r i M o n t e r e y M a n z a n i t a T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w A r t e m e s i a c a l i f o r n i c a C a l i f o r n i a S a g e B r u s h T B D 1 G a l . 6 ' - 0 " O C L o w C a r e x p r a e g r a c i l l i s C l u s t e r e d F i e l d S e d g e T B D P l u g s 1 2 " O C L o w C e a n o t h u s h e a r s t i o r u m H e a r s t R a n c h B u c k b r u s h T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w E r i o g o n u m f a s i c u l a t u m C a l i f o r n i a B u c k w h e a t T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w H e t e r o m e l e s a r b u t i f o l i a T o y o n T D B 5 G a l . 1 2 ' - 0 " O C L o w M i m u l u s a u r a n t i a c u s S t i c k y M o n k e y F l o w e r T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w M u h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s D e e r G r a s s T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w R h a m n u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' E v e C a s e ' C o f f e e b e r r y T B D 1 G a l . 8 ' - 0 " O C L o w R o s a c a l i f o r n i c a C a l i f o r n i a R o s e T B D 1 G a l . V a r i e s L o w S a l v i a m e l i f e r a B l a c k S a g e T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w B I O - S W A L E P L A N T I N G S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E Q T . S I Z E S P A C I N G W U C O L S / N O T E S C E R O C C C e r c i s o c c i d e n t a l i s W e s t e r n R e d b u d T B D 1 5 G a l . / 1 " C a l . P e r P l a n L o w / Z o n e B M a t u r e S i z e : 2 0 ' x 2 5 ' C H I L I N C h i l o p s i s l i n e a r i s D e s e r t W i l l o w T B D 5 G a l . / 1 2 " C a l . P e r P l a n L o w / Z o n e B M a t u r e S i z e : 1 5 ' x 2 0 ' Q U E A G R Q u e r c u s a g r i f o l i a C o a s t L i v e O a k T B D 1 5 G a l . / 1 " C a l . P e r P l a n L o w / Z o n e B M a t u r e S i z e : 3 0 ' x 3 0 ' P L A R A C P l a t a n u s r a c e m o s a C a l i f o r n i a S y c a m o r e T B D 1 5 G a l . / 1 " C a l . P e r P l a n M o d e r a t e / Z o n e B M a t u r e S i z e : 3 0 ' x 3 0 ' S H R U B S , P E R E N N I A L S , G R O U N D C O V E R , G R A S S E S S Y M B O L B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E Q T . S I Z E S P A C I N G W U C L O S / N O T E S B a c c h a r i s p i l u l a r i s C o y o t e B r u s h T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w / Z o n e B C a r e x p a n s a C a l i f o r n i a M e a d o w S e d g e T B D P l u g s 1 ' - 0 " O C L o w / Z o n e s A & B C h o n d r o p e t a l u m t e c t o r u m S m a l l C a p e R u s h T B D 1 G a l . 3 ' - 0 " O C L o w / Z o n e s A & B J u n c u s p a t e n s B l u e R u s h T B D 1 G a l . 3 ' - 0 " O C L o w / Z o n e B L e y m u s c o n d e n s a t u s ' C a n y o n P r i n c e ' C a n y o n P r i n c e W i l d R y e T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w / Z o n e B M u h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s D e e r G r a s s T B D 1 G a l . 5 ' - 0 " O C L o w / Z o n e B S a l v i a s p a t h a c e a H u m m i n g b i r d S a g e T B D 1 G a l . 2 ' - 0 " O C L o w / Z o n e B S a l v i a u l i g i n o s a B o g S a g e T D B 1 G a l . 4 ' - 0 " O C L o w / Z o n e B S I T E L I G H T I N G L E G E N D L I N E V O L T A G E ( 1 2 0 v ) L I G H T I N G S Y M B O L F I X T U R E / M O D E L H E I G H T L A M P L U M I N A I R E L U M E N S Q U A N T . W A L L M O U N T / B E G A 3 5 1 4 O R 6 9 8 0 P 8 F T . 4 . 2 W a t t s L E D / 4 6 W a t t s C F 1 5 3 / 2 1 2 5 8 P O S T L I G H T / B E G A 8 9 7 7 P 1 5 F T . 5 5 W a t t s C F 3 1 8 3 3 B O L L A R D L I G H T / B E G A 7 2 6 5 O R 7 2 6 6 3 ' F T . 7 . 2 W a t t s L E D 1 6 6 1 1 S I G N L I G H T / H A D C O W A F 1 3 1 F T . 1 3 W a t t s C F 9 0 0 2 L I G H T I N G N O T E S : x A L L L A N D S C A P E L I G H T S S H A L L B E D A R K S K Y C O M P L I A N T T Y P E F I X T U R E S , W I T H L A M P C U T - O F F S H E I L D . x A L L L I G H T I N G S H A L L B E 1 2 0 V O L T . x L A M P S S H A L L B E E N E R G Y E F F I C I E N T F I X T U R E S , L E D W H E R E F E A S I B L E . SITE LIGHTING PLAN S C A L E : 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " M A W A & E T W U C A L C U L A T I O N S PLANTING LEGEND B O L L A R D L I G H T P O S T L I G H T W A L L - M O U N T L I G H T A T B U I L D I N G S 1 4 0 4 B R O A D S T S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 P H 8 0 5 . 5 4 0 . 8 8 9 6 j d @ j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m w w w . j i m d u f f y a r c h . c o m ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMITTAL - SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 P . O . B o x 8 3 2 , A t a s c a d e r o , C A 9 3 4 2 3 P h o n e & F a x : ( 8 0 5 ) 4 6 4 - 0 9 7 5 K V C r o w e @ C h a r t e r . n e t K e i t h V . C r o w e , P . E . J O H N K N I G H T - P R O J E C T P L A N N E R 4 9 M A R I P O S A D R . S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 . 2 3 5 . 2 4 0 6 j k n i g h t @ j k n i g h t c o n s u l t i n g . c o m PLANT LEGEND, WATER USE CALCS., LIGHTING PLAN L 2 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 6 T R E E R E M O V A L / P R O T E C T I O N P L A N TREE REMOVAL EXHIBIT L 3 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 7 7 R S R I % D Q N D V G H W H U P L Q H G E \ 6 X U Y H \ R U & U H H N 6 H W E D F N ( [ K L E L W Z L W K R X W $ H U L D O ( G J H R I ( [ 9 H J H W D W L R Q D V G H W H U P L Q H G E \ % L R O R J L V W ³ $ Y H U D J H G ´ ( G J H R I 9 H J H W D W L R Q 8 S G D W H G 6 H S W L 4 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 8 8 S G D W H G 6 H S W 7 R S R I % D Q N D V G H W H U P L Q H G E \ 6 X U Y H \ R U & U H H N 6 H W E D F N ( [ K L E L W Z L W K $ H U L D O ( G J H R I ( [ 9 H J H W D W L R Q D V G H W H U P L Q H G E \ % L R O R J L V W ³ $ Y H U D J H G ´ ( G J H R I 9 H J H W D W L R Q L 5 A T T A C H M E N T 5 A R C 1 - 1 1 9 April 20, 2017 VIA EMAIL: sscott@slocity.org Ms. Shawna Scott Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 94301 RE: OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED PROJECT AT 279 BRIDGE STREET Dear Ms. Scott: Thank you for the information you provided us in connection with the 279 Bridge Street project. As we discussed over the telephone, my client is 215 Bridge Street LLC, developer of the Terraza residential project which borders the 279 Bridge Street project on its southern and western boundaries. We have reviewed the plan set in detail and there are a few issues that give us serious concerns about this project. Our primary concern is in regard to the location of Building A on the site plan. The current location places this building a mere 27 feet away from our nearest residential structure. We do not believe this is enough separation for a manufacturing building from a low density residential housing. The proximity of this building substantially restricts the views of several units within our project. Because this building is planned to sit on a raised foundation and is over 27 feet in total height, even the second floor views from our residential units will be eliminated. The close proximity of this building also creates privacy and potentially safety concerns. Our units feature north facing exterior decks and bedrooms with north facing windows. The tenants and other guests of Building A will staring down at our residents, virtually eliminating and potential for privacy. Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns that transient guests of Building A may engage in acts of vandalism or theft due to the open and exposed nature of our project. For the reasons mentioned above we believe the 279 Bridge Street project, as currently designed, will have a serious negative financial impact on our project and make the sale of our residential much more challenging. Our request is for Building A to be moved as far to the northern edge of the property as possible to create the greatest amount of separation from our residential lots. We kindly request that you include our objections to this project in your staff report and inform the ARC of our desire to have this item pulled from the May 1, 2017 agenda and rescheduled to a later date so the developer may make changes to the site plan which address our concerns. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (. Respectfully, Anthony Hama Representative of 215 Bridge Street LLC ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1-120 Jim and Judy Nielsen MEMO Date; February 1, 2017 To: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, Community Development City of San Luis Obispo From: Jim and Judy Nielsen Subject: 279 Bridge Street Project We want to thank you for meeting wit us on January 12 to look over the «revised» plan submiitted by Devin Gallagher for the proposed project at 279 Bridge Street. At the first ARC hearing on this project in early August of 2015, after a veery long eeting at which Maarcus Carloni from City Planning presented recommendations that included many of our concerns. My recollectiion of the action of the ARC was only to approve the construction of a bridge over Medow Creek and asked the applicant to take into account the isses raised in the hearing and resubmit the appllication at a later date. To our dismay, when we looked oveer the resubmitted project plans wiith you, no significant changes had been made. We have a number of concerns that we want to share withyou along with a few suggestions that wouild make the project more acceptable to us and would come closer to conforming to the needs of the neighbors and neigborhood. Concern #1 – Buildings A, B, and C are all too close to the property lines. Suggestion: That the applicant provide a 25' to 30' Green Belt around the perimeter of the property, thereby providing a buffer zone between the buildings and the adjacent residences. In the case of Building A, the buffer zone cound bbe even larger. Concern # 2 – Building C's placement and height. Suggestions: (1) Place Buuilding C further south, so that it sits squarely between the two houses on the eastern edge of the property. There is a 100' distance between the Nielsen house and the Cindrich house. If more parking is needed for Building C, it can be added on the north side of Building C. This change in the placement of Building C would provide a more symmetrical setting as viewed ffrom the cul-de-sac as well as eastern views from the propersty itself. (2) Remove the apartment atop of Building C. Our question is, why is there need for a 24/7 on site caretaker when the property is totally surrounded by R1 dwellings. We have lived in our home for 18 years and can assure the applicant that the neighborhood is safe and secure. Removing the apartment would make the height of the building much more acceptable. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1-121 Concern #3 – Size ot the Buildings Question: Do the bildings need to be as massive as they are projected to be? Is it possible to reduce the height of the three buildings in order for them to be more congruent with the of the surrounding neighborhood? Concern #4 – Noise We are appreciative of the applicants eliminating the rolling doors from the project plan. We are aware that the buildings will house light industrial businesses and that some noise is inevitable, but it remains a major concern. Concern #5 – Traffic flow There are only two ways to access the property, east off Higuera on Bridge St. and south off South Street on BeeBee. It does not appear to us that either road is designed to handle a heavy flow of traffic and especially trucks. There is potentially serious trafffic congestion on both Higuera and South streets. We realize that this does not fall under the purview of the ARC, but if this project is approved, who will address this concern? ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1-122 1 Scott, Shawna From: Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 9:33 PM To:Scott, Shawna Cc: Subject:278 Bridge Street Gina and Kris Cindrich San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Attn: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 2/5/2017 Dear Shawna: Thank you for meeting with us regarding the proposed development at 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo. As stated during our meeting we are not opposed to the project. However, there are aspects of the project that raise concern with regard to compatibility of the existing neighborhood that we believe can be addressed and resolved. Our concerns were previously discussed in detail with the developer and it was our understanding they were being addressed in the revised plan. Moreover, staff recommendations to the ARC addressed our same concerns. It is our hope that these issues will not be forgotten and will still be addressed. At our meeting with you we were very disappointed to learn that the previously identified issues have not been addressed by the developer in the revised plans. Other than moving building A further from the new homes at 215 Bridge Street and moving a few of the roll up doors and trash cans it is our understanding no other significant changes have been made to the proposed project. This is frustrating and disappointing. Here again, we will state our concerns and requests to mitigate and resolve them. We believe our concerns to be reasonable, attainable and in the best interest of the existing neighborhood and surrounding community. Concerns: ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1-123 2 1. The area of proposed development is identified as a flood zone. It is our understanding efforts to mitigate this significant issue have been made by raising buildings up on stilts and using permeable materials. However, we would like to request that the impact to the surrounding area (adjacent neighborhoods and drainage systems) in covering the previously absorbent land and natural run‐off be evaluated and any additional flooding risks be addressed. 2. The proposed buildings have rollup doors. These types of doors are generally used for loading and unloading materials from large delivery trucks such as UPS among others. The property is zone “light manufacturing.” This leaves the possibility of a range of noise producing businesses. We request that the rolling doors be removed from the buildings as well as all loading dock areas. 3. Building C butts up to the property line directly adjacent to the neighboring homes and towers over the Neilsen’s home. Request Building C be set back 20 feet from shared property line with the Nielsen’s (toward Architectural Iron Works Building). There is a significant height difference between prospective building C and the adjacent single story homes. It is a requested that a visual analysis (digital view‐SketchUp program) showing the height of building C and the existing homes/cul‐de sac view be provided. Moreover, a shadow study to assess contrast and appropriateness is also requested. 4. Given the different adjacent zoning and differing noise levels, efforts to mitigate noise is requested. Design and incorporation of a sound wall with a 20‐foot setback from the property line of varying heights between the planned development and the existing neighborhoods is requested. It is also requested that neighbors be a part of the selection of materials, plants and trees (of adequate height) to help create an aesthetically pleasing transition between the properties. 5. Parking in this area will be limited. It is highly probable additional parking will be accessed in the existing neighborhood (where Exposition and Woodbridge meet.) The path to the neighborhood and hillside looks right down into the homes along Exposition Court. Request a barrier to mitigate foot traffic between the project and the residential area. 6. Lighting of this complex may not be compatible with the existing surrounding residential. Request analysis of lights to take into consideration bedtime hours. 7. Noise associated with the uses in the “light manufacturing” zone in this complex may not be compatible with the existing residential. Request uses be restricted to businesses with uses compatible with existing residential. 8. The project is only accessible from 2 access points and neither have signal lights (S. Higuera and South at Beebee). Request an analysis of traffic flow impact that includes evaluation of large truck access. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Best regards, Kris and Gina Cindrich ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1-124 1 Scott, Shawna From:Jenni Metzger <j > Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 12:20 PM To:Scott, Shawna Cc:Garret McElveny; Fred Kessler; Shane Weddle; Jim Nielsen; Kristjan Cindrich; kris and gina cindrich; Marti Kesler; Natalie Subject:279 Bridge Street Project Hi Shawna- Thank you for taking the time last month, to meet with a few neighbors and review the resubmitted plans for the 279 Bridge Street project---it was both helpful and appreciated. I did leave the meeting feeling a bit unclear on where the project stands in regards to addressing a handful of concerns from both immediate neighbors as well as the new housing development that is already underway off Bridge Street. When i attended the ARC meeting in June 2015 regarding this project- a great deal of time was spent talking about concerns and considerations- that later were 'shelved' (for lack of a better term) for a later date to discuss. That evening- only the bridge was approved- and now here we are where the bridge is nearly completed and plans have been resubmitted, yet, it appears none of the concerns and considerations have really been addressed. I hope that both the city and the ARC revisit the concerns and find a way that both the greater, existing neighborhood as well as the developers all feel represented and satisfied with a meeting-in-the-middle approach. The top concerns that I feel are unresolved include: *noise- being zoned 'light industrial' it seems reasonable to have a limit to the businesses that could potentially fill the spaces (including delivery trucks and hours of operation, if a winery or brewery fills a space- limited license to serve, etc) *lighting and proximity to existing homes *increased traffic to access the site *since it is being built in a flood plain- where will the displaced water go- could it potentially push water into Exposition Court or back up the already taxed culver? *and pushing back building C (extremely close to the existing home) as well as reconsideration of the 'care taker quarters'----that again, would greatly impact the home that it's balcony would overlook The project has been in the works for years- and the meetings with the developers and immediate neighbors seemed to be respectful and compromises made----until the plans were re-submitted and all prior small changes seemed to be pushed aside. This does not leave a good taste to the neighbors that have been involved. The idea of infill development and creating gathering places for this part of town has been applauded----we (the group of neighbors) have never been against this project- yet, with some of the small changes and tweaks, it seems very possible for the project to be a win-win. I am not familiar with the greater process- however, i really hope both the city and the ARC takes into account, the integrity of the existing neighborhood and works with the developer to help achieve a better balance then what the existing plans showed. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1-125 2 Sincerely- Jenni Metzger ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1-126 1 Scott, Shawna From:City of San Luis Obispo, CA <webmaster@slocity.org> Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 11:18 AM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:plans under consideration near Exposition Drive Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Marti Kessler Site Visitor Email: Dear Ms. Scott, I'm writing about the development that is under review for the open lot that borders Exposition Court. The plans were reviewed some time ago at an ARC meeting, and nearby residents expressed concerns about the set back from their homes. I understand that the set back in the plans is for 12 feet. Another concern brought forward by the people who live near the property is the potential for noise from tenants, and whether there will be any noise restrictions in place. I have an additional concern, since I live on Exposition Drive next to the trailhead for South Hills Open Space. Will our street be used for parking for the businesses, with a trail connecting? I think this would be a problem similar to the parking problem at Bishop Peak trailheads. The issues listed here could have an impact on our neighborhood. I would like to request that they be considered as the project moves forward. Thank you. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1-127 ATTACHMENT 7 ARC1-128 ATTACHMENT 7 ARC1-129 ATTACHMENT 7 ARC1-130 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 EX I S T I N G V I E W F R O M E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E 22 8 3 E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E 22 7 9 E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E ATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-131 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 NE W V I E W F R O M E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E W I T H P R O P O S E D T R E E S BU I L D I N G B 22 8 3 E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E 22 7 9 E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E BU I L D I N G C EA S T W A L L T O T H E FI R S T S T O R Y W I T H 16 ’ - 6 ” S E T B A C K T O PR O P E R T Y L I N E BU I L D I N G C EA S T W A L L T O T H E SE C O N D S T O R Y W I T H 42 ’ - 0 ” S E T B A C K T O PR O P E R T Y L I N E BU I L D I N G A ATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-132 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 NE W V I E W F R O M E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E W I T H O U T P R O P O S E D T R E E S BU I L D I N G B 22 8 3 E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E 22 7 9 E X P O S I T I O N D R I V E BU I L D I N G A BU I L D I N G C EA S T W A L L T O T H E FI R S T S T O R Y W I T H 16 ’ - 6 ” S E T B A C K T O PR O P E R T Y L I N E BU I L D I N G C EA S T W A L L T O T H E SE C O N D S T O R Y W I T H 42 ’ - 0 ” S E T B A C K T O PR O P E R T Y L I N E ATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-133 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 VI E W O F E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N G S A D J A C E N T T O B U I L D I N G C PR O P E R T Y L I N E FE N C E ATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-134 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 BU I L D I N G C A N D A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G S P L A N SCALE: 1” = 20’ EX I S T I N G RE S I D E N T I A L GA R A G E NATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-135 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 VI E W O F E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N G S A D J A C E N T T O B U I L D I N G A PR O P E R T Y L I N E FE N C E ATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-136 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 BU I L D I N G A A N D A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G S P L A N SCALE: 1” = 20’ 2 0 ’ - 0 ” S E T B A C K NATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-137 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 VE R N A L E Q U I N O X - MARCH 20TH 10 A M 6 PM 9 A M 5 PM 8 A M 4 PM NATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-138 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 SU M M E R S O L S T I C E - JUNE 21ST 10 A M 6 PM 9 A M 5 PM 8 A M 4 PM NATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-139 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 AU T U M N A L E Q U I N O X - SEPTEMBER 22ND 10 A M 9 A M 5 PM 8 A M 4 PM NATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-140 805.541.1010 539 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA info@tenoverstudio.com tenoverstudio.com SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION All dimensions to be verified on site BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DATE: 03/28/2017 WI N T E R S O L S T I C E - DECEMBER 21ST 10 A M 9 A M 8 A M 4 PM NATTACHMENT 8 ARC1-141 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER # 0286-2014 1. Project Title: 279 Bridge Street Project Development of a 2.73 acre site with three shell buildings, one on-site caretaker unit, an access bridge over Meadow Creek, and other associated site improvements, and including a modified list of allowed uses. ARCH/ER-0286-2014. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner (805) 781-7176 4. Project Location: 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Devin Gallagher 1680 La Finca Court Arroyo Grande, CA, 93420 Projects Representative Name and Address: John Knight 49 Mariposa Street San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services & Manufacturing ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-142 2 7. Zoning: Manufacturing (M) 8. Description of the Project: The proposed project includes development of a 2.73 acre site with three shell buildings. The three separate buildings would include a total of 22,758 square feet of useable space and 13,525 square feet of coverage. All leasable commercial space will be on ground level and a mezzanine level within Building A, with a second level caretakers unit provided on the second floor of Building C. The site would be accessed from Bridge Street via the flag portion of the site, and across a Conspan Bridge that would be constructed to cross Meadow Creek. Allowed uses on the site would be as specified in the attached Use List, which is a more restrictive list of allowed/conditionally allowed uses proposed by the applicant. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is a 2.73-acre flag lot with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street. The northern “flag” portion of the site is developed with a drive aisle and ten parking spaces that serve an existing building on an adjacent property. The property is an existing legal parcel with no developed access from Bridge Street or any other public rights-of-way. Currently undeveloped, the property is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses. It is bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor, and to the south by an ephemeral swale. There are five existing trees on the site (outside the creek corridor), including: one California Pepper Tree, one Italian Stone Pine, one Coastal Live Oak, one Pepper Tree, and one Chinese Pistache. Proposed tree removals include the Italian Stone Pine and Chinese Pistache, and several trees/willow clusters in the riparian corridor to allow for the bridge crossing. This site is located in an “AO” flood zone. This zone indicates that there is a potential of flooding up to two-feet over the existing grade during the 100 year storm. The site is bordered by existing commercial and industrial uses to the north, by a 17 unit mixed use project to the west and south (currently under construction), by the South Hills Natural Reserve to the Southeast, and two existing single family homes to the east. The Land Use and Zoning maps for the property identify the property as designated Manufacturing. Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows: North: Developed with light industrial and office uses; zoned M and C-S-PD. East: Developed with single-family residences; zoned R-2-S. Southeast: Conservation/Openspace (South Hills); zoned C/OS-40-SP. South: Currently being developed with single-family residences; zoned R-2-PD. West: Currently being developed with live-work units; zoned M-PD. See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-143 3 Architectural Review: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval is required for the site layout and building design. The ARC will concurrently take action on the requested creek setback reduction and this environmental document. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) Central Coast Water Quality Control Board (CCWQCB) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Fish and Game) Army Corps of Engineers ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-144 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 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. X Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services X Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems X Geology / Soils X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME 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). X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall b e subject to the payment of Fish and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X 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)). ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-145 5 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. X 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 of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date For: Derek Johnson Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director Community Development Director 04-29-2015 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-146 6 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 project-specific 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 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-147 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 4, 16, 28 --X-- 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? 16, 17, 28 --X-- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 16, 17, 28 --X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 8, 28 --X-- Evaluation a. The project site is not located within a scenic vista; however, the site is adjacent to the base of the South Hills Natural Reserve. The higher portions of the South Hills are considered a scenic vista within the City. The significant viewshed of this portion of the property begins at approximately the 300 -foot contour and above. Both the existing residential development immediately east of the site and the residential development currently under construction immediately to the south are at similar or higher contours then the proposed development. Because these elevations are well below the 300-foot contour that is considered a significant vista, the proposed development will not result in significant impacts to a scenic vista. b. The project site is not within or adjacent to a local or state scenic highway. c. The proposed development site is screened from Bridge Street behind existing c ommercial properties fronting the right-of-way and thick vegetation within the riparian corridor, which limit visibility to the site from the public roadway. A seasonal creek and its associated vegetation that includes willow trees and native shrubs furth er screen the proposed project site from the roadway and adjacent properties. All proposed structures have been designed to meet or exceed site setback and height limitations, and together with site improvements will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. d. The proposed development includes a mix of building-wall mounted fixtures, bollards, and post fixtures for nighttime illumination. All proposed fixtures will include full cut-off shielding and be dark sky compliant, as required by the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (MC Chapter 17.23 ). Wall mounted fixtures on Buildings A and C are limited to the interior faces of the structures (Building A, north and east facades; Building C, south façade only), and will not cause illumination or glare to cross to adjacent properties. Building B, at the center of the site, has wall mounted fixtures along the east, west and south facades. Along the south façade, which parallels the southern property line, a setback of 32-feet from the closest portion of the structure will ensure that light spillage will not become a nuisance. A mixture of 15-foot high post lights and 3-foot high bollards are proposed to light the pathways, parking, and other outdoor areas. As discussed in greater detail in Section 12: Noise, with the exception of the caretakers unit, hours of operation for the site will be primarily during daylight hours, therefore nighttime illumination will largely be required for security purposes. As there are no intervening buildings between these parking and open yard areas that will be illuminated, the proposed post lights could create a new source of light and glare impacting the adjacent residents and South Hills Natural Reserve. Mitigation Measure AES 1 has been recommended that all post lights shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting. An additional mitigation Measure (AES 2) has been recommended to require that all freestanding bollard fixtures be outside required yard and creek setbacks. This will necessitate relocation of one bollard currently shown within the creek setback immed iately west of the access bridge. Relocation of this bollard outside of the creek setback will ensure that any potentially significant impacts on riparian species are mitigated. The project may include reflective roofing materials including but not limite d to solar panels and metal roofing. Careful design and placement of such materials will reduce off site impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-148 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8 Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light posts shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans or other low focused lighting fixtures as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks. Conclusion: With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures potential impacts associated with light, glare, and aesthetics will be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 18 --X-- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 10, 11 --X-- c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 17 --X-- Evaluation a. The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b. The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for Commercial uses in the General Plan and is zoned C-S (Commercial Services). The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion: No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 19, 28, 29, 32 --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? --X-- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? --X-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? --X-- e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? --X-- Evaluation a), b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-149 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while area s that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. San Luis Obispo is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground -level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state standards for PM10. CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. In April 2012 the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) adopted The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document identifying thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are subject to CEQA, and is designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the SLO APCD believed air pollution emissions would cause significa nt environmental impacts under CEQA. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, comm ercial and industrial development. Under CEQA, the SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality. Construction Significance Criteria: Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbe stos. The SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities. A mitigation measure (AQ 1) has been recommended that all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM be complied with. The project will include extensive grading, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition of this kind of underground equipment can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). A mitigation measure (AQ 2) has been recommended for compliance with all regulatory requirements pertaining to the disturbance, removal or relocation of utility pipelines. Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and b usinesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors a mitigation measure (AQ 3) has been recommended to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402). Construction equipment itself can be the source of emissions, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board or APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4 -4. Truck trips associated with the 2,210 CY of soils that will be exported from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific truck routing selected. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-150 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. A mitigation measure (AQ 4) has been recommended to ensure proper use of subject equipment. Additionally, because the project is in close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, an additional mitigation measure (AQ 5) is recommended to ensure that public health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions. Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts: Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that an industrial park with 22,758 square feet falls below the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (maximum size for exemption stated as 71,000 square feet), therefor it is not necessary to run the more accurate CalEEMod computer model. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses. The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 130,000). Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project. Because of the proximity to sensitive receptors, several uses that would otherwise be allowed or conditionally allowed in the Manufacturing Zone may not be appropriate for this si te. Included in the project description is a modified list of those uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Specific to Air Quality, those uses which have been prohibited on this site (though otherwise allowed in the Manufacturing Zone) include those uses involving vehicle services, fuel or petroleum dealers, laundry/dry cleaning plants, airports/heliport, cemetery, mausoleum or columbarium and heavy manufacturing. Additionally, the level of scrutiny and permitting requirements have been intensified for several other uses, including outdoor BBQ/Grills, photo and film processing labs, printing and publishing, furniture and fixture manufacturing, and outdoor light industrial uses to ensure that specific practices associated with activities are reviewed and conditioned to ensure that they will not create a nuisance. Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List. Because future tenants of the shell structures are unknown at this time, it is also not known what types of equipment that ma y be used in the future. Operational sources may require APCD permits. The following list is provided by the APCD as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendix, page 4 -4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook. New wineries or expanding wineries with the capacity of 26,000 gallons (10,000 cases at twelve 750 milliliter bottles per case) year or more require a Permit to Operate for fermentation and storage of wine; Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; Chemical product processing and or manufacturing; Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator; Food and beverage preparation (primarily coffee roasters); Furniture and fixture products; Metal industries, fabrication; Small scale manufacturing; Public utility facilities; Boilers; Internal combustion engines; Sterilization units(s) using ethylene oxide and incinerator(s); Cogeneration facilities; Tub grinders; and Trommel screens. Most facilities applying for an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate with stationary diesel engines greater than 50 hp , should be prioritized or screened for facility wide health risk impacts. A diesel engine -only facility limited to 20 non- emergency operating hours per year or that has demonstrated to have overall diesel particulate emissions less than or equal to 2 lb/yr does not need to do additional health risk assessment. Specific information regarding permitting requirements is available at the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912. In July 2009, the California Air Pollution Control officers Associations (CAPCOA) adopted a guidance document, “HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPOSED LAND USE PROJECTS,” to provide uniform direction on how to ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-151 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 assess the health risk impacts from and to proposed land use projects. The CAPCOA guidance document focuses on how to identify and quantify the potential acute, chronic, and cancer impacts of sources under CEQA review. As defined in the CAPCOA guidance document there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long -term public health risk impacts and are named Type A and Type B. This project is considered a Type A project, a new proposed land use project that could generate toxic air contaminants that impact sensitive receptors. Air districts across California are uniform in their recommendation to use the significance thresholds that have been established under each district’s “Hot Spots” and permitting programs. The AP CD has defined the excess cancer risk significance threshold at 10 in a million for Type A projects in San Luis Obispo County. If tenants for the site are subject to APCD permitting a screening level health risk assessment will be required to determine the potential health risks to residents in the vicinity of the development. If the screening assessment is above 10 in a million, a more comprehensive health risk analysis will be required. Results of the screening and/or the refined health risk assessment n eed to be provided to the APCD for review and approval. Mitigation measure (AQ 6) is recommended to ensure that screening level health risk assessments are completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. e) The project includes the development of an industrial park which will potentially be occupied by a variety of uses that ar e allowed or conditionally allowed in the Manufacturing zone. As noted in the discussion above, the project description includes a modified list of uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, excluding those uses which have the potential to objectionable odors and other forms of nuisance. Mitigation Measures: Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781 -5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of ide ntified ACM. Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust - control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-152 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781 -5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive re quirements to minimize impacts to ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-153 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. 3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. Conclusion: With recommended air quality mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on air quality. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 4,10, 11, 28, 30 --X-- b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? --X-- c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? --X-- d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? --X-- f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? --X-- Evaluation a-d. The project proposes construction adjacent to Meadow Creek, a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek, with access provided via a new ConspanTM bridge. The project has been designed in substantial compliance with the City’s Creek Setback Ordinance, with no encroachments into the established creek setback area other than minor grading and other modifications encroaching into the established setbacks of the creek channel for installation of the proposed bridge. A discretionary creek setback exception will be required for construction of the proposed pedestrian and vehicle bridge (Source Reference 11: City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 17.16.025). To eliminate the need for lateral over-excavation and re-compaction of soils for structural foundations and bridge abutments, cast-in-drilled- hold concrete pile (caisson) foundation systems can be used. Because of the shallow groundwater conditions, the construction of the caissons will require the use of casing or other similar drilling/construction methods to prevent groundwater from collapsing the sidewalls of drilled piers. A mitigation measure (BIO 1) has been recommended to ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-154 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 ensure that final geotechnical engineering is completed to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of the over - excavated building pads and bridge foundations with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent or within riparian setbacks. Standard Conditions of Approval and Building Code Requirements will ensure that proper precautions are taken to ensure that impacts to the creek will be minimized. The Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the project plans and concurred that with the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures for the proposed development, including the bridge access across Meadow Creek, is supportable as there are no other feasible options to access the property. Natural Communities and Habitat Types The project site is predominantly composed of a non-native annual grassland habitat bordered by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor on the north and an ephemeral swale along the southern border of the site. The Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project (Source Reference 30 & Attachment 9) identifies three distinct plant communities and habitat characteristics within the project site, including disturbed non-native annual grassland, Meadow Creek Arroyo Willow riparian woodland, ephemeral swale, and developed land. The mosaic of remnant patches of habitat within the urbanized landscape around the project area can support a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to the urban environment, such as raccoons, opossums, rodents, and reptiles, and resident and migratory birds. Common passerines observed during field surveys included th e pacific slope flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, spotted towhee, northern mockingbird, and house finch. Given the undeveloped hillsides of surrounding areas and nearby Meadow Park, other wildlife species likely to occur on the site are seasonal migrants and/or residents to the area. The proposed new access road crossing of Meadow Creek and conversion of the annual grassland has the potential to impact ground nesting and/or tree nesting bird species if activities are conducted during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO 2 has been recommended to ensure that appropriate timing and surveys are preformed, and best practices followed, prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbance. Additionally, while impacts on common ground dwelling wildlife and the loss of less than 2.0 acres of non-native grassland is not considered a significant impact, Mitigation Measure BIO 3 is recommended to further reduce the level of this less-than-significant impact on common ground dwelling wildlife species. Although both Meadow Creek and the ephemeral swale are likely considered waters of the U.S. subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and waters of the State by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), i t is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project . Additionally, the project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Special Status Species and Natural Communities of Special Conce rn Search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDD) identified both botanical and wildlife resources within a five-mile radius of the project site. However, most of these botanical and wildlife species are associated with specific soil types or habitat characteristics which are not present on the project site. Given the urban setting with a limited extent of grassland and riparian habitats, and the seasonal nature of Meadow Creek, the project site does not support suitable habitat for any special-status wildlife species. Although San Luis Obispo Creek is a well-documented stream for the South-central California steelhead Distinct Population Segment, there are significant migration barriers located within Meadow Creek, as well as a lack of sufficient stream flow throughout the year, that prevents steelhead migration into Meadow Creek from San Luis Obispo Creek. Field survey results indicated no observations of any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species within the project site. Further, the observable and identifiable plants, habitats, and soils suggest the site does not support habitat for special-status plants. Impact Assessment Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to vegetation and wildlife utilizing disturbed non - native annual grassland and willow riparian woodland habitats from the development of the access bridge crossing to the site and for the development area with an approximately 0.2 acre area remaining within the City-required 20-foot creek setback area. Given the small area of non-native vegetation within the urban landscape, this would be considered a less than significant impact. Approximately 0.08 acre (60-foot by 60-foot) of willow riparian woodland ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-155 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 habitat would be removed for the bridge access across Meadow Creek. Given the value of riparian habitat in all landscape settings, this should be considered a potentially significant impact. The bridge crossing will result in fill of likely waters of the U.S./State and removal of willow and California black walnut riparian habitat that would require regulatory compliance from federal and state agencies. Impacts on seasonal creek and riparian habitat r esulting in fill of waters of the U.S./State should be considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S./State to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measures BIO 4 and BIO 5 are recommended to ensure that all Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulatory compliance and permitting requirements are met. e. No heritage trees or significant native vegetation will be removed with development of the site. There are five existing trees on the site (outside the creek corridor), including: one California Pepper Tree, one Italian Stone Pine, one Coastal Live Oak, one Pepper Tree, and one Chinese Pistache. Proposed tree removals include the I talian Stone Pine and Chinese Pistache, and several trees/willow clusters in the riparian corridor to allow for the bridge crossing. The bridge construction would remove up to two 6-inch diameter at breast height (dbh), four 8 -inch dbh and one 12-inch dbh California black walnut trees. The dbh of the willow trunks impacted include 1) 5”, 5”, 5”, 6”, 7”, 7”, 8”, 8”, 8”, 11”, and 13”; and 2) 3”, 4”, 4”, 9”, and seven stems less than 3” dbh. Both the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager have reviewed the removals and concurred that the proposed landscape plan, including landscape trees and native trees, shrubs and perennials within the creek setback area, provide adequate mitigation. Recommended Mitigation Measure BIO 5 would ensure that any compensatory riparian tree plantings required by CDFW would be implemented. f. The project site is not subject to any known adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks. Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1 st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sit es shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nes t would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals . The salvage and relocation effort for non- listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the prop osed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-156 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16 Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additi onal compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City- required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level. Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the potential impacts associated with the project will be reduced to less than significant impact on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 4, 10, 21,22, 23, 24 --X-- b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) --X-- c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? --X-- d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? --X-- Evaluation a. The project site is an undeveloped open space area located between industrial development, residential areas, and preserved open space. Historical records, including maps and photographs show that during the late 19 th and early 20th century the parcel remained undeveloped while the surrounding properties were developed with residential areas to the north, the Catholic Cemetery to the west, and the Exposition Park Raceway to the east. A Phase I Archeological Resource Inventory was prepared (Attachment 22) which did not identify any historic resources on the site or within the immediate vicinity. b-d. The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained resource maps. An Archeological Resource Inventory of the site was prepared to determine the presence or likelihood of archaeological historical resources. Prehistoric settlements in this area typically are found near reliable water sources, important raw material sources, or important food resources. The low lying floodplain that encompasses the project area does not meet any of these criteria, although it is near locations that do. The surface survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials. There is the limited potential that materials (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and human burials) could be encountered given the proximity to the creek. The City’s Archeological Preservation Guidelines include a requirement that in the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are encountered that work cease until the Community Development Department can ensure that the project can continue within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo and the State of California, and any materials discovered during construction activities are appropriately handled. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-157 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 4,16, 26, 27, 28 I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. --X-- II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X-- IV. Landslides? --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --X-- c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? --X-- d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 [Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010], creating substantial risks to life or property? --X-- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? --X-- Evaluation a, c, d. San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge -valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulti ng or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seismic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seism ic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project sit e has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound b uildings to ensure new structures are built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. Both a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report and Foundation Alternative Memo were prepared for this ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-158 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18 project, which include preliminary conclusions and recommendations related to the development of the property, from a geotechnical and structural standpoint. These analyses conclude that the proposed project, while challenging in its scope and size, is structurally feasible, and that the site seems well-suited for a project of this type. As discussed in Section 4: Biology, to eliminate the need for lateral over excavation and re-compaction of the soils below for structural foundations (both buildings and the proposed bridge), which would encroach into the creek setback adjacent to Building C and expand the area of encroachment surrounding the bridge, cast -in-drilled-hold concrete pile (caisson) foundation systems can be used. Because of the shallow groundwater conditions, the construction of the caissons will require the use of casing or other similar drilling/construction methods to prevent groundwater from collapsing the sidewalls of drilled piers. A mitigation measure, (BIO 1) has been recommended to ensure that final geotechnical engineering is completed to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of the over -excavated building pads and bridge foundations with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent or within riparian setbacks. S tandard Conditions of Approval and Building Code Requir ements will ensure that proper precautions are taken to ensure that impacts to the creek will be minimized. b. This is an undeveloped infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City. Subsurface soils are generally silty sandy clays overlain by silty sandy clay with gravel, with a “Medium” expansion level. In addition to structures and surface parking, the proposed development plan includes areas of permeable hardscape and ground covers. The planting plan is specifically designed to enhance the biology of the riparian channel and near-creek environment, provide visual screening, and to prevent further erosion. The project will not result in loss of topsoil. e. The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic t anks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. Mitigation Measures: Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design - level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, , slabs -on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer. Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on geologic and soil resources. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,12, 28, 32 X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. X Evaluation a, b. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California’s’ Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment centers. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant energy savings, which result i n emissions reductions. SLOAPCD states that GHGs (CO2 and CH4) from all projects subject to CEQA must be quantified and mitigated to the extent feasible. The California Office of Planning and Research has provided the following direction for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions: ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-159 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19 Lead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities; The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful evaluation. All available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts); and, The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic, technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant.” The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2eq emissions; see Air Quality discussion is Section 3 (above) for discussion. The remaining project CO2eq emissions are primarily from building heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands. Utilizing the LEED 2009 Project Checklist for Core and Shell Development, the project proponent identified qualifying project features totaling 110 points, which would qualify the project as LEED Platinum. Short term GHG emissions from construction activities consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Mitigation Measures AQ 3 and AQ 4 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to below a level of significance. In San Luis Obispo there are many ways to get around while reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, both for employees of the site and those patronizing the businesses during the operational phase of the project. Among these are the City’s Bus system, Rideshare programs that facilitate car and vanpooling, and the intricate bicycle transportation network. Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage for lighting. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enf orced with new construction. So although Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that an industrial park smaller than 36,000 square feet is below the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (proposed development includes three buildings totally 22,758 square feet ), running the more accurate CalEEMod computer model identifies that the operational phase impacts will likely be less than the APCD’s thresholds in Table 3 -2 of the CEQA Handbook. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses. The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 113,000 square feet). Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 10, 11, 29 --X-- b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? --X-- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? --X-- --X-- d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 31 --X-- ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-160 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 10, 17 --X-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? --X-- g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 3, 28 --X-- h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? --X-- Evaluation a. Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disp osed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria. Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or would be used. It is necessary to differentiate between the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material. Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility. Construction Phase. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, because such use must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Operational Phase. The proposed project is a shell industrial park located in the Manufacturing (M) zone, which would allow or conditionally allow a variety of uses. The site’s physical location, directly adjacent to both Meadow Creek and residential uses, renders several of the otherwise permissible uses inapprop riate due to the potential of exposure of the public and the environment to hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. As discussed in Section 3: Air Quality, included in the project description is a modified list of tho se uses ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-161 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21 which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Specific to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, those uses which have been prohibited on this site (though otherwise allowed in the Manufacturing Zone) include those uses involving vehicle services, fuel or petroleum dealers, laundry/dry cleaning plants, airports/heliport, and heavy manufacturing. Additionally, the level of scrutiny and permitting requirements have been intensified for several other uses, including photo and film processing labs, printing and publishing, furniture and fixture manufacturing, and light industrial uses to ensure that specific practi ces associated with activities are reviewed and conditioned to ensure that they will not create a nuisance. Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List. b. As discussed in Impacts a, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed project or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These re gulations establish standards by which hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of reg ulations. c. The proposed project is a shell industrial park, and is located 0.30 miles from the nearest corner of Hawthorne Elementary School, at the intersection of Hutton and Branch Streets. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a shell industrial park, and a truncated list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses has been included in the project description to ensure that individual uses at the site would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing school. d. The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 309 South Street, the former McCarthy Steel, approximately 500 feet northeast of the project site. That site is listed on the Cortese State Water Resources Control Board GEOTRACKER database due to the presence of leaking underground Tank (LUSK) Cleanup Sites. That project is considered closed; therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site. e, f. The project is not located within any airport land use plan area as it is at the foot of the South Hills and outside any flight pattern. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g. The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans . Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan are considered less than significant. h. The project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and although directly adjacent to the South Hills Open Space is not located within a wildland hazard area. The surrounding land is largely developed with urban and residential uses, and is set back from the creek corridor as required by the Conservation and Op en Space Element. The proposed project will have no impact on the placement of people or structures ne xt to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 6, 14, 15,17, 25,28 --X-- b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre -existing --X-- ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-162 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 22 nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? --X-- d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? --X-- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? --X-- f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? --X-- g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? --X-- j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 11, 12, 30 --X-- Evaluation a, c- f, i. The project site is currently vacant except for a small red bricked parking area and drive aisle on the north panhandle of the site, and is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses with an average slope of less than two percent. It is bordered to the north with the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and on the south with an ephemeral swale. The site is within an AO flood zone with a sheet flow up to 2-feet deep. As such, the development is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations. Although the project includes less than 22,000 square feet of impervious area, due to its proximity to a blueline creek and location in the 100-year floodplain the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and Post Construction Requirements for storm water control. Under these standards, the projects where Impervious Area ≥ 22,000 SF and in Watershed Management Zone 1 shall meet Post Construction Requirements 1 – 4 as follows: 1) Site Design and Runoff Reduction, 2) Water Quality Treatment, 3) Runoff Retention, and 4) Peak Management. For the SLO City/WWMP drainage criteria to be accommodated, Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations require the analysis to verify that there will be: 1) No change in the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 & 2 year peak flow runoff exiting the property, 2) Use of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize potential release of sediments and clarify storm flows in minor storm events to reduce pollutants moving downstream into San Luis Creek, and 3) City Standard Criteria for Source Control of Drainage and Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 10 10, “Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to implement operation or source control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality Association or other accepted standards. The on-site watersheds or drainage management areas, when developed will be a mix of hard surfaced roofs and paving, porous pavers, gravel surface and landscaping, as depicted in the September 2014 Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. With one exception, the buildings are proposed to be constructed using a flow-under concept, with an open path under the structures to allow the free flow of storm water. For the slab -on-grade building the area is blocked off as an ineffective flow area. A “train” of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed to mitigate the potential pollutant load. These include the use of the perimeter bioswale or retention basins below the buildings, site design and efficient irrigation practices, roof runoff controls, use of pervious pa vements with gravel storage beds, infiltration basins beneath ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-163 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 23 buildings A and B, and a vegetated swale along the projects southern perimeter. Based on modeling contained in the report, the Consulting Engineer concluded that the proposed BMPs are adequate to mitigate the increased pollutant load and that the project as proposed will not adversely impact flood levels in the area. The Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis prepared by Keith Crow, PE, PLS, September 2014, conclude the project’s water flows can adequately be mitigated with proposed BMPs from preconstruction to post- construction, and complies with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, Waterways Management Plan, LID storm water treatment requirements, and Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. Compliance with the Waterways Management Plan is sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas of water quality and hydrology. The Public Works Department has determined that the proposed improvemen ts identified in the Crow Analysis are sufficient to avoid drainage impacts on-site, upstream, or downstream. b. The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources. Groundwater recharge will also be maintained through the implementation of best management practices. Roof runoff will be released to either the perimeter bioswale or to shallow detention basins located beneath the buildings. Each basin will contain 12-inches of clean gravel and 24-inches of bioretention soil media to facilitate treatment. All walks and decks are elevated and are permeable with the grade underneath designed to either infiltrate naturally or sheet flow to the detention basins or the perimeter bioswale. The eastern parking area will be treated by a parking lot bioswale and porous pavement with secondary treatment occurring in existing brambles swale. g, i. Meadow Creek crosses through the northern portion of the project site. The majority of the site is within the boundaries of the area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm with inundation depths of up to 2-feet (AO 2’ depth Zone). Both the northernmost extent and southeast corner of the site are somewhat higher elevation and are within the XB Zone, which is subject to a 0.2% annual chance of flooding . As discussed above, the project has been designed with elevated structures, retention basins, and permeable structures to ensure that development will not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. Compliance with City standards will be sufficient to ensure that the proposed project does not endanger structures on this and other adjoin ing sites. i, j. The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from any known levee or dam, or potential seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 4, 10, 28 --X-- b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? --X-- Evaluation a. The proposed development project is designed to utilize an infill development site and fit among existing manufacturing and residential development. Structures and project amenities are contained within the developable portion of the site without encroachment into sensitive creek setback areas, and will not physically divide an established community. b. With approval of necessary project entitlements, including environmental review and Architectural Review, the proposed project will not conflict with applicable City of San Luis Obispo land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with City ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-164 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 24 General Plan Designation and zoning for the project site, regulations and development standards. As discussed in Section 3: Air Quality and Section 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, included in the project description is a modified list of those uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List. Approval of the access bridge will require findings be made for a Creek Setback Reduction as provided in Municipal Code Section 17.16.025.G4, which include that the location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat; that the structure will not limit the city’s design options for providing flood control measures; the exception will not prevent the implementation of city - adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environment al effects of implementing such plans; that there are circumstances applying to the site which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity; that the exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or be detrimental to the public welfare; that site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project, and; redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. These standards will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, who will take final action on the project. c. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 4 --X-- b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? --X-- Evaluation a, b. No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 3, 9, 10, 31 --X-- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? --X-- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? --X-- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? --X-- ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-165 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 25 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 27 --X-- 12 --X-- Evaluation a, c. The Noise Guidebook was adopted to help assess noise exposure and ensure project designs meet the standards of the City’s General Plan Noise Element. The Guidebook applies to noise from road, traffic, the railroad, and aircraft , as well as noise generated by various uses. Noise exposure information covers the major transportation noise sources, and a representative sampling of stationary sources, identified for study when the Noise Element was last updated. The Guidelines describe the compatibility of different land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of ldn or CNEL. An exterior noise environment of 50 to 60 Ldn or CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for residential uses according to those guidelines. The Guidelines also consider the occupational noise exposure as well as noise exposure away from work environments, recognizing an exterior noise level of 55dB Ldn as a goal to protect the public from hearing loss, activity interference, sleep disturbance, and annoyance. Figure 5 of the Noise Element indicates that existing and build-out noise levels at the site are below 60 decibels (dB) Ldn. The proposed shell buildings and exterior spaces could house a variety of allowed and conditionally allowed uses, which would be required to conform to adopted noise standards. The proposed site layout has the potential to be problematic for future noise-generating uses, where buildings and building openings are adjacent to existing residences. As currently designed, Buildings A and C are sited with minimal setbacks to adjacent residences, while the loading dock for Building B is located fronting the property line shared with adjacent residential zoning and an approved residential project that is under construction. A mitigation measure (NOI 1) has been recommended that loading facilities be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Additionally, a six-foot privacy fence has been proposed which would assist in attenuating noise generated on the site. The Guidebook indicates that noise level estimates should be taken as worst case estimates as they do not take into account shielding by buildings or landforms which can reduce noise exposure up to 14 dB. The Noise Element indicates that for residential uses noise levels of 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas. As discussed in Section 3: Air Quality, Section 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 10: Land Use and Planning, included in the project description is a modified list of those uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Potential impacts from these individual uses will therefore be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that exterior noise levels will be less than 60 dB when attenuation afforded by building features and site design are taken into account. Interior noise levels of less than 45dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction techniques. Excepting for the caretakers unit, commercial hours of operation will be limited to approximately 7 am to 6pm, Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List. b. Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project include a variety of potential uses, as described in the applicant’s proposed list of uses, some of which could involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in some levels of ground vibration. However, such uses would be subject to individual case-by-case evaluation through the use permit process, ensuring that impacts from future activities woul d not become a nuisance and would be less than significant. Short-term increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the construction-related activities for the proposed project are anticipated. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of equipment, such as forklifts, concrete mixers, and haul trucks. Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed by City ordinance, impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant. d. Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed shell buildings. Noise levels during construction may be temporarily higher than existing noise levels in the vicinity. Although there would ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-166 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 26 be intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, noise impacts would be less than significant because the construction would be short term and restricted to the typical working hours, and temporary increased noise levels allowed by City ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.12: Noise Control). e, f. The project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the nearest point of San Luis Air Port, but is not located within any airport land use plan area as it is at the foot of the South Hills and outside any flight pattern. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Mitigation Measures: Noise Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise -sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on area noise levels. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 29 --X-- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? --X-- --X-- Evaluation: a. The proposed project includes construction of a business park appropriate for a variety of light industrial and manufacturing uses. The three buildings include 22,758 square feet, including one 2 -bedroom caretakers unit. The new employment generated by the project would not be considered substantial, nor would the addition of one residential unit to the existing housing stock. Considering the surrounding area is currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure are required to serve the project. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth. b, c. The site is currently undeveloped. Therefore no housing would be displaced with the proposed development. Conclusion: No impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 17, 29 --X-- b) Police protection? --X-- c) Schools? --X-- d) Parks? --X-- e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? --X-- f) Other public facilities? --X-- Evaluation ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-167 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 27 a. The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already served by the City for fire protection. The project would not substantially alter the number of housing units or population in the city and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve t he site. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. b. The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The development of the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. c. Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the SLOCUSD. These fees would be directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. As the proposed structures are for commercial use, no new students are anticipated to be associated with this development. d. Because the project is primarily commercial in nature, it would result in a very minor increase in the number of people utilizing park facilities relative to the city’s existing population, and significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project is within close proximity to Meadow Park and the South Hills Open Space, which are within easy walking distance, and would have a less than significant impact on parks. e. As noted above and discussed in Section 16: Transportation/ Traffic, the project will not significantly add to demand on the circulation system. Because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively minor increase in users relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of transportation infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 10, 29 --X-- b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? --X-- Evaluation: a. The project will result in a minor demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Given that the project is largely commercial in nature no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space, maintenance or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy. Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new projects on the City’s recreational facilities. b. The project includes a small area near the creek for employees to take breaks and enjoy the site , including picnic table and landscaping. No other recreational facilities are proposed or will be necessitated. Conclusion: Less than significant impact ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-168 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 28 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1, 16, 17, 20, 28 --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? --X-- c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? --X-- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? --X-- e) Result in inadequate emergency access? --X-- f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? --X-- Evaluation a, b. Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located east of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Bridge Street and South Higuera; with pedestrian and bicycle access also available via a bike path connection at the western end of Bridge Street to Exposition Drive and the Meadow Park bicycle path network. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs, gut ters, sidewalks, and on-street parking. The project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does not significantly add to demand on the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other agency’s plans for congestion management. As currently proposed, the project will generate approximately 21 AM peak trips and 23 peak PM trips, which are well within the available capacity of the existing street network. ITE Code AM Rate AM Trips PM Rate PM Trips 23,300 sf light manufacturing 110 0.92 21 0.97 23 These vehicular trips will be added to local and area streets. While existing streets have sufficient capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels of service , the project location and anticipated business mix make it a prime candidate for use of non -motorized forms of transportation, particularly walking and biking. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to increased vehicular trips and does not conflict with performance standards provided in City adopted plans or policies. The project will also contribute to overall impact mitigation for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program. c. The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-169 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 29 d. The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, including Bridge Street. The project would improve require through traffic through an existing parking lot, but would not significantly alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project driveway and bridge would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely and adequately serve potential users of the site. Because the project is a similar use to those in the immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses. e. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. As proposed, the project bridge access would provide adequate access for all vehicles (including emergency vehicles), bicyclists, and pedestrians. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access. f. The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within the City’s urban center, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services. South Higuera is served by the SLO City bus lines for Routes 2, 4 and 5, which are located within walking distance on South Higuera. The projects central location is also convenient for walking and biking, with a bike path at the eastern end of Bridge Street connecting the area to Exposition Drive, Meadow Park, and points east. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage. The proposed project includes short term bicycle racks near each of the building entrances and long term bicycle storage within the buildings. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 6, 7, 14,16, 25,26, 27, 28 --X-- b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? --X-- c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? --X-- d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? --X-- e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? --X-- f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? --X-- g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? --X-- Evaluation a-c, e. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service, which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities which could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-170 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 30 The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standard s in the Uniform Plumbing Code and City standards. Sewer impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of the project. d. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as ant icipated by the General Plan. Per the General Plan Water/Wastewater Element and the 2014 Water Resource Status Report, the City has sufficient water supplies for build-out of the City’s General Plan. The incremental change is not considered to be significant. Water impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for water supplies and water facilities, such as the City’s water treatment plan. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of the project. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. f, g. The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access and access to ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. San Luis Garbage has reviewed the location and size of enclosures and determined that they are sufficient in size to handle garbage and recycling. Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by thi s project, consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf) recycling facilities have been accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? --X-- The project is an infill commercial development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources will be less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? --X-- The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts tha t ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-171 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 31 could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics (AES 1-2), air quality (AQ 1-6), biological resources (BIO 1-5), cultural resources (CULT 1-2), and noise (NOI 1). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --X-- Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A 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. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions of the project. N/A 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, December 2014 2. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 3. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012 4. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006 5. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015 6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010 7. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department 8. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 9. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 11. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015 12. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012 13. 2013 California Building Code 14. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 15. Water Resources Status Report, October 2014, on file with in the Utilities Department 16. Site Visit 17. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge 18. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 19. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012 20. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, on file in the Community Development Department 21. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map 23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 24. Archeological Resource Inventory, Bertrando & Bertrando, July 2014 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-172 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 32 25. Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis, September 2014 26. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Beacon Geotechnical, April 2012 27. Geotechnical Engineering Report Alternative Foundation Addendum, Beacon Geotechnical, March 16, 2015 28. Project Plans, dated November 14, 2014 29. Applicant project statement/description 30. Biological Resources Assessment, Sage Institute, July 2014 31. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm 32. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Referral Comments, via email March and April 2015 Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Plans 3. Use List 4. Archeological Resource Inventory, Bertrando & Bertrando, July 2014 5. Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis, September 2014 6. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Beacon Geotechnical, April 2012 7. Geotechnical Engineering Report Alternative Foundation Addendum, Beacon Geotechnical, March 16, 2015 8. Applicant project statement/description 9. Biological Resources Assessment, Sage Institute, July 2014 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light post shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans. Monitoring Plan, AES 1: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for consistency with City standards and to ensure that light spillage into the creek corridor or across property lines will not occur, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks. Monitoring Plan, AES 2: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall ensure that all lighting is outside required yard and creek setbacks, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-173 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 33 Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-174 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 34 e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-175 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 35 Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. 3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-176 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 36 Monitoring Plan, AQ 6: Confirmation with compliance with APCD regulations shall be provided with business permit applications as applicable. All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks. Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Community Development staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the final geotechnical engineering report and use of caisson foundations, and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-177 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 37 disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for non-listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any Corps permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CWA/Corps compliance. Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City-required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any CDFW permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-178 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 38 shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CDFW compliance. Geology & Soils Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits. Noise Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise-sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Monitoring Plan, NOI 1: The Architectural Review Commission will review the site plan to ensure loading docks are located to attenuate generated noise effect on adjacent residential land. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-179 M C/OS-40 M M R-2 R-4 R-4-SP C/OS-5 C-S-MU C/OS-40-SP C-S-PD R-4 R-2-PD C/OS-40-SP R-1-SP R-2-SP R-2-SP R-2 R-1-SP C-S-MU R-2-SP C-S R-4-SP M-PD R-1-SP C-S-MU SOUTH BRIDGE BE E B E E EX P O S I T I O N CORRIDA W O O D B R I D G E PA R K E R VICINITY MAP File No. 0286-2014279 BRIDGE ¯ ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-180 KEITH V. CROWE, PE, PLS CONSULTING ENGINEER P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis 279 Bridge Street Prepared at the request of Devin Gallagher Prepared by Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer PO Box 832 Atascadero, Ca 93423 9‐15‐14 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-181 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Introduction and Background This is a preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic report for 279 Bridge Street. The project proposes three buildings totaling 22,758 square feet on a 2.72 acre site zoned “Manufacturing”. The buildings are designed as “shells” to allow a variety of uses that are permitted in the Manufacturing (M) Zone. The project is located in an A0 flood zone with a sheet flow up to 2’ deep. The project is adjacent to Tract 2560 – the Bridge Street subdivision. This report assumes Tract 2560 has been constructed. The site is currently vacant and primarily covered with non‐native annual grasses with an average slope of less than two percent. It is bordered to the north with the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and on the south with an ephemeral swale. There is an existing red bricked parking area on the north section of the site where access is taken from Bridge Street. This parking area is currently leased to the adjacent property owned by King Ventures. Access to the site will be provided via construction of a new bridge over Meadow Creek. This bridge would be accessed from Bridge Street by driving through the existing parking red brick parking lot. There are two drainage related issues covered by this report; on site drainage and mitigation, and the impact of the project on the water surface profile of Meadow Creek. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-182 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Location Map/Description Site ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-183 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Watershed Description/Delineation Meadow Creek Watershed The Meadow Creek watershed is shown in the figure below. Included in the watershed are portions of developed areas within the city and steep terrain of the mountains east of the city and southerly of the project. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-184 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Onsite Watersheds The onsite watersheds or drainage management areas, when developed will be a mix of hard surfaced roofs and paving, porous pavers, gravel surface and landscaping. The onsite watersheds are shown in the figure below. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-185 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Hydrologic Analysis Meadow Creek Watershed The Meadow Creek watershed hydrology has been well documented in the drainage reports for Tract 2560. The flow rates in Meadow Creek are summarized in the table below. Onsite Watershed Because runoff from the onsite watershed must be detained to facilitate mitigation of increased runoff and the potential for increased pollution in the watershed. The computer program HydroCad is used to analyze the runoff as it travels through the various systems. For this analysis the TR‐55 method using the SCS Urban Hydrograph and rainfall hyetographs from the Waterway Management plan are used to develop the results. A range of storms is analyzed…from the 2‐year through the 100‐year storm. Curve numbers (CN’s) are documented in the HydroCad report. The runoff rate from the entire site for the various storms for both the predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions are summarized below. The complete HydroCad report is in the appendix to this report. BMP’s to mitigate the increase in runoff and to remove pollutants include storage basins, porous pavers and bioswales. These are discussed in more detail in the mitigation section of this report. Flow Rate at Bridge Ret freq Q (cfs) 2‐yr 320 10‐yr 586 25‐yr 747 50‐yr 867 100‐yr 972 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-186 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ It is obvious the proposed BMP’s will adequately mitigate increased runoff. As the site plans are further developed the BMP’s will be optimized to meet the detention requirement and minimize cost. Hydraulic Analysis Onsite Facilities On‐site storm drains are localized as part of the BMP’s and handle minor flows leaving these facilities. The adequacy of the drains are demonstrated in the HydroCad analysis. There are no drains proposed to carry surface water to the BMP’s. No further analysis is necessary. Meadow Creek A ConSpan bridge is proposed to provide site access over Meadow Creek. No further creek improvements are proposed. HEC‐RAS is used to demonstrate the proposed bridge and project development will not adversely impact the flood levels. It is important to note the site is located in an A0 zone with up to 2’ of sheet flow. The rules related to A0 zones apply to flood mitigation requirements. Although the resulting calculated water surface profiles closely reflect the AO flood levels they are not the defining values. With one exception the buildings proposed on the site are built using a flow‐under concept…there is an open path under these buildings to allow the free flow of storm water. For the slab‐on grade building the area is “blocked off” as an ineffective flow area. The figure below shows the comparison of predevelopment and postdevelopment water surface profiles. The complete HEC‐RAS report is in the appendix to this report. Return Freq (yrs) Predevelopment Postdevelopment 2 1.33 0.53 10 1.05 2.51 25 3.2 1.28 50 3.77 1.47 100 4.24 1.66 Runoff (cfs) ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-187 P. O . B OX 83 2 • A TA S C A D E R O CA 93 4 2 3 ‐08 3 2 • P HO N E (V O I C E AN D FA X ) : (8 0 5 ) 46 4 ‐09 7 5 E ‐M AI L : KV C RO W E @C HA R T E R . N ET OR KV C RO W E @G RO U N D U P. B Z W EB : WW W .G RO U N D U P .B Z 70 0 80 0 90 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 0 13 0 0 14 0 0 1500 15 6 . 0 15 6 . 5 15 7 . 0 15 7 . 5 15 8 . 0 15 8 . 5 15 9 . 0 15 9 . 5 16 0 . 0 16 0 . 5 16 1 . 0 16 1 . 5 16 2 . 0 16 2 . 5 16 3 . 0 16 3 . 5 16 4 . 0 16 4 . 5 16 5 . 0 16 5 . 5 16 6 . 0 16 6 . 5 16 7 . 0 16 7 . 5 16 8 . 0 Br i d g e S t b i g g e r b r i d g e P l a n : 1 ) P l a n 4 5 9 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 4 2 ) P l a n 4 5 9 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 Ma i n C h a n n e l D i s t a n c e ( f t ) E l e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS PF 1 - Plan 45 WS PF 1 - Plan 45 Ground LOB ROB Ground Me a d o w C r e e k B r i d g e S t N e i g h b Tr a c t 25 6 0 Br i d g e Pr o j ec t Br i d g e .0 7 ’ ma x ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-188 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Geomorphic, Geotechnical and Structural Analysis of Existing and Proposed Drainage Improvements Structural analysis of the ConSpan culvert is premature at this point and will be provided by the manufacturer with project construction plans. There are no geomorphic or geotechnical issues. Risk Assessment/Impacts Discussion There are three obvious potential risks and impacts; the 100‐year flood, the potential increase to flood levels and the potential for pollutants to enter the runoff. These are discussed below. Enhancement/Mitigation BMP’s are proposed to mitigate increased runoff from the site and the potential increase in pollutant load in the runoff. To mitigate the increase in runoff, storm water detention and infiltration are proposed. Water is stored in surface detention ponds located under raised buildings. Infiltration is also achieved with porous pavement located in parking areas and in both the perimeter bioswale and the parking lot bioswale shown on the sheet C1. Storm water runoff is limited to predevelopment values for all “design” storms. We have performed infiltration testing for this site and test results indicated a minimum of 1” per hour – see Infiltration Report prepared by Beacon dated July 25th, 2014 . A Hydrologic Soils Group C was incorporated into the Post‐ Construction Water Balance calculations for this project based on these infiltration test results. For each project watershed area (1 thru 11 per Hydrology Report), a Post‐ Construction Water Balance Calculator spreadsheet is attached and included in the appendix of this report to demonstrate runoff reduction and associated ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-189 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ treatment for the 95th percentile storm. These spreadsheets have been adapted to the 95th percentile storm as indicated in the spreadsheets. A “train” of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used to mitigate the potential pollutant load. First, a large fraction of the runoff comes from the building roofs via downspouts. The roof runoff will be released to either the perimeter bioswale or to a shallow detention basin located under the buildings. Buildings have been elevated to address flood issues. This presented an opportunity to use this under‐utilized area of the building for stormwater detention with appropriate considerations for waterproofing and saturated soils conditions. Also due to groundwater levels, large shallow detention basins where necessary to prevent groundwater contamination. Each detention basin contains 12” of clean gravel and 24” of bioretention soil media to facilitate treatment. All walks and decks are elevated and are permeable with the grade underneath designed to either infiltrate naturally or sheet flow to the detentions basins or the perimeter bioswale. The eastern parking area will be treated by a parking lot bioswale and porous pavement with secondary treatment occurring in existing brambles swale. Below are the BMP’s used and their associated effectiveness at addressing pollutants of concern which are primarily sediment and oil/grease: SD‐10 & 12 – Site Design and Efficient Irrigation: 1. Clustered development 2. Preservation of brambles 3. Landscape is Low Water Use 4. Irrigation water provided to landscape is drip irrigation primarily with spray heads only used in small turf area used for recreation. 5. Rain‐Check Sensor provided. SD‐11 – Roof Runoff Controls – a significate portion of roof run‐off is diverted to detention basins with gravel beds and bioretention soil media located under raised structures. Affective at maximizing infiltration, providing retention, slowing runoff and contain pollutants. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-190 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ SD‐20 ‐ Pervious Pavements with gravel storage bed – 80% TSS Removal – located in areas where the highest pollutant loads will occur. Pervious pavements such as porous concrete pavers, gravel, non‐grouted brick are used in parking stalls and areas where high pollutant load is expected. TC‐11 – Infiltration Basin – Detention Basins under buildings A & B per plans and Hydrology Report. Provide very high removal effectiveness for pollutant removal. Each basin has 12” of gravel and 24” of suitable bioretention soil integrated below the gravel at the bottom of the basin. TC‐30‐ Vegetated Swale – located at the project southern perimeter. Basically intercepts most runoff not infiltrated by either the porous pavement, detention basins or directly to the surface. Unusual or Special Conditions The project is located in an A0 flood zone with a depth up to 2’ and with groundwater encountered at a minimum depth of six feet below the existing grade per project soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical, Inc dated April 25, 2014. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-191 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Conclusions The project as proposed will not adversely impact flood levels in the area. The BMP’s proposed to mitigate the increased pollutant load meet the requirements for these facilities. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-192 Geotechnical Engineering Report For Proposed Mixed Use Development Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 San Luis Obispo, California April 25, 2012 F-100630 Prepared For Devin Gallagher By Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. P.O. Box 4814 Paso Robles, California 93447 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-193 April 25, 2012 Devin Gallagher 279 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development Bridge Street San Luis Obispo Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report As authorized, we have performed a Geotechnical Study for the above referenced project. The accompanying Geotechnical Engineering Report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory conclusions and recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspects of project design. Our services were performed using the standard of care ordinarily exercised in this locality at the time this report was prepared. Based on our study, it is our opinion that t development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the recommendations of this report are successfully implemented. We have appreciated this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please call if you have any questions, or if we can be of further service. Respectfully submitted, Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. Josh Cwikla P.G. Project Manager Copies: 3-Devin Gallagher 1-Steve Lachaine 1-File San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mixed Use Development Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 San Luis Obispo, California chnical Engineering Report As authorized, we have performed a Geotechnical Study for the above referenced project. The accompanying Geotechnical Engineering Report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory-testing program and ons and recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspects of project design. Our services were performed using the standard of care ordinarily exercised in this locality at the time this report was prepared. Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the recommendations of this report are successfully implemented. We have appreciated this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. if you have any questions, or if we can be of further service. Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. Nicholas A. McClure Civil Engineer F-100630 As authorized, we have performed a Geotechnical Study for the above referenced project. The accompanying Geotechnical Engineering Report presents testing program and ons and recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspects of project design. Our services were performed using the standard of care ordinarily he site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the We have appreciated this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. if you have any questions, or if we can be of further service. McClure ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-194 F-100630 April 25, 2012 1 _________________________________________________________________ • Description This report presents results of a Geotechnical Engineering Study performed for the proposed mixed use development to be located in San Luis Obispo, California. 1. It should be noted that a grading and foundation plan were not provided for the purpose of this report. Prior to any construction, this firm should review the project plans to verify or modify the recommendations offered herein. 2. We anticipate that the site will be developed by building a new access driveway off of Bridge Street. The driveway will cross the drainage tributary running from east to west. A truss style bridge will be placed on new abutments constructed on both sides of the tributary. The bridge is assumed to span approximately sixty (60) feet. The vacant parcel on the south side of the drainage tributary is assumed to be developed for mixed use, consisting of commercial/manufacturing and residential buildings. Grading is assumed throughout the site to raise buildings above any floodplain elevations. At the time of this report, a conceptual plan had not been developed. 3. The proposed structures are assumed to be one (1), two (2) or three (3) stories of CMU Block, wood or steel framed construction. 4. Structural considerations for maximum wall loads of 1.75 kips per square foot and maximum point loads of 18 kips were used as a basis for the recommendations of this report. If actual loads vary significantly from these assumed loads, Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. should be notified as re- evaluation of the recommendations contained herein may be required. • Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose of the geotechnical investigation that led to this report was to evaluate the soil conditions of the site with respect to the proposed development. These conditions include surface and subsurface soil types, expansion potential, settlement potential, bearing capacity, and presence or absence of subsurface water. The scope of our work included: 1. Reconnaissance of the site. 2. Drilling, sampling and logging of seven (7) borings to investigate soils and groundwater conditions. 3. Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from subsurface exploration to determine their physical and engineering properties. 4. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained. 5. Consultation with owner representatives and design professionals. 6. Preparation of this report. PROJECT INTRODUCTION ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-195 F-100630 April 25, 2012 2 Contained in the report are: 1. Discussions on local soil and groundwater conditions. 2. Results of laboratory and field tests. 3. Conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site grading and structural design. • Site Setting 1. The site of the proposed development is located at the far eastern end of Bridge Street and to the south, across the drainage tributary, in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, with the approximate geographical coordinates 35°16’01.28”N and 120°39’57.33”W. See the Vicinity Map in Appendix A. 2. The site is an approximate 2.75 acre vacant parcel located adjacent to a drainage tributary draining from east to west toward San Luis Creek. Topographically, the site is relatively level and located at the base of a hill and situated in an AO Zone on FEMA Flood Zone Maps. 3. The site area for development is currently natural short to tall grasses and weeds. ________________________________________________________ • Evaluation of the subsurface indicates that soils are generally silty sandy clays overlain by silty sandy clay with gravel. • Soils encountered at approximate bearing depths should be designed as Site Classification D in accordance with the local building code. • Expansion determination indicates that the bearing soils lie in the “Medium” range. • Groundwater was encountered at a minimum depth of six (6) feet below the existing grade in our borings. • It should be noted that the groundwater elevation can fluctuate depending upon seasonal changes, rainfall intensity, irrigation practices and other unknown factors. However, based on a study of the surrounding topography and irrigation practices of the existing park and surrounding residential developments, fluctuations in the groundwater elevation is not anticipated. _________________________________________________________________ Seismic Hazards • This portion of Central California is subject to significant seismic hazards from moderate to large earthquake events. Ground shaking resulting from earthquakes is the primary geologic hazard at the project site. Ground displacement resulting from faulting is a potential hazard at or near faults. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS SEISMIC AND LANDSLIDE HAZARDS ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-196 F-100630 April 25, 2012 3 • The site does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone identified on a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone Map. • Faults closest to the site, which would most affect the proposed project: 1. Earthquake-induced vibrations can be the cause of several significant phenomena, including liquefaction in fine sands and silty sands. Liquefaction results in a complete loss of strength and can cause structures to settle or even overturn if it occurs in the bearing zone. If liquefaction occurs beneath sloping ground, a phenomenon known as lateral spreading can occur. Liquefaction is typically limited to the upper 50 feet of the subsurface soils and to soils that have a relative density of less than 70%. 2. Based on the very cohesive nature of native soils found in our boring explorations, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction and/or lateral spreading is low at this site. • Landslide Hazards 1. The site topography and exposed soils types indicate that the potential for landslides is minimal at this site. Furthermore, no evidence of previous landslides was observed at the site. _________________________________________________________________ • Seismic Design Conditions The following estimated ground motion parameters have been established using the methods outlined in the 2010 California Building Code with reference to the acceleration contour maps provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (NSHMP). These ground motion parameters represent the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) spectral response of seismic events experiencing 5 percent damped acceleration and having a 2 percent probability of exceedance within a 50 year period. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Nearby Active Faults Approximate Distance (km) Magnitude MW Los Osos Fault San Luis Range Fault Rinconada Fault Hosgri Fault San Andreas Fault Zone 2.8 8.6 12.2 23.4 59.5 6.9 7.1 7.5 7.3 8.0 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-197 F-100630 April 25, 2012 4 _________________________________________________________________ The site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the recommendations contained herein are properly implemented into the project. • General Grading 1. Grading, at a minimum, should conform to Chapter 18, and any additional locally approved appendices relating to grading, of the 2010 California Building Code. 2. The existing ground surface should be initially prepared for grading by removing all vegetation, trees, large roots, debris, non-complying fill and all other organic material. Voids created by removal of such material should not be backfilled unless the underlying soils have been observed by a representative of this firm. 3. The bottom of all excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to processing or placing fill. 4. Fill and backfill placed at near optimum moisture in layers with loose thickness not greater than eight (8) inches should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D 1557 Test Method. 5. Import soils used to raise site grade should be equal to or better than on- site soils in strength, expansion and compressibility characteristics. Import soils can be evaluated, but will not be pre-qualified by the geotechnical engineering firm. Final comments on the characteristics of the import soils will be offered after the material is at the project site. 2010 California Building Code Seismic Parameters Parameter Value Seismic Design Category D Site Class D Short Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.415 1-second period spectral acceleration, S1 0.517 Short period site coefficient, Fa 1.000 1-second period site coefficient, Fv 1.500 Adjusted short period spectral acceleration, Sms 1.415 Adjusted 1-second period spectral acceleration, Sm1 0.776 Short period design spectral acceleration, SDS 0.943 1-second period design spectral acceleration, SD1 0.517 DESIGN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-198 F-100630 April 25, 2012 5 6. Roof draining systems should be designed so that water is not discharged onto bearing soils or near structures. 7. Final site grade should be such that all water is permanently diverted away from the structure and is not allowed to pond. The ground immediately adjacent to the building shall be sloped 5% for a minimum of ten (10) feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. All diverted water is to be directed to an approved drainage. Alternative grading methods can be found in C.B.C. Section 1804.3. 8. It should be noted that uniform soil moisture conditions around the perimeter of the structure will help decrease the potential for differential swelling and heaving associated with expansive soils. Post-construction care should be taken to create long-term landscaping and irrigation solutions that do not allow for frequent changes in soil moisture content or irregular application of water around the perimeter of the structure. 9. The above referenced site drainage conditions should be maintained over the course of the life of the structure. Proper long term performance of the foundation and building pad may be compromised if the surrounding site drainage and grading is adversely modified. 10. It is recommended that Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. be retained to provide intermittent geotechnical engineering services during site development, grading and foundation construction phases of the work to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 11. Plans and specifications should be provided to Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. prior to grading. Plans should include the grading plans, and foundation details. Structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans. 12. Should soils become unstable during grading due to excessive subsurface moisture, alternatives to correct instability may include aeration or the use of gravels and/or geotextiles as stabilizing measures. Recommendations for stabilization should be provided by this firm as needed during construction. 13. All water associated with drainage and runoff should not be discharged onto slope faces. All outflow of drainage structures and drainage facilities should be designed by the project Civil Engineer to minimize erosion. • Site Development – Grading Pads & Foundation Excavations Bridge Abutments: 1. In order to provide a stable platform for abutment foundations, soils should be over-excavated to a depth of four (4) feet below existing grade, two (2) feet below the bottom of foundations, or 75% of the deepest fill thickness, ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-199 F-100630 April 25, 2012 6 whichever is deeper. The overexcavation should extend to a distance of four (4) feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed foundation. The resulting surface should be scarified to a depth of one (1) foot, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density before installing a layer of Propex GEOTEX 315ST stabilizer fabric, or equivalent, across the entire pad site. The stabilizer fabric overlap should be a minimum of two (2) feet. The remaining soils may then be replaced in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 92% of maximum dry density. Care should be taken as not to tear or bunch stabilizer fabric during the soil recompaction process. Buildings: 1. Due to the presence of soft surficial soils at the proposed bearing depths and a high groundwater elevation, soils should be over-excavated to a depth of four (4) feet below existing grade, two (2) feet below the bottom of foundations, or 75% of the deepest fill thickness, whichever is deeper. The overexcavation should extend to a distance of five (5) feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structures (including covered deck areas). The resulting surface should be scarified to a depth of one (1) foot, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density before installing a layer of Propex GEOTEX 315ST stabilizer fabric, or equivalent, across the entire pad site. The stabilizer fabric overlap should be a minimum of two (2) feet. The remaining soils may then be replaced in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density. Care should be taken as not to tear or bunch stabilizer fabric during the soil recompaction process. 2. Excavations Note – Any excavated material from foundation or drainage systems should be properly recompacted in accordance with all the recommendations for engineered fill. Alternatively, excavated soil may be hauled off site when adequate placement area is not available at the project location. 3. Areas outside the building area to receive fill, exterior slabs-on-grade, sidewalks and paving should be overexcavated to a depth of one (1) foot. The exposed surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted. 4. On-site soils may be used for fill once they are cleaned of all organic material, rock, debris and irreducible material larger than eight (8) inches. 5. Although not encountered in our borings, should any trash, debris or subsurface structures be encountered during grading, removals will be necessary to adequate depths and horizontal limits as recommended by this firm at the time of grading. 6. Grading inspections shall be performed in accordance with the 2010 CBC Tables 1704.7. See Appendix B for project specific grading observation requirements. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-200 F-100630 April 25, 2012 7 • Paving 1. All finished subgrade soils in areas to be paved should be scarified to a depth of one (1) foot, moisture conditioned and re-compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density. Any soft or loose areas encountered should be removed to a depth to satisfy the representative of this firm. Finished pavement sections should be composed of Class II Base compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density overlain by compacted asphalt. The actual Traffic Index should be determined by the project Civil Engineer. Pavement Sections R-Value Traffic Index Class II Base (in.) Asphalt (in.) 16 5.0 9.0 2.5 16 6.0 11.5 3.0 16 7.0 14.0 3.5 • Site Development – Slope Construction 1. All hillside grading and construction of fill slopes should conform to the minimum standards listed in Chapter 18 of the California Building Code. It is recommended that a representative of this firm review the grading plans prior to grading and site development. 2. Fill slopes should be keyed and benched into firm natural ground when the existing slope to receive fill is 10:1, horizontal to vertical, or steeper. The keys should be tilted into the slope, should be a minimum of one equipment width wide, and should extend a minimum of three (3) feet deep at the outside edge. 3. Fill slopes should be overfilled, compacted and cut back to planned configurations. This will yield better compaction on the slope faces than other methods. 4. Lined drainage swales and down drains should be provided at the tops of all cut and fill slopes to divert drainage away from the slope faces. 5. Cut and fill slopes should not be constructed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Setbacks of structures from slopes should be maintained as per the C.B.C. • Site Development – Utility Trenches 1. Utility trench backfill should be governed by the provisions of this report relating to minimum compaction standards. In general, service lines inside of the property lines may be backfilled with native soils and compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density. Backfill of offsite service lines will be subject to the specifications of the jurisdictional agency or this report, whichever is more stringent. 2. A representative of this firm is to monitor compliance with these recommendations. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-201 F-100630 April 25, 2012 8 • Structural Design – Foundations 1. Conventional continuous footings may be used for support of the structures. 2. Footings should bear entirely into firm recompacted soils. 3. Based on the project expansive soil conditions, it is assumed that the footings will extend a minimum of twenty-one (21) inches below lowest adjacent grade. The structural engineer of record may incorporate additional and/or alternative means of mitigating the expansive soils and should clearly state the design conditions on the project foundation plans and details. 4. Conventional continuous footings may be designed based on an allowable bearing value of 1750 psf. 5. Allowable bearing values are net (weight of footing and soils surcharge may be neglected) and are applicable for dead plus reasonable live loads. 6. Bearing values may be increased by one-third when transient loads such as wind and/or seismicity are incorporated into designs using the alternate load combinations in 2010 CBC Section 1605.3.2. 7. Lateral loads may be resisted by soils friction on floor slabs and foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation stem walls. Lateral capacity is based on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations and grade beams is properly compacted. 8. For structures to be constructed above slopes, the outside faces at the bottom of footings should provide a minimum horizontal distance of ten (10) feet from the slope face. 9. Conventional continuous footings for buildings where the ground surface slopes at 10:1, horizontal to vertical, or steeper should be stepped so that both top and bottom are level. 10. Reinforcement of footings bottomed in soils in the “Medium” expansion range should be designed by the Project Structural Engineer to properly resist the effects of the expansive soil. Additionally, soils should be presaturated to 130% of optimum moisture content to a depth of twenty-seven (27) inches below lowest adjacent grade. 11. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. after excavation, but prior to placing reinforcing steel or forms. • Structural Design – Slab On Grade 1. Concrete slabs should be supported by compacted structural fill as recommended earlier in this report. 2. It is recommended that perimeter slabs (walks, patios, etc.) be designed relatively independent of footing stems (i.e. free floating) so foundation adjustment will be less likely to cause cracking. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-202 F-100630 April 25, 2012 9 3. Slabs constructed over expansive soil should be underlain with a minimum of ten (10) inches of non-expansive material. The lower six (6) inches is to be of clean ¾” non-spec gravel covered with a layer of 10mil visqueen. The visqueen is then to be covered with four (4) inches of clean and free draining sand. 4. Reinforcement and slab thickness should be determined by the Project Structural Engineer. 5. Soils underlying slabs in the “Medium” expansion range, as a minimum, should be presaturated to 130% of optimum moisture content to a depth of twenty-seven (27) inches below lowest adjacent grade. • Structural Design – Lateral Resistance Parameters 1. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting on the base of foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be applied to dead load forces. This value does not include a factor of safety. 2. Passive resistance acting on the sides of foundation stems equal to 275 pcf of equivalent fluid weight may be included for resistance to lateral load. This value does not include a factor of safety. However, when passive resistance is used in conjunction with friction, the less significant resistance term should be reduced by one-third in determining the total lateral resistance. 3. A one-third increase in the quoted passive value may be used when considering transient loads such as wind and seismicity. • Structural Design – Settlement Considerations 1. Maximum expected settlements approximately 3/4 inches are anticipated for foundations and floor slabs designed as recommended. 2. Differential settlement between adjacent load bearing members should be less than one-half the total settlement. 3. The majority of settlement should occur during construction. Post construction settlement should be minimal. • Structural Design – Retaining Walls 1. Conventional cantilever retaining walls bearing in soils prepared in accordance with the “Grading Pads – Site Development and Foundation Excavations” section of this report and backfilled with compacted soils may be designed for the lateral pressures listed below: Active Case 45 pcf At Rest Case 75 pcf Passive Case 275 pcf Max. Toe Pressure 1750 psf Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.30 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-203 F-100630 April 25, 2012 10 2. Basement and structural retaining walls may be designed based on a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.37 in accordance with the 2010 CBC Section 1803.5.12. For Seismic Design Category D, E or F, the peak ground acceleration value should be incorporated into the design of basement and structural retaining walls and has been taken as SDS/2.5. 3. In addition to the static soil pressures described above, it is important to note that the active pressure condition will only fully develop if the retaining wall structure is allowed to move a sufficient distance. The necessary lateral movements required to establish the active pressure condition are shown below, Non-Expansive Granular Soil 0.001H – 0.004H Expansive Cohesive Soil 0.01H – 0.04H where H represents the height of the wall. At-rest pressures should be used for design purposes where retaining wall systems connected or adjacent to building structures would be adversely affected by the above referenced lateral displacements. 4. Design pressures noted above are applicable to a horizontally retained surface behind the wall. Walls having a retained surface that slopes upward from the wall should be designed for an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 1 pcf for the active case and 1.5 pcf for the at-rest case, for every two degrees of slope inclination. Walls positioned on or near descending slopes should be evaluated by this firm on an individual basis. 5. Retaining wall conditions greater than ten (10) feet in height requiring additional seismic design load values should be reviewed by this firm prior to establishing the appropriate seismic design parameters. 6. The pressures listed above were based on the assumption that backfilled soils will be compacted to 90% of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 Test Method. 7. The lateral earth pressure to be resisted by the retaining walls or similar structures should include the loads from any structures or temporary loads that influence the wall design. 8. A back drain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into the retaining wall design. Backfill immediately behind the retaining structure should be a free-draining granular material. Alternatively, the back of the wall could be lined with a geodrain system. 9. Compaction on the uphill side of the wall within a horizontal distance equal to one wall height should be performed by hand-operated or other lightweight compaction equipment. This is intended to reduce potential “locked-in” lateral pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-204 F-100630 April 25, 2012 11 10. Water should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. To accomplish this, the final backfill site grade should be such that all water is diverted away from the retaining wall. _________________________________________________________________ USGS, Online, Geologic Hazards Science Center, United States Geological Society, in Cooperation with California Geological Society (CGS), www.geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/ca/California.php _________________________________________________________________ This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of monitoring and testing will be performed by Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. during construction to check compliance with the recommendations given in this report. The recommended tests and observations include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Review of the building and grading plans during the design phase of the project. 2. Observation and testing during site preparation, grading, placing of engineered fill, and foundation construction. 3. Consultation as required during construction. _________________________________________________________________ The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the borings drilled on site. The nature and extent of variations between and beyond the borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to re- evaluate the recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include environmental assessment or geological study. The scope of services did not include investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air. Any statements in this report or on the soil boring logs regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items or conditions observed are strictly for the information of the client. ADDITIONAL SERVICES PROJECT LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS REFERENCES CITED ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-205 F-100630 April 25, 2012 12 Findings of this report are valid as of this date, however, changes in a condition of a property can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standard may occur whether they result from legislation or broadening knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one (1) year. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structure and other improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representatives to insure the information and recommendations offered herein are called to the attention of the project architect and engineers. It is also the responsibility of the owner or his representatives to insure the information and recommendations offered herein are incorporated into the project plans and specifications and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement. It is recommended that Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. END OF TEXT Appendices ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-206 February 20, 2014 F-100964 1 March 16, 2015 F-100630 Devin Gallagher 279 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project: Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Santa Luis Obispo, California Subject: Proposed Caisson Foundation Alternative Reference: 1) Geotechnical Engineering Report dated April 25, 2012 This letter has been prepared to address using cast-in-drilled-hold concrete pile (caisson) foundation systems for the proposed commercial development project. Upon review of the preliminary development designs, it has been determined that the proposed buildings and access bridge may be supported on caisson foundations in lieu of the over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations originally proposed in the above referenced soils report. Although the majority of the proposed buildings are understood to be supported on raised floor systems, where slabs-at-grade are needed, they should be designed by the project engineer-of-record to structurally span between adjacent grade beams and not rely on the surface soils for bearing. If these foundation design alternatives are incorporated into the project, overexcavation and recompaction of the soils below the structures will not be required. It should be noted that due to shallow groundwater conditions, the construction of the caissons will require the use of casing or other similar drilling/construction methods to prevent groundwater from collapsing the sidewalls of drilled piers. If there are any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. Greg McKay Project Manager Nicholas A. McClure Geotechnical Engineer ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-207 GALLAGHER – BRIDGE STREET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT July 9, 2014 Prepared for: DEVIN GALLAGHER AND J. KNIGHT CONSULTING ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-208 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 2 4.2 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 4.3 WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE & WETLANDS ................................................................................... 3 4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN ........................................................... 4 4.4.1 Special-Status Botanical Resources.............................................................................................................. 4 4.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 4 5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................ 5 5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 5 5.2 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................................. 5 6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 7 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX A – FIGURES FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2: PROJECT SITE HABITAT MAP FIGURE 3: CNDDB OCCURRENCES MAP (FIVE-MILE SEARCH RADIUS) FIGURE 4: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-209 GALLAGHER – BRIDGE STREET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The proposed Gallagher Bridge Street project includes the construction of a road crossing of Meadow Creek to access and develop an approximately 2.73-acre site for a storage yard and future mixed use development. The purpose of this biological assessment is to document existing conditions of the proposed project site and Meadow Creek crossing to evaluate the potential for any direct or indirect significant impacts on biological resources or adverse effects on any rare, threatened, or endangered plant or wildlife species (special-status species). This report is intended to support the environmental review documentation process for the City of San Luis Obispo. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project site will be accessed off of Bridge Street by easement through existing development located on the south side of Bridge Street approximately 1,400 feet east of South Higuera Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. Figure 1 in Appendix A provided regional and detailed location maps. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the construction of a bridge crossing of Meadow Creek and development of the 2.73-acre lot into a storage yard and future mixed use development with commercial and residential land uses. The Meadow Creek corridor will remain in open space in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo creek setback policy. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project site is predominantly composed of a non-native annual grassland habitat bordered by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor on the north and an ephemeral swale along the southern border of the site. Two existing residences (with more development approved) and an open space hillside are to the south of the site. Commercial and industrial development border Bridge Street extending west to South Higuera Street and east to Meadow Park. Residential development and Meadow Park are to the east along with additional residential development north of Bridge Street and in the neighborhood surrounding the area. The site is zoned M-1 for light industrial use. Figure 2 in Appendix A provides a habitat map of the project site. 3.0 METHODS SII conducted a review of available background information including the proposed project information, and a search and review of the current California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) within an approximate five-mile search radius of the proposed project site. The five-mile radius was used as the typical 10-mile search radius would have included areas well outside of the city limits and would not be relevant to this study in the urbanized City of San Luis Obispo. The CNDDB provided a list with mapped ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-210 locations of special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as natural communities of special concern, that have been recorded within the region of the project site. The CNDDB records help focus the field survey efforts and evaluation of potential project effects on specific species or habitats. The CNDDB occurrence map is included as Figure 3 in Appendix A. SII Principal Ecologist David Wolff conducted field reconnaissance surveys of the proposed project site on November 20, 2013, April 17, 2014, and May 20, 2014. The purpose of the field surveys was to document existing conditions within the study area in terms of habitat for plants and wildlife species, and the potential to support wetland and/or riparian habitats. Plant and wildlife species observed in the field were recorded. The field surveys included a thorough and complete springtime floristic inventory and rare plant survey of observable and identifiable plants. The study area habitat types were described by the aggregation of plants and wildlife based on the composition and structure of the dominant vegetation observed at the time the field reconnaissance was conducted. SII Principal Ecologist David Wolff reviewed the available background information, conducted a field survey, and is primary author and principal in charge of report preparation. The survey data collected on plant and wildlife species and conclusions presented in this biological assessment are based on the methods and field reconnaissance conducted over the project site as described above. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES The plant communities within the study area are generally described by the assemblages of observed plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. Plant community descriptions are generally based on A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant names used in this report follow, The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded (Baldwin et al. 2012). The following describes the plant communities and habitat characteristics observed within the project site. The project site supports three distinct plant communities: 1.) disturbed non-native annual grassland; 2. arroyo willow riparian woodland; and 3.) ephemeral swale. Figure 2 provides a habitat map. Figure 4 provides a set of representative photographs of the existing conditions of the proposed project site. DISTURBED NON-NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND – The disturbed annual grassland habitat, is dominated by non- native annual grasses and herbaceous broadleaf plant species, along with a few native forbs and wildflowers. Annual grassland habitat occurs as the dominant habitat type over the entire project site with the exception of the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and small portion of an ephemeral swale that crossed the southeast corner of the site. The approximately 2.09-acres of disturbed annual grassland within the study area was observed to be very low in species diversity and dominated by a near pure stand of wild oats (Avena barbata). Other plant species observed in the non-native grassland habitat include, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Sidalcea sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), red fescue (Festuca rubra), nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica). A few coyote brush shrubs (Baccharis pilularis) are scattered on the site along with one Italian stone pine tree (Pinus pinea) and a pepper tree (Schinus molle) in the southeast corner of the property. A second Italian stone pine is located on the ephemeral swale just south of the property border. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-211 MEADOW CREEK ARROYO WILLOW RIPARIAN WOODLAND – The arroyo willow riparian woodland forms the northern border of the project site along Meadow Creek. This habitat is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) along with California black walnut (Juglans californica). There are several non-native trees in the corridor including tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), eugenia (Eugenia sp.), and Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis). Understory vegetation is limited to herbaceous plants and includes nasturtium, wild radish, and cheeseweed. Approximately 0.53-acre of riparian habitat falls within the project boundary with additional riparian canopy area on the adjacent parcel to the north. Meadow Creek through the project site is a remnant above ground reach of what is now a mostly urbanized underground system. Just upstream of the project site is a concrete lined channel below the confluence of two tributary channels through residential development and the maintained turf of Meadow Park. The creek remains above ground for approximately 875 feet downstream to where it flows underground before Higuera Street. It appears to daylight through the cemetery to its confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. EPHEMERAL SWALE – The southeast corner of the property has a portion of an ephemeral swale (drainage) that originates as a narrow channel around the hillside to the south. The swale continues west through the adjacent properties to meet Meadow Creek a short distance downstream of the project site. The swale has a dense cover of non-native Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and poison hemlock. DEVELOPED LAND – Developed areas includes the existing paved parking lot access to the project site off of Bridge Street. There are no biological resource habitat values associated with the approximately 0.15 acre developed parking lot area. 4.2 WILDLIFE The mosaic of remnant patches of habitat within the urbanized landscape around the project area can provide a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to the urban environment such as raccoons, opossums, rodents, and reptiles. Even in urbanized areas riparian woodlands can provide high quality habitat for a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to the urban environment but in particular to resident and migratory birds. Common passerines observed during SII field surveys included the pacific slope flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, spotted towhee, northern mockingbird, and house finch. Given the undeveloped hillside and surrounding areas, and Meadow Park, other wildlife species likely occur on the site as seasonal migrants and/or residents to the area. 4.3 WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE & WETLANDS Meadow Creek is a seasonal creek that has a defined bed, bank, and channel supporting an arroyo willow and California black walnut riparian woodland. The ephemeral swale is vegetated with non-native Himalayan blackberry and poison hemlock and is a tributary to Meadow Creek. As such, the two drainages are likely considered waters of the U.S. subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and waters of the State by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The only access to the site would be by a new bridge crossing of Meadow Creek. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-212 4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “species of concern” by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW; and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by the CNPS and CDFW because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time. The search and review of the CNDDB revealed numerous historic and extant (presumed existing) occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species within the five-mile search radius of the project site. A five-mile radius was selected as a 10-mile CNDDB search radius would have captured a large amount of area not relevant to the urbanized landscape around the proposed project site. Figure 3 in Appendix A provides a map of the CNDDB special-status plant and wildlife species recorded occurrences falling within the five-miles of the project site. The following briefly describes or summarizes the special- status species issues and observations or potential for occurrence on the project site. 4.4.1 Special-Status Botanical Resources The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of special-status plant species within a five-mile radius of the project site. While the CNDDB list is exhaustive, most of the species are associated with a specific soil types such as serpentine outcrops or heavy clay soils, or specific habitat characteristics such as seasonal wetlands. The field surveys were conducted during the spring 2014 and represent a floristic inventory and rare plant survey. The botanical surveys resulted in no observations of any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species within the project site. Further, the observable and identifiable plants, habitats, and soils suggest the site does not support habitat for special-status plants. 4.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of special-status wildlife species within the five- mile search radius of the project site. Special-status wildlife species known from the region evaluated for this study have specific habitat use requirements (i.e. terrestrial or aquatic). Given the urban setting with a limited extent of grassland and riparian habitats, and the seasonal nature of Meadow Creek, the project site does not support suitable habitat for any special-status wildlife species. This conclusion is discussed further below. Aquatic Species – The CNDDB has recorded occurrences of the steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) within the five- mile search radius. These are all highly aquatic species and suitable habitat is not represented the small remaining reach of the seasonal Meadow Creek. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) require static seasonal pools that do not occur within the project site. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-213 Birds – The CNDDB includes occurrences for the ferruginous hawk, a wide ranging winter visitor and a historic occurrence of the western yellow-billed cuckoo that is no longer present. Other resident and migratory birds likely use the riparian corridor for nesting, feeding, and roosting. 5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SII reviewed available background information and conducted multiple field surveys of the project site in that included a floristic inventory and rare plant survey. The available data and field surveys provided sufficient information to establish existing conditions of the project site for plant and wildlife species, to evaluate potential project impacts on biological resources, and to identify any potentially significant impacts that may result from project implementation. 5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to vegetation and wildlife utilizing disturbed non-native annual grassland and willow riparian woodland habitats from the development of the access road crossing to the site and for the storage yard and/or mixed used development. Approximately 1.8 acres of disturbed non-native grassland habitat would be removed for the storage yard and mixed use development with approximately 0.2 acre remaining within the City-required 20- foot creek setback area. Given the small amount of non-native vegetation within the urban landscape, this would be considered a less than significant impact. Approximately 0.08 acre (60’x60’) of willow riparian woodland habitat would be removed for the bridge access across Meadow Creek. Given the value of riparian habitat in all landscape settings, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. 5.2 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are recommended to avoid, minimize and compensate for potentially significant impacts on biological resources. Nesting Birds–The proposed new access road crossing of Meadow Creek and conversion of the annual grassland may impact ground nesting and/or tree nesting bird species if activities are conducted during the nesting season typically February 1st to August 31st. To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures are recommended: MM BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-214 avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Ground Dwelling Animal Impacts – While impacts on common ground dwelling wildlife and the loss of less than 2.0 acres of non-native grassland is not considered a significant impact, the following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce the level of this less-than-significant impact on common ground dwelling wildlife species. BIO MM-2: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected, a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for non- listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Riparian Habitat and Waters of the U.S./State Impacts – Approximately 0.08 acre of riparian and creek bed habitat (60’x60’) would be impacted by construction of the new road crossing bridge to access the site. The bridge construction may remove up to two 6-inch diameter at breast height (dbh), four 8-inch dbh, and one 12-inch dbh California black walnut trees, one 4” dbh tree of heaven, and two multiple trunk arroyo willow trees. The dbh of the willow trunks impacted are 1.) 5”, 5” 5”, 6”, 7”, 7”, 8”, 8”, 8”, 11”, and 13”; and 2.) 3”, 4”, 4”, 9”, and seven stems less than 3” dbh. The bridge road crossing may result in fill of waters of the U.S./State and removal of willow and California black walnut riparian habitat that would require regulatory compliance from federal and state agencies. Impacts on seasonal creek and riparian habitat resulting in fill of waters of the U.S./State would be considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S./State to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures are recommended: MM BIO-3: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed road crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining and CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. MM BIO-4: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed road crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-215 the satisfaction of the CDFG. The CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFG may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City- required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than- significant level. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings described above establishing the existing conditions of biological resources within the project site and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on biological, botanical, wetland habitat resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect project impacts on biological resources would be considered to be less than significant. 7.0 REFERENCES 1. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, Editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. UC Press. 2. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2014. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 3. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, Editors. 1988-1990. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR). California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. 4. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) of recorded occurrences of special-status species. Accessed May 2014. 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013. Endangered and Threatened Animals List. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California. 6. Hickman, J.C., Editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. 7. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame-Heritage Program. 8. Holland, V.L., and D.J. Keil. 1990. California Vegetation. Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. 9. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California . California Department of Fish and Wildlife Contract # 8023. Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 10. Mayer, W. and W. Laudenslayer, Editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 11. Peterson, R.T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton Mifflin Company. 12. Stebbins, R.C., and McGinnis, S.M. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Revised Edition (California Natural History Guides) University of California Press, 2012 13. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-216 APPENDIX A FIGURES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2: PROJECT SITE HABITAT MAP FIGURE 3: CNDDB OCCURRENCES MAP (FIVE-MILE SEARCH RADIUS) FIGURE 4: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-217 Gallagher - Bridge Street Project Biological Resources Assessment Site Location Map Figure 1 0 0.1 0.2Miles ¨ updated 06/17/2014 Other Data Source(s):CDFW, CNDDB, May 2014. GF Site Location Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 0.75 1.5Miles ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-218 Gallagher - Bridge Street Project Biological Resources Assessment Habitat Map Figure 2 0 75 150Feet ¨ updated 06/17/2014 Approximate Site Boundary Developed (0.15ac) Meadow Creek Riparian Habitat (0.53ac) Non-native Annual Grassland (2.09ac) ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-219 Site Location GF Jones' layia western mastiff bat chaparral ragwort Congdon's tarplant Jones' layia Atascadero June beetle Jones' layia Miles' milk-vetch western yellow-billed cuckoo mouse-gray dudleya mouse-gray dudleya adobe sanicle Jones' layia most beautiful jewelflower San Luis mariposa-lily Blochman's dudleya Cuesta Ridge thistle San Luis Obispo sedge Congdon's tarplant Cambria morning-glory vernal pool fairy shrimp Coast Range newt Eastwood's larkspur mouse-gray dudleya San Luis mariposa-lily prairie falcon Coast Range newt Eastwood's larkspur California red-legged frog San Luis Obispo sedge Serpentine Bunchgrass steelhead - south/central California coast DPS Brewer's spineflower monarch butterfly chaparral ragwort Hoover's button-celery Eastwood's larkspur San Luis mariposa-lily Serpentine Bunchgrass Coast Range newt western pond turtle Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Eastwood's larkspur ferruginous hawk Congdon's tarplant mouse-gray dudleya western pond turtle monarch butterfly California red-legged frog Brewer's spineflower western pond turtle San Luis mariposa-lily pallid bat steelhead - south/central California coast DPS Palmer's monardella San Luis Obispo pyrg Congdon's tarplant San Luis Obispo fountain thistle San Luis Obispo fountain thistle California red-legged frog San Luis Obispo owl's-clover San Luis mariposa-lily steelhead - south/central California coast DPS mouse-gray dudleya San Luis Obispo fountain thistle San Luis mariposa-lily adobe sanicle mouse-gray dudleya Hoover's button-celery adobe sanicle Brewer's spineflower American badger ferruginous hawk Congdon's tarplant Congdon's tarplant western pond turtle mouse-gray dudleya mouse-gray dudleya mouse-gray dudleya western pond turtle Cambria morning-glory most beautiful jewelflower Blochman's dudleya American badger San Luis Obispo fountain thistle Blochman's dudleya Hoover's button-celery Congdon's tarplant steelhead - south/central California coast DPS Congdon's tarplant Congdon's tarplant Hoover's button-celery Congdon's tarplant Congdon's tarplant San Benito fritillary Congdon's tarplant Cambria morning-glory Congdon's tarplant Congdon's tarplant Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Gallagher - Bridge Street Project Biological Resources Assessment CNDDB Occurrences Figure 3 0 0.5 1 Miles ¨ updated 06/17/2014 Other Data Source(s):CDFW, CNDDB, May 2014. ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-220 Photo 1: View east across the non-native annual grassland habitat from the northwest edge of the Meadow Creek riparian habitat. 4/17/2014 Photo 2: View northeast across the non-native annual grassland habitat to the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and residential land use to the east of the site. 4/17/2014 Photo 3: View northwest across the non-native annual grassland habitat to the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and adjacent industrial land use to the west of the site. 4/17/2014 Photo 4: View southwest from the southeast corner of the site at ephemeral “bramble” swale, ornamental pine tree, and adjacent residence and open space hillside. 4/17/2014 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-221 Photo 5: View south at developed access point for proposed bridge crossing location of Meadow Creek riparian habitat. 5/20/2014 Photo 6: View west (downstream) from the Meadow Creek channel showing the creek bottom and riparian multi-trunk willows and non-native palm trees. 5/20/2014 Photo 7: View west (downstream) from the Meadow Creek channel showing the creek bottom and riparian multi-trunk willows and limited undestory. 5/20/2014 Photo 8: View east (upstream) from the Meadow Creek channel showing the creek bottom and riparian multi-trunk willows and limited herbaceous undestory. 5/20/2014 ATTACHMENT 9 ARC1-222 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Final review of the Draft Design Guidelines for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner Phone Number: 805-610-1109 Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com FILE NUMBER: ANNX-1502-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval to the City Council of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines (Chapter 3 of proposed Specific Plan). SITE DATA Applicant Representative General Plan and Zoning Site Area Environmental Status Coastal Community Builders Marshall Ochylski and Brian Schwartz Specific Plan Area (various land use designations including—residential, commercial, office, open space and agriculture consistent with the Land Use Element) 131.3 acres The Final EIR is currently being prepared, which includes responses to public comments on the Draft EIR. Expected completion date is May 5, 2017. SUMMARY Coastal Community Builders has proposed a project that includes several entitlements for the development of approximately 70 acres of the 131.3-acre property. The project would include a mixture of residential and non-residential uses, as well as the preservation of agricultural uses and open space. The project site is currently outside the City, but within its Sphere of Influence, and would require annexation. The project as proposed is envisioned to implement the policies as articulated in the recent Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update, and be consistent with the development parameters set forth in the LUCE. Meeting Date: May 1, 2017 Item Number: 1 ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Commission’s purview is to review the proposed Design Guidelines that are included as Chapter 3 (Neighborhood Form) of the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (Attachment 1), and make recommendations to the City Council for their consideration in conjunction with the other project entitlements. In previous meetings, the ARC conceptually reviewed considered different aspects of Design Guidelines, and provided input to staff and the project applicants. The draft Design Guidelines now being considered by ARC reflect this input, the key elements of which are described in this staff report. These Design Guidelines also include input from the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). 2.0 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION The site is comprised of approximately 131 contiguous acres in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, surrounded by areas within the City of San Luis Obispo, and within the City’s Sphere of Influence, generally bounded by Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and U.S. Highway 101 (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). Dominant features at the site are the predominantly flat landform seasonally planted with row crops, an existing stand of eucalyptus trees in the southwest portion of the site, and the Dalidio farm home in the northwest portion of the site. Table 1: Site Information Site Size ~131 acres Present Use & Development Agriculture Topography Flat Access Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and Froom Ranch Road Surrounding Use/Zoning West: R-1 (low density residential) North: PF, C/OS-40, R-1, C-R-PD (Laguna Lake Park and surrounding open space, low density residential, and the U.S. post office) East: PF, O-PD (U.S. Highway 101, the City’s wastewater treatment plant and a drive-in theater) South: C/OS-20, C-S, C-S-PD, C-T-SF, C-R (SLO City Farm, Target, variety of commercial service uses, and auto dealerships) 3.0 GENERAL PLAN GUIDANCE The San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area was one of three Specific Plan areas designated for development when the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements update which was adopted by the City Council in December 2014. The project is intended to be consistent with policy direction for the area included in the General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4, which identifies the San Luis Ranch area as a Special Focus Area (SP-2), subject to policies for the development of a specific plan and certain broad development parameters and principles. For clarity, the entire policy is included below. The Architectural ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 3 Review Commission is not asked to provide testimony on this policy at this time, but to consider it in the context of the analysis included in the Draft EIR. The project’s consistency with this and other General Plan policies will be more appropriately addressed by the Planning Commission during the public hearings for potential project consideration, expected to occur in Spring 2017. Policy 8.1.4: SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area. The project site should be developed as a mixed use project that maintains the agricultural heritage of the site, provides a commercial/ office transition to the existing commercial center to the north, and provides a diverse housing experience. Protection of the adjacent creek and a well- planned integration into the existing circulation system will be required. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues: e. Maintain agricultural views along Highway 101 by maintaining active agricultural uses on the site, and maintain viewshed of Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. f. Maintain significant agricultural and open space resources on site (see Policy 1.13.8.B). Land dedicated to Agriculture shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. i. Site should include walkable retail and pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding commercial and residential areas. j. Commercial and office uses shall have parking placed behind and to side of buildings so as to not be a prominent feature. Proposed land use designations and development potential Type Designations Allowed % of Site Minimum 1 Maximum Residential LDR MDR MHDR HDR 350 units 500 units Commercial NC CC 50,000 SF 200,000 SF Office/High Tech O 50,000 SF 150,000 SF Hotel/Visitor-Serving 200 rooms Parks PARK 5.8 ac Open Space/ Agriculture OS AG Minimum 50% 2 No maximum Public n/a Infrastructure n/a 1. There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints. 2. The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off-site dedication provided: ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 4 a. A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off -site property exchanged to meet the on site requirement; and b. Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and c. Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for agriculture/open space. The project is also intended to be consistent with all other General Plan policies, including those in the Circulation, Safety, Conservation and Open Space, and Water and Wastewater elements. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW The project is a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would allow for the development of the San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) area as identified in the City’s General Plan. The project includes a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses while preserving substantial areas of open space and agriculture on a 131.3-acre property. The intent is for the project to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s recently updated Land Use Element, which envisions up to 500 residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 150,000 square feet of office, 200 hotel rooms, at least 5.8 acres of parks, while preserving 50% of the site in agriculture and open space. 2.1 Key Principals and Goals The proposed specific plan was conceived with the intent to implement the goals included in the LUCE, and was developed concurrently with the LUCE as it was adopted. It is based on the applicant’s concept “CORE 4”, which refers to the four underlying principles that will guide future development within the Specific Plan area: 1. Maintain and Promote San Luis Obispo’s Agricultural Heritage 2. Provide Open Space and Recreation Areas 3. Deliver Diverse Housing Opportunities, Including Workforce Housing; and 4. Create a Multimodal Community Seamlessly Integrated into the Existing Circulation System The Draft Specific Plan has established the following Goals with respect to Neighborhood Form, which are intended to guide the overall project design: Provide complete guidance on the land use provisions that will guide future development within the Plan Area. Offer a diverse mix of housing types that are in keeping with the City’s Housing Element and affordable and workforce housing goals. Develop a land use classification system that clearly identifies uses allowed in each subarea and provides for an overall mix of uses. Establish detailed development standards for the Plan Area as a whole, and within each subarea, organized in tables and graphically illustrated wherever possible. Provide a detailed set of design guidelines that establish the expected level of design while still allowing for flexibility and innovation. ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 5 The final goal that addresses design guidelines is the most relevant to the ARC and its purview. 2.2 Proposed Land Uses As shown in Figure 1, the Specific Plan area is organized into six land use designations. These include Neighborhood General 10 (NG-10), Neighborhood General 23 (NG-23), Neighborhood General 30 (NG-30), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Parks and Open Space (P-OS), and Agriculture (A). Figure 1: Proposed land use designations for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 6 Table 2 summarizes the generalized product types associated with each zone, and the maximum lot coverage and building heights associated with each. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a more complete discussion of development potential, setbacks and other design characteristics, some of which are discussed in more detail in Section 2.3 of this staff report. Table 2: Summary of the proposed lot sizes, lot coverage, and building heights Zone Product Type Lot Sizes/Lot Coverage Max Building Height Neighborhood General 10 (NG-10) Traditional Single Family 3,200 SF min 35’ Neighborhood General 23 (NG-23) Small Lot Front Loaded 2,400 SF min 35’ Neighborhood General 23 (NG-23) Small Lot Alley Loaded 2,400 SF min 35’ Neighborhood General 30 (NG-30) Detached Townhome 1,000 SF min 40’ Neighborhood General 30 (NG-30) Attached Townhome 1,000 SF min 40’ Neighborhood General 30 (NG-30) Multi-Family 1,000 SF min 40’ Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Commercial, Office and Hotel 80% max 20’ min; 50’ max Open Space (OS) None Agriculture (A) Ag Learning Center 3,000 SF max Market/Farm Stand 3,000 SF max Ag Processing Center 10,000 SF max Food Services 5,000 SF max Ag Accessory Structures * 1,500 SF max per structure 35’ * up to a total of 10,000 SF in structures; historical structures may go to 45’ 2.3 Proposed Design Guidelines Proposed Design Guidelines for new development are set forth in Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan, which is entitled “Neighborhood Form”. This chapter sets forth general provisions for development within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area and details zoning, allowable land uses, development standards, and design guidelines. This discussion will focus on the Design Guidelines provisions within that chapter. As described above, the Specific Plan is organized into different land use categories, with corresponding zoning. Within each zone there is a summary of permitted uses, development standards, and design guidelines. Permitted uses within each zone have been customized to reinforce the activities and livable environment. In addition, the Neighborhood General zones incorporate unique residential product types with tailored development standards and guidelines. Design guidelines shape development of the built environment and are intended to serve as a guide for developers, architects, and designers when preparing development plans. Flexibility in interpretation of the design guidelines is permitted as long as the intent is followed. Design guidelines typically include the word “should”, rather than “shall”. ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 7 Each zone has unique design guidelines associated with that zone, with illustrations and photos to illustrate appropriate examples and the overall intent. For residential uses, the guidelines address the following development parameters: building form setback variations privacy roofs windows and doors porches private yard areas garages landscaping noise For commercial, office and hotel uses uses, the guidelines address the following development parameters: site planning and design building form building elements and articulation commercial plazas sidewalk cafes lighting signs building materials exterior colors utilitarian aspects of buildings parking lot design and screening bicycle and pedestrian circulation project landscape and hardscape screens, walls and fences noise For the Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center, the guidelines address the following: site planning and design The design guidelines for each zone may be found on the following pages within Attachment 1: Traditional Single Family (NG-10 Zone): Pages 3-9 and 3-10 Small Lot Front Loaded (NG-23 Zone): Pages 3-13 and 3-14 ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 8 Small Lot Alley Loaded (NG-23 Zone): Pages 3-17 and 3-18 Detached Townhome (NG-30 Zone): Pages 3-23 and 3-24 Attached Townhome (NG-30 Zone): Pages 3-27 and 3-28 Multi-Family (NG-30 Zone): Pages 3-31 and 3-32 Commercial, Office and Hotel (NC Zone): Pages 3-40 to 3-44 Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center (A Zone): Pages 3-51 and 3-52 2.3.1 Architectural Styles The Specific Plan includes an Architectural Style Reference Guide is intended to be used as a resource for developing design strategies for residential, commercial, office, hotel, and other land uses. There are three (3) distinct architectural styles proposed within San Luis Ranch: Modern Agrarian Craftsman Contemporary Each architectural style includes design criteria for a variety of elements and the composition of that style. Please refer to pages 3-53 through 3-61 of Attachment 1 for additional details on each style. 2.3.2 Sign and Monuments The Specific Plan provides details on signage standards and is included in Attachment 1. In general, the Specific Plan addresses signage standards for all land use types, including residential, commercial, hotel, parks, open space, agricultural heritage center, as well as informational signs and temporary sales signs. Please refer to pages 3-62 through 3-67 of Attachment 1 for additional details. 2.3.3 Plant Palette The Specific Plan provides details on landscaping, including a plant palette for use within each zone. Please refer to pages 3-68 through 3-72 of Attachment 1 for additional details. 3.0 PREVIOUS ARC DIRECTION AND STAFF ANALYSIS The Draft Specific Plan Guidelines were reviewed by the ARC on November 16, 2015. At that time, the ARC provided the applicant direction on the structure and content of the design guidelines, architectural styles, and neighborhood form. Key ARC input is summarized in Table 3, along with staff’s analysis regarding how the updated Specific Plan responds to this input: ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 9 Table 3. Previous ARC Input and How Updated Specific Plan Responds Previous ARC Input Staff’s Analysis on How Revised Plan Addresses this Issue Agreed with the general layout of the project No changes to the Specific Plan required or made. Contemporary architecture style as presented appeared too “top heavy” Graphic of Contemporary Style example shown on page 3- 60 shows a building with a greater width-to-height ratio than previously. Mixed support for Contemporary architecture, but not enthusiastic No changes to the Specific Plan required or made. Agrarian architecture should not look too modern No changes to the Specific Plan were made. Encourage “authentic” materials, and discourage the use of plastic made to look natural No changes to the Specific Plan made. However, the Draft Specific Plan Design Guidelines include discussion of appropriate building materials for siding, cladding, roofing, windows, trim, columns, railings, downspouts, shutters, chimneys, and fences. For Modern Agrarian or Contemporary styles, wood, stucco, and corrugated metal are typical siding materials, while metal, composite shingles, or concrete tiles are typical roofing options. For Craftsman, wood, brick and river stone are common materials. For all styles, plastic is discouraged, except that PVC would be allowed for windows and trim. Could increase roof pitches to address narrow lots Pitched roofs are encouraged for all styles. For Modern Agrarian, a 5:12 pitch is typical. For Craftsman, an 8:12 pitch is typical. For Contemporary, flatter roofs (2:12 pitch) are allowed, but roofs can be pitched up to 8:12. No changes were made to the Specific Plan to increase roof pitches, which were considered appropriate, and provide flexibility. Discourage overly symmetrical design Within each architectural style, the Specific Plan provides many options approaches to address that style, both in terms of massing and materials. The plan encourages a variety of styles and discourages symmetrical design. Private outdoor spaces appeared very small For the smaller (1,000 to 2,400 SF) lots, a minimum of 100 SF (125 SF for 2,400 SF small lot front-loaded units) of private outdoor space must be provided. In addition, the Specific Plan requires that a minimum of 400 SF of community open space be provided for each multi-family, which compensates to some extent for the small private ANNX-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) May 1, 2017 Page 10 Table 3. Previous ARC Input and How Updated Specific Plan Responds Previous ARC Input Staff’s Analysis on How Revised Plan Addresses this Issue outdoor area for those lots. There is no provision for community open space for other lots. The largest lots (single-family 3,200 SF lots) have no private open space provisions, though a 10-foot minimum rear setback is required. While these are indeed small private spaces, they appear appropriate given the constraints of working with small lot sizes. The only other way to create larger private spaces would be to increase building heights, which does not seem to be appropriate given the narrow street widths and overall high density. Include community gardens if possible Community gardens are allowed with the Director’s approval within all residential zones and within the Agriculture zone, and allowed by right within the Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space zones. Consider more attached housing because too many small detached lots may appear unappealing The Specific Plan includes flexible provisions for attached townhomes and multi-family units within the NG-30 zone, along with detached townhomes. In all, this zone could accommodate up to 246 units, or 42% of all the housing under the Specific Plan. This appears to provide ample opportunities for attached housing overall, although it would be concentrated within the NG-30 zone, which comprises only 10.4 acres, or about 8% of the site. Consider a pedestrian overcrossing to Laguna Lake The applicants and staff considered a pedestrian overcrossing, but it was not included in part because of its expense, which would be counter to the goal of providing affordable housing. It is also questionable how heavily used such a feature would be on a routine basis. However, the Specific Plan does not preclude this feature, if in the future it appears that a bridge is justified from a safety and usage standpoint. The applicant team addressed these concerns in the Design Guidelines now before the ARC, especially in the context of site constraints and the LUCE design issues and performance standards. The applicant team is prepared to further discuss the challenges in accommodating ARC’s previous direction. 4.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Chapter 3 of Draft Specific Plan (Neighborhood Form), which includes the Design Guidelines