HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - ARCH-0506-2019 (487 Leff) HASLO HeadquartersPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Development review of a new, two-story, 13,082-square foot office building as part of
an existing Planned Development (PD 0274). The project includes an amendment to the adopted
Precise Plan approved through Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series) to address the new office
development as it relates to the Planned Development. The project also includes exceptions for
parking and trash enclosures within the street yard setback (0 feet where a 20-foot setback and 10-
foot setback, respectively, are normally required), exceptions to sign regulations, and a 32% parking
reduction and offsite parking.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 487 Leff Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0506-2019 & FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
PDEV-0507-2019
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) that approves the project subject to findings and
conditions of approval.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The proposed project consists of a two-story, 13,082-square foot office structure. The project will
include demolishing the existing 5,444-square foot offices, and redevelopment of the site. The subject
property is located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-2-PD) zone with a Planned Development
(PD) Overlay (Attachment 2, Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)). The PD-Overlay included a Planned
Development Precise Plan (Development Plan) that was approved by the City Council which included
the 20 residential units and the existing office development (Attachment 3, Council Resolution No.
2249 (1971 Series)).
Applicant Scott Smith, HASLO
Representative Pam Ricci, RRM
Zoning R-2-PD (Medium-Density
Residential, within a Planned
Development Overlay)
General Plan Medium-Density Residential
Site Area ~16,712 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines § 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects)
Meeting Date: June 10, 2020
Item Number: 2
Item 2
Packet Page 4
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
487 Leff Street
Page 2
The project proposes an amendment to the Precise Plan (see Section 4.0) to address requests for a 32
percent parking reduction, and reconfiguration of street parking, providing 16 parking spaces on-site
and 7 parking spaces off-site, where 44 parking spaces would normally be required, (Attachment 4,
Project Description). The project includes exceptions to the street yard setback to allow for parking
along Leff Street, where a 20 foot setback is normally required, and an exception to allow a trash
enclosure along Beach Street, where a 10 foot setback is normally required (Attachment 5, Project
Plans). The project also includes exceptions to the sign regulations to allow three signs with a total
area of 77.5 sq. ft., where normally limited to one sign of 20 sq. ft. in a residential zone.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
Review project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design
Guidelines (CDG) and applicable City development standards and guidelines. Planning Commission
(PC) review is required for projects which include more than 10,000 square feet of nonresidential
space (ARCH-0506-2019), as well as the associated amendment to the Planned Development Precise
Plan (PDEV-0507-2019).
3.0 BACKGROUND
The PD-Overlay and adopted Precise Plan included the construction of 20 affordable residential units
located at 468 Leff Street, and the Housing Authority offices located at 487 Leff Street. The existing
Precise Plan authorized a street setback reduction for the office development from 20 feet to 10 feet
along High Street and a parking reduction of 27 percent (Project Plans Sheet A3, Existing Site Plan).
The PD-Overlay transferred all density from 487 Leff Street to 468 Leff Street and included a Density
Bonus of approximately 29 percent.
Zoning Regulations §17.48.090 (Amendments to Final Development Plans) stipulates that
amendments to final development plans may be approved by the PC when limited to changes in the
size and position of buildings, landscape treatment, or the like. The applicant proposes to amend the
Precise Plan to provide for a larger office development.
2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEWS
On April 10, 2019, the PC provided a conceptual review of the proposed project to offer feedback to
the applicant and staff on the project’s conceptual site layout and building design; and to specifically
discuss concerns and questions related to land use consistency (Attachment 6, PC Report, Meeting
Minutes 4.10.19). The applicant had modified the project plans prior to initial ARC review to reflect
the PC’s comments.
The ARC reviewed the project on March 2, 2020 and continued the project to a date uncertain to
address concerns for consistency with the CDG (Attachment 7, ARC Report and Minutes). During
their review the ARC identified five directional items for the applicant to address with specific
concerns related to building and site design.
On May 4, 2020, the ARC reviewed the revised project design and recommended that the PC approve
the project as presented (6-0-0) (Attachment 8, ARC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
Item 2
Packet Page 5
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
487 Leff Street
Page 3
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed improvements must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations
and Engineering Standards and be consistent with the applicable CDG. Staff has evaluated the
project’s consistency with relevant requirements and has found it to be in substantial compliance, as
discussed in this analysis.
3.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The City’s Housing Element (HE) states that the City in conjunction with the Housing Authority
continue to provide for on-going technical assistance and education to tenants, property owners and
the community at large on the need to preserve at-risk units as well as the available tools to help them
do so (HE Policy 2.13). The project provides for the continued operation of the Housing Authority
within the City to provide services for the affordable housing residents and projects throughout the
community. The project is also consistent with the Land Use Element (LUE) because the project
provides a quasi-public use (non-profit that provides services to residential uses) which is consistent
with uses intended for the Medium Density Residential land use designation (LUE Table 1).
3.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The PD-Overlay is intended to provide for flexibility in the application of zoning standards and allow
consideration of innovation in site planning and other aspects of project design and more effective
design responses to site features, and land uses on adjoining properties, than the development
standards of the underlying zone would provide. In accordance with Table 2-1 of the Zoning
Regulations, office uses are not allowed within the R-2 zone, however, City Council adopted the PD-
Overlay and associated Precise Plan which provided for the management offices of the Housing
Authority at the subject location. The adopted Precise Plan was specific to the management offices
of the Housing Authority and did not include authorization of any other uses for the site. The project
has been designed to comply with lot coverage, setbacks, floor area ratios, and building height
requirements for development in the R-2 zone (see Section 4.0 Project Statistics).
Front Yard Setback: The Zoning Regulations require a street yard setback of 20 feet within the R-2
zone, and 10-feet for additional street yards on corner lots (§17.18.020). Due to the unique
configuration of the lot the project is surrounded by three street frontages. The adopted Precise Plan
allowed a 10-foot street yard setback along each street frontage while also allowing parking within
the street yard along each street frontage. The project requests to utilize the same exceptions to
provide a 10-foot setback along each street frontage and parking within the street yard along Leff
Street, where 20 feet is normally required for parking spaces that exit directly onto the street right-of-
way. Zoning Regulations §17.70.170 stipulate that the front and street side setbacks may be reduced
to zero for unenclosed parking spaces, subject to the findings under a Director’s Action Permit1. The
1 Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040.A Required Findings: The Director may approve a Director’s Action application
only after first making all of the following findings. The proposed interpretation, determination, or modification to
standards: (1) Is consistent with the intent of these Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies; (2) Is
consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone; (3) Provides adequate consideration
of and measures to address any potential adverse effects on surrounding properties such as, but not limited to, traffic,
vehicular and pedestrian safety, noise, visual and scale, and lighting. - With regard to cases of granting exceptions
to the strict application of development standards, the following additional finding shall be made: (4) While site
characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence to the Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible,
the project nonetheless conforms with the intent of these Regulations.
Item 2
Packet Page 6
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
487 Leff Street
Page 4
required findings have been incorporated into the draft resolution.
Parking: The existing Precise Plan included a 27 percent parking reduction to allow for 40 parking
spaces, where 55 spaces were normally required. In total the project provided 47 parking spaces for
all proposed uses at the time of development (37 spaces at 468 Leff Street and 10 spaces at 487 Leff
Street). Since the project was originally approved, parking requirements have changed for low-
income residential developments, where the current parking requirement would require only 21
spaces for the 20 residential units. See the table below for a breakdown of the parking requirements
from the original approval compared to the parking requirements under the proposed project.
Table 1: Comparative Parking Requirements
Original Parking
Requirement
Parking
Spaces
Proposed Parking
Requirement
Parking
Spaces
Residential (20 units) 55 Residential (20 units) 21
Office (2,000 sq. ft.) 7 Office (13,082 sq. ft.) 44
Parking Reduction (27%) -15 Parking Reduction (32%) -21
Total: 47 Total: 44
The residential property at 468 Leff Street currently provides 28 parking spaces where only 21 are
required, which is 7 spaces more than the current requirements. The applicant would like to provide
the excess spaces on this site for off-site parking2 for the proposed office uses. The proposed office
development provides 16 parking spaces on-site, and inclusive of the 7 off-site parking spaces results
in a total of 23 parking spaces intended for the office uses. The project also includes a bicycle parking
reduction by providing 20 additional bicycle parking spaces3to reduce the number of required parking
spaces by 4 . Both sites provide for a combined total of 44 parking spaces, the applicant is requesting
to increase the original parking reduction of the project by 5 percent, from 27 percent to 32 percent
to accommodate the proposed project. Additionally, the project also increases the available public
street parking surrounding the site. The streets currently provide 28 parking spaces for public use, the
proposed street reconfiguration of Leff Street and the elimination of the existing driveways results in
an increase of public parking by an additional 4 spaces (totaling in 32 parking spaces). In terms of
parking demand from the original approved project where a total of 62 parking spaces was required,
and the current requirement for the proposed project of 65 parking spaces, inclusive of the increase
in street parking by 4 spaces results in a negligible difference in overall parking demand from the
original approvals of the development project.
Trash Enclosure Setback: The proposed trash enclosure area consists of a fenced area intended to
screen the location of the trash bins along Beach Street. Typically, trash enclosures that are
2 Zoning Regulations § 17.72.050.E. The Director may, by approving a Director’s Action, allow some or all of the
required parking to be located on a site different from the use. Such off-site parking shall be within a zone where the
use is allowed or conditionally allowed.... It shall be within 300 hundred feet of the use and shall not be separated
from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. The site on which the
parking is located shall be owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use.
3 Zoning Regulations §17.72.050.C.3. Reduction Rates. The review authority may consider the following rates for
parking reductions associated with a parking demand study… (b) One car space for each five bicycle spaces provided
in excess of required parking…
Item 2
Packet Page 7
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
487 Leff Street
Page 5
constructed with more permanent facilities are limited to a minimum of a 3-foot setback from the
public right-of-way. The proposed fenced trash bin corral may also be referred to as a fence height
exception where a 6-foot fence is proposed along a portion of the street frontage, where normally
limited to 3-feet in height. The proposed trash corral is located away from the primary building
entrances with the access gate facing away from the street so that it does not interfere with on-site or
off-site circulation areas. Condition No. 12 requires design improvements to the trash corral as viewed
from the public right-of-way by requiring a landscape buffer between the fence and the back of
sidewalk.
3.4 PC Directional Items
The PC recommended six directional items to be reviewed and addressed prior to final action on the
project. The applicant has made the following changes in response to the directional items
(Attachment 4):
PC Directional Item #1: Re-consider the scale and mass of the building by reducing the square-
footage for compatibility with the neighborhood and surrounding residential developments within the
R-2 zone.
Response: The applicant has communicated that the intent of the project is not to expand operation
or staffing, but to better accommodate current business needs for employees and clients by providing
adequate conference room, office spaces, and training rooms. The applicant has emphasized that the
proposed 13,082 square-foot space is the smallest amount of area that is needed to accommodate the
operational needs of the business, and if a reduced building area is required the applicant would prefer
to consider other more affordable locations outside the City limits to better accommodate the needs
of the business. However, the applicant has revised the project design to reduce the plate heights of
the structure, effectively reducing the overall height of the project by two feet. The applicant has also
expressed their intent with compatibility beyond the immediate vicinity to incorporate the character
of High Street between Higuera and Broad Streets. The project site would provide an architectural
connection between the commercial structures throughout High Street, which includes a variety of
uses and architectural styles for existing commercial structures with very similar circumstances.
PC Directional Item #2: Review and address the angled parking as it can be a safety issue for
oncoming traffic in proximity to intersections.
Response: The City’s Transportation Division reviewed and evaluated the layout of the parking
spaces in response to concerns from the PC conceptual hearing and the ARC. Conditions No. 30, 31,
and 32 have been provided to address safety concerns regarding the parking layout and provide traffic
calming measures above and beyond code requirements.
PC Directional Item #3: Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project that addresses
change of uses of proposed building in the future if HASLO moves from property.
Response: As previously stated, office uses are typically prohibited within the R-2 zone, however,
the PD Ordinance allowed for the operation of the management offices of the affordable housing
project. In the event that the Housing Authority is no longer able to operate, the California Housing
and Urban Development Department (HUD) requires that the management operations of the existing
affordable housing project be transferred to a similar business, which would be allowed to operate
Item 2
Packet Page 8
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
487 Leff Street
Page 6
within the proposed project consistent with the PD Ordinance. If the Housing Authority choses to
transfer their operation to another location, and the deed restrictions on the property are lifted by
HUD, the vacant building could be utilized for other uses consistent with the R-2 zoning designation,
which could provide for a Day Care Center, Convenience Store, Religious Assembly Facilities,
Schools (Primary or Secondary), Residential Care Facility, or a combination of these uses. Since the
PD-Overlay transferred all density of the project site to the residential portion of the project at 468
Leff Street, residential uses at this location would require a density bonus in excess of the previous
approvals to provide any additional residential dwelling units. Any new uses at this location would
require re-evaluation of parking requirements to be consistent with the Zoning Regulations and prior
approvals at the time of submittal of any business license or building permit for tenant improvements.
PC Directional Item #4: The requested parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with a
parking demand study and transportation demand management plan.
Response: The applicant has provided a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) intended
to reduce vehicular trips and parking demand for the project by incentivizing behavior to increase
transportation system efficiency (Attachment 4). The TDMP recommends participation in the SLO
Regional Rideshare’s Commute Survey and Trip Reduction Plan program, offering a parking cash-
out program where employees that walk, bike, or take transit to work would receive a financial
benefit, an onsite bicycle repair station, secure bicycle parking, and shower facilities for employees.
Condition No. 7 has been provided to require implementation of these recommendations.
PC Directional Item #5: Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project plans that
addresses the diagonal street parking and right turn into Beach Street regarding safety and
maneuverability.
Response: The City’s Transportation Division reviewed and evaluated the layout of the parking
spaces in response to concerns from the PC conceptual hearing and the ARC. Safety concerns related
to maneuverability of the diagonal parking and the right turn into Beach Street have been addressed
and incorporated into the project plans. No additional conditions are proposed beyond the traffic
calming measures and compliance with code requirements for maneuverability as previously
discussed.
PC Directional Item #6: The proposed sidewalk along the private property in the front of the office
development should be accessible by public through an easement.
Response: The applicant has agreed that the proposed sidewalk along Leff Street will be available
and accessible by the public through an easement. Condition No. 21 has been provided to require the
recordation of public access easements prior to building permit issuance.
4.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Building Setbacks
Leff Street
Beach Street
High Street
28 feet
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Item 2
Packet Page 9
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
487 Leff Street
Page 7
Parking Setback 0 feet (Leff Street) 20 feet
Trash Enclosure Setback 0 feet (Beach Street) 3 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 32 feet 35 feet
Building Coverage 44% 50%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.78 No Requirement
Signage
Number of Signs
Maximum Area
3
77.5 sq. ft.
1
20 sq. ft.
Public Art Location identified on Sheet A4
(separate application required) Optional/In-Lieu Fee
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
44 (32% reduction)
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
30
2
65
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
9
1
Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)
*2019 Zoning Regulations
5.0 CONSISTENCY COVID-19 ORDERS AND CURRENT FISCAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
This activity is presently allowed under the State and Local emergency orders associated with
COVID-19. This Project and associated staff work will be reimbursed by the Developer directly or
indirectly through fees and therefore consistent with the guidance of the City’s Fiscal Health
Contingency Plan.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) because it consists of the redevelopment of the project site consistent with policies and
standards applicable to development within the Medium Density Residential area within the Planned
Development Overlay, on a site less than five acres in size, with no value as habitat for endangered,
rare, or threatened species, as described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill
Development). The site is within City limits and is served by City utilities and public services. Based
on the location, size, and area and quantity of commercial components of the development, approval
of the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality.
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including: Planning,
Engineering, Transportation, Building, Utilities, and Fire. Staff has not identified any unusual site
conditions or circumstances that would require special conditions. Other comments have been
incorporated into the draft resolutions as conditions of approval.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
8.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
Item 2
Packet Page 10
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
487 Leff Street
Page 8
8.2 Deny the project. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan,
Zoning Regulations or other pertinent City policies or standards. Commission to provide
specific findings for denial.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)
3. Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
4. Project Description
5. Project Plans
6. Conceptual PC Report, Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019
7. Previous ARC Report and Draft Minutes March 2, 2020
8. Previous ARC Report, Meeting Minutes May 4, 2020
Item 2
Packet Page 11
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW, TWO-
STORY, 13,082-SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AS PART OF AN
EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD 0274). THE PROJECT
INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED PRECISE PLAN
APPROVED THROUGH RESOLUTION NO. 2249 (1971 SERIES) TO
ADDRESS THE NEW OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AS IT RELATES TO
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES
EXCEPTIONS FOR PARKING AND TRASH ENCLOSURES WITHIN
THE STREET YARD SETBACK (0 FEET WHERE A 20-FOOT SETBACK
AND 10-FOOT SETBACK, RESPECTIVELY, ARE NORMALLY
REQUIRED), EXCEPTIONS TO SIGN REGULATIONS, AND A 32%
PARKING REDUCTION AND OFFSITE PARKING. PROJECT IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; AS
REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
JUNE 10, 2020 (487 LEFF STREET, ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019)
WHEREAS, the Planning 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 April 10, 2019, providing a conceptual review of the project and provided directional items to
the applicant and staff, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0077-2019, Scott Smith,
applicant; 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 March 2, 2020, and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided
directional items to the applicant and staff, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0506-
2019, Scott Smith, applicant; 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 4, 2020, recommending approval of the project to the Planning
Commission based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, pursuant to a
proceeding instituted under ARCH-0506-2019, Scott Smith, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
June 10, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019,
Scott Smith, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning 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
Item 2
Packet Page 12
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 2
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 Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project (ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019), based on the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element (LUE) because the project provides a
quasi-public use (non-profit that provides services to residential uses) which is consistent
with uses intended for the Medium Density Residential land use designation (LUE Table
1). The project is also consistent with the Circulation Element (CE) where new
development is required to provide fair share responsibility for improvements to the street,
bike, lanes, sidewalks and incorporates traffic calming measures to accomplish the
objectives of the General Plan.
2. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulation because the proposed
building design complies with the development standards for the project within the
Medium Density Residential (R-2) zone (Municipal Code Chapter 17.18).
3. The proposed Planned Development Precise Plan amendment is consistent with the
Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series) and Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series) because
the amendment is limited to changes in the size and position of structures, and does not
include any changes to the overall density or land uses of the project site.
Development Review Findings
4. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for office
design and infill development because the architectural style is complementary to the
surrounding neighborhood and commercial character of High Street.
5. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines by
providing a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest and articulation to
the building design that are compatible with the design and scale of the existing structures
in the surrounding neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.3).
6. As conditioned, the project respects the privacy of adjacent residences through appropriate
building orientation and windows that minimize overlook and do not impair the privacy of
the indoor or outdoor living space of neighboring structures.
7. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will not negatively alter the overall
character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the development is
designed in a manner that does not deprive reasonable solar access to adjacent properties
by positioning the majority of the building mass along the High Street frontage and is
separated on each side by a public street. The project incorporates vertical and horizontal
Item 2
Packet Page 13
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 3
wall plan offsets, which provide a high-quality and aesthetically pleasing architectural
design.
Street Setback Exception Findings
8. As conditioned, granting the street setback reduction of zero feet for unenclosed parking
spaces along Leff Street, where 20 feet is normally required, is consistent with the Zoning
Regulations and the General Plan because the section of Leff Street has been redesigned
into a one way street with the public sidewalk routed through the development project site
where vehicle parking spaces do not interfere with pedestrian circulation, and vehicles may
adequately park without overhanging onto the public right-of-way.
9. The street parking reduction provides for an improvement to vehicle and pedestrian
circulation for the neighborhood because the project incorporates improvements along all
three street frontages that provides additional street parking, improved intersections along
Leff Street and High Street, and Leff Street and Beach Street.
10. The street setback reduction will not have any adverse effects on the surrounding properties
in the vicinity because the project provides improvements to traffic, lighting and vehicle
and pedestrian safety from existing conditions.
11. Site characteristics and required improvements make strict adherence to the Zoning
Regulations impractical due to odd shape of the lot that includes three street frontages, the
project nonetheless conforms with the intent of the Zoning Regulations because: Zoning
Regulations Section 17.70.170.D.2.a (Setbacks, Exceptions to Setback Requirements,
Discretionary Exceptions, Reduced Front and Street Side Setbacks) which allows for the
Director’s discretion to reduce the street side setbacks to zero feet for unenclosed parking
spaces, that accommodates parking spaces without interfering with pedestrian circulation.
Parking Reduction Findings
12. The project qualifies for the additional 5 percent parking reduction by providing additional
bicycle parking beyond what is required for the development project in accordance with
Zoning Regulations §17.72.050.C.3.b. Parking may be reduced by one vehicle parking
space for each five bicycle spaces provided in excess of requirements and the project
provides 20 bicycle spaces in excess of the requirements resulting in an additional four
vehicle parking space reduction
Off-Site Parking Findings
13. The proposed seven (7) off-site parking spaces is consistent with Zoning Regulations
because the site on which the off-site parking at 468 Leff Street is located within 300 feet
of the project, the off-site location is owned and controlled by the same owner as the
proposed project and is not separated from the use by any feature that would make
pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous (controlled intersection and crosswalk).
Item 2
Packet Page 14
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 4
14. The off-site parking is acceptable at 468 Leff Street to serve 487 Leff Street because
proposed off-site parking is consistent with the existing use of the subject properties that
are part of the same development plan, and the project includes public access
improvements along the street frontage by including updated sidewalk and crosswalk
improvements that benefit the neighborhood.
15. The proposed off-site parking spaces will not have any adverse effects on the surrounding
properties in the vicinity because 468 Leff Street maintains adequate parking for the
existing residential uses and no physical changes to the site or management thereof will
result from this action.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it consists of the
redevelopment of the project site consistent with policies and standards applicable to development
within the Medium Density Residential area within the Planned Development Overlay, on a site
less than five acres in size, with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, as
described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development). The site is within City
limits and is served by City utilities and public services. Based on the location, size, and area and
quantity of commercial components of the development, approval of the project will not result in
any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning Commission (ARCH-
0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019). 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. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures and conditions, applicable to the
project site, established under City Council Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series) and Council
Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series).
3. 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 the Development Review application.
Item 2
Packet Page 15
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 5
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details or equivalent
shadow variation, and all other details including but not limited to awnings, and railings. Plans
shall indicate 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. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials
for all design features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with
the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required short and
long-term bicycle parking for all intended uses, plans submitted for construction permits shall
include bicycle lockers or other area for the storage of 20 additional bicycle parking spaces
beyond that which is required by code. Sufficient detail shall be provided about the placement
and design of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering
Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Community Development Directors.
6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required electric
vehicle (EV) ready and EV capable parking required for non-residential uses. Sufficient detail
shall be provided about the placement and design of EV equipment and raceway for future
supply, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Community Development
Director.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall implement the Transportation
Demand Management Plan identifying the responsibility for monitoring and reporting the
progress of the Trip Reduction Program to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director and the Transportation Division. The Trip Reduction Plan should be clear on the
performance measures, how they will be monitored/measured, and what actions will be taken
if the number of parking spaces is insufficient upon full occupancy and operation of the
project. The Community Transportation Board will be responsible for coordinating annual
surveys, reporting to the city, and providing current and up to date program information to
residents.
8. Prior to building occupancy, the applicant shall complete an Off-site Parking Agreement
providing for a minimum of seven (7) parking spaces located at 468 Leff Street to be used to
provide the required parking for the Housing Authority at 487 Leff Street.
9. The seven (7) parking spaces located at 468 Leff Street shall be owned, leased or otherwise
controlled by the party controlling the use 487 Leff Street, until required parking for the use
of the building can be provided on-site or the use changes with a lower parking requirement.
This permit shall be valid only for the operation of the proposed use (HASLO) at 487 Leff
Street. Expansion, modification and/or change of the uses, not substantially in conformance
with this permit, shall require City approval.
10. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating
compliance with maximum light intensity standards not to exceed a maintained value of 10
Item 2
Packet Page 16
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 6
foot-candles. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting,
shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All 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 §17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations.
11. 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 adequately screen
them. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be
adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
12. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public right -of-way
consistent with §17.70.200 of the Zoning Regulations. A landscape buffer shall be provided
between the fence screening the storage area and the back of sidewalk. The subject property
shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times, free of excessive leaves,
branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible for the clean-up of
any landscape material in the public right-of-way.
13. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with
submittal of working drawings for a building permit. 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 surfaces and
finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. The landscape plans shall
provide mature landscaping along the street frontage of the new structure that is of an
evergreen species and a minimum size of 5 gallons, that complements the buildings
architecture, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
14. Plans submitted for construction permits shall include elevation and detail drawings of all
walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards
described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.70.070 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges), except those
identified for screening of the trash corral as depicted in the project plans submitted with this
application.
15. 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 back-flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
Item 2
Packet Page 17
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 7
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.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development
16. A separate miscellaneous public plan submittal and approval will be required in conjunction
with the building permit plan submittal. The improvement plans shall be approved and
incorporated into the building plans for reference prior to building permit issuance. The plans
and format shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards. A separate improvement
plan review fee and Public Works inspection fees will apply based on the fee resolution in
effect at the time of the submittal.
17. The improvement plan submittal shall include any off-site improvements as conditioned. The
plans shall include the existing pertinent frontage improvements along both sides of High,
Leff, and Beach streets, along with the adjacent High Street intersections at Harris and King
streets. All existing receiving curb ramps shall be shown for reference. The plans shall show
and note the location of the existing streetlights located at the intersections.
18. The improvement plans shall consider all pedestrian street crossings for ramp locations,
orientation, type, and receiving ramp availability per City and ADA standards. Off-site ramp
upgrades may be required.
19. Depending upon the final design, pedestrian and vehicle movements, private lighting
improvements, and existing streetlighting levels, additional streetlighting may be required on
the project side of High Street per City Engineering Standards.
20. The improvement plans shall include all details of the proposed parallel and angled parking
improvements along High, Beach, and Leff streets. The plans shall analyze the number of
altered public spaces and shall include designated accessible space(s) per ADA requirements
for public rights-of-way. Space delineation triggers the ADA requirement. As such, the
applicant may propose to include T’s and L’s for the parallel street parking to better manage
the area surrounding the project. Red curb areas needed for line-of-sight or other purposes
shall be constructed in conjunction with the public improvements. Unless otherwise accepted
for City maintenance, the red curbing shall be maintained by the developer under a “red curb”
permit.
21. The private and public angled parking within Leff Street shall comply with ADA and the City
Engineering Standards (Parking and Driveway Standards). Any public pedestrian easements
required to accommodate the replaced public sidewalk along the angled parking, curb ramps,
landings for ramps, etc. shall be shown on the plans for reference. Easements shall be
prepared by the applicant in a format approved by the City. Unless approved for deferral by
the Public Works Department, the easements shall be recorded prior to permit issuance.
Item 2
Packet Page 18
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 8
22. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, or ramp shall be repaired or
replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department in conjunction with the
development of the project.
23. The proposed improvements located within the Leff Street right-of-way shall honor the
existing publicly maintained utility improvements to the satisfaction of the Utilities and Public
Works departments. Any modifications required to the existing infrastructure shall be shown
and noted on the plans. Unless otherwise accepted for City maintenance, the Leff Street
improvements including but not limited to the angled parking, street paving, private utilities,
storm drains, landscaping, and the pocket park shall be maintained by the developer/property
owner under an encroachment agreement. Street sweeping shall be provided by the developer.
The agreement shall be in a format approved by the City and shall be recorded prior to permit
issuance.
24. The building and improvement plan submittals shall include a complete utility plan showing
all existing and proposed public and private utilities for reference. Existing utility services
shall be abandoned at the public mains per City Engineering Standards. Utility company
meters shall be shown for reference.
25. The utility plan shall show that all new wire utilities shall be provided as underground
services. Unless specifically approved by the Community Development Director, the
underground wire services shall be achieved without a net increase in the number of utility
poles.
26. The building and improvement plan submittals shall include complete grading and drainage
plans and reports. The plans shall show and note compliance with the Post Construction
Stormwater Regulations (PCR’s). The site/project area shall include all altered and
replacement impervious surfaces within the public right-of-way and within the private parcel
as a common plan of development.
27. The stormwater control plan and submittal shall include a PCR checklist in a format provided
by the City. An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be required prior to permit issuance.
A separate Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded prior to permit
issuance to clarify the maintenance responsibility of the owner/developer.
28. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing trees. The plan shall include the
diameter and species for reference. The plan shall clarify what trees will be removed,
relocated, or retained. Existing trees located outside the work zone shall be retained if
determined to be feasible. If retained, a tree preservation plan shall be included with the plan
submittals and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
29. The architectural site plan, civil plans, and/or landscape plans shall show the existing street
trees, ornamental trees and landscape to remain located to the north of the sidewalk serving
the proposed Leff Street angled parking improvements. Additional compensatory tree
plantings may be required as a condition of the tree removals to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division and City Arborist.
Item 2
Packet Page 19
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 9
Transportation Division – Public Works
30. Plans submitted for a building permit shall demonstrate clear sight distance for approaching
vehicles along all street frontages and intersection.
31. Applicant shall incorporate into the improvement plans traffic calming measures such as
colored/textured pavement surface at the entry or along the full of block of Leff, raised
crosswalk/speed table for the pedestrian crossing Leff Street at High Street, or other traffic
calming features, subject to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
32. Prior to issuance of occupancy certificates, a speed hump shall be installed along the block of
High Street adjacent to the project, subject to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Fire Department
33. A minimum fire flow of 1500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure (minimum) shall be provided
with 300 feet of all exterior walls. If public fire hydrants are not already existing to provide
needed fire flow, additional fire hydrants shall be required to meet flow and spacing.
34. The fire sprinkler riser shall be located in an interior fire sprinkler riser room with exterior
door access. The room shall have signage indicating “FIRE SPRINKLER RISER INSIDE”.
A Knox Box for rapid fire department key entry shall be provided at the riser room.
Utilities Department
35. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards
effective at the time the building permit is obtained and shall have reasonable alignments
needed for maintenance of public infrastructure along public roads.
36. The project is located within a capacity constrained area and shall meet the wastewater flow
offset requirements per Chapter 13.08.396 of the City’s Municipal Code. The approach to
meet the required wastewater flow offset shall be included in the building permit submittal
and to the discretion of the Utilities Director.
37. The proposed landscape plan shall include updated MAWA and ETWU calculations per the
following formula found on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/documents-
and-files
Indemnification
38. 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
Item 2
Packet Page 20
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
487 Leff Street, ARCH-506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Page 10
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of June, 2020.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 2
Packet Page 21
Item 2
Packet Page 22
Item 2
Packet Page 23
Item 2
Packet Page 24
Item 2
Packet Page 25
3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
p: (805) 543-1794 • f: (805) 543-4609 www.rrmdesign.com
a California corporation Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 Robert Camacho, PE 76597 Steve Webster, LS 7561 Jeff Ferber, LA 2844
May 29, 2020
Transmitted via email: kbell@slocity.org
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Community Development
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 487 Leff Street Mixed-Use Development
Development Review and a Precise Plan Amendment to an Approved
Planned Development Zoning
Dear Kyle,
On behalf of our Client, the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), RRM Design
Group (RRM) submits this application for development review and a precise plan amendment to
an approved planned development zoning by the planning commission for a proposed
redevelopment of its office facilities at 487 Leff Street. Submitted plans include detailed
development plans consistent with City checklists.
Since the early 1970s, HASLO has occupied the corner of Leff and High Streets in San Luis
Obispo and served thousands of clients monthly, providing housing assistance from an
approximately 5,500 sf office. As HASLO celebrates its 50th anniversary, it looks to the future
with plans to construct a new office building that embraces traditional neighborhood character.
The goals for the project are as follows:
• A building that reflects community values, aesthetics, affordable housing, energy
efficiency, social stability, and economic strength
• A readily identifiable entry that is comfortable, embracing, and provides dignity for those
in need of housing assistance
• A building that facilitates collaboration and productivity for HASLO staff and its board of
directors
Item 2
Packet Page 26
487 Leff Street Mixed-Use Development
Development Plan and Precise Plan
Amendment Review by Planning Commission
May 29, 2020
Page 2 of 3
HASLO recognizes that its project plans are ambitious but feels strongly that keeping its
headquarters central within the City of San Luis Obispo is its highest priority and key to its
business success. The reasons for building at its existing headquarters include the following:
• The site is in a central location in San Luis Obispo that is convenient for and familiar to
clients
• The site is on an established bus route that serves the needs of HASLO clients
• The site has an odd shape which restricts development options and makes meeting all
property development standards more difficult
• The office expansion is not being pursued to expand staff but rather to accommodate
existing staff and clients better
• The new building gives HASLO on-site meeting rooms and other needed facilities
• HASLO wishes to continue to remain closely accessible to its clients. Alternative sites
to accommodate their space needs are more remotely located in the Airport area
which is beyond the public transportation network typically utilized by their clients
The project offices were approved at the site about 50 years ago. The office land use was
allowed in the underlying R-2 zone through planned development. Given the unique history of
the establishment of the offices at the site, the Applicant team is seeking flexibility with the
analysis of compliance with City development standards. Some of the advantages of moving
forward with our preferred plan include the following:
More ground floor area for the public use − Intrinsic to HASLO’s mission is servicing its
clients. The area where customers use the building needs to be secured for the safety of
HASLO staff, as well as their clients. For both accessibility and security reasons, the public areas
need to be located on the ground floor. The development plans with surface-level parking
spaces that back out into Leff Street allows for a larger first-floor footprint.
Lower height for better compatibility with neighborhood – An earlier version of the
project included a three-story podium-style building to accommodate on-site parking spaces.
Providing parking in this manner used a large percentage of the ground level at the site. With
the current proposal, which has a larger first-floor area for office use, the building height is
limited to two levels. This provides a building massing and scale that is more compatible with the
existing development in the surrounding neighborhood and a more pedestrian-friendly
streetscape, which was unanimously endorsed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
with their review of the latest development plans on May 4, 2020.
Creative use of street right-of-way – The project site has a triangular shape and three
street frontages, which complicates development and makes compliance with property
development standards more of a challenge. Leff Street between High and Beach Streets has
HASLO uses on both sides of the street. The current proposal includes providing 16 on-site
Item 2
Packet Page 27
487 Leff Street Mixed-Use Development
Development Plan and Precise Plan
Amendment Review by Planning Commission
May 29, 2020
Page 3 of 3
angled parking spaces for HASLO that back out onto Leff Street. Leff Street would be one-way
between High and Beach Streets with traffic going west to east. The north side of the street
would accommodate 18 public parking spaces within the right-of-way.
The advantages of this parking strategy are:
• Net gain of eight public parking spaces (three on Leff Street, two on Beach Street, and
three on High Street) via the narrowed Leff-High street intersection
• Directly serves HASLO uses that exist on both sides of the street, but open for anyone
to use
• There is no need for a street abandonment as traffic flow and access to underground
utilities is maintained
The Applicant team is looking forward to the Planning Commission’s review of final
development plans and moving forward with the project.
Please feel free to contact me at (805) 543-1794 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
Pamela Ricci, AICP
Principal Planner
cc: Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
Attachments: Project Narrative and Travel Demand Management Plan
jmwN:\0801\0879-01-RS17-487-Leff-St-Mixed-Use-Dev\Project-Management\Correspondence\HASLO\HASLO Submittal Cover Letter-bpd-5-29-
2020.docx
Item 2
Packet Page 28
HASLO Headquarters
Amend Precise Plan of Original Planned Development &
Architectural Review of Development Plan
May 29, 2020
Applicant: Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO)
Representative: RRM Design Group
Main Address: 487 Leff Street
Existing Zoning: R-2-PD, Medium-Density Residential Planned Development; PD included
both sites described below.
Planned Development (PD): PD approved 12-7-70; follow-up Precise Plan approved 11-15-71.
Existing Site Description:
❖ Offices
Address: 487 Leff Street
APN: 003-623-001
Site Area: 16,713 square feet (0.38-acre)
Existing Development:
• 5,444 square-foot offices in two buildings, one is two-stories
• Architectural character has elements of the Central Coast’s public housing vernacular of the
60’s and 70’s
• 18 parking spaces required by code; 10 on-site automobile parking spaces provided
• 11 bicycle spaces
• Employees use High and Beach on-street parking; clients use Leff Street on-street parking
Item 2
Packet Page 29
HASLO Headquarters Summary
Page 2
❖ Affordable Housing (Apartments)
Addresses: 456-492 Leff Street
APN: 003-622-016
Site Area: 1.02 acres
Existing Development:
• 20 apartments - including two additional apartments in replacement of the two apartments
that existed across the street at 487 Leff Street, but were converted to office spaces in the
past; 21 spaces required (one per unit plus 2 spaces for the manager’s unit)
• 37 parking spaces originally; now 28 vehicle parking spaces plus two motorcycle parking
spaces (basketball court & play area added)
• 7 extra parking spaces are available beyond code requirements
Proposed Development (487 Leff)
• Demolish existing development
• Rebuild new, two-story office building with 13,082 square feet of floor area.
• Provide 16 on-site parking spaces, with one van-accessible ADA space.
o Leff Street between High and Beach Streets has HASLO uses on both sides of the street. The
current proposal includes creating 16 on-site angled parking spaces for HASLO that back out
onto Leff Street. Leff Street would be one-way between High and Beach Streets with traffic
going west to east. The north side of the street would accommodate 18 public parking
spaces within the right-of-way.
• The advantages of this parking strategy are:
o Net gain of eight public parking spaces (3 on Leff St., 2 on Beach St., and 3 on High St.)
o Directly serves HASLO uses that exist on both sides of the street, but open for anyone to use
o There is no need for a street abandonment as traffic flow and access to underground
utilities is maintained
Office Parking Calculations
Location Floor Area Parking Ratio Parking Requirement
First Floor 7,329 square feet
Second Floor 5,753 square feet
Total 13,082 square feet 1 space/300 sq.ft. 43.6 or 44 spaces
Overall Project Parking Summary
Use Parking Required Parking Provided
Apartments 21 28
Offices 44 16
Subtotal 65
20 additional bicycle spaces – reduce car
parking by 1 car/5 spaces w TDMP
- 4
Proposed PD Parking Reduction 28% 61 – 17 = 44 44
Item 2
Packet Page 30
HASLO Headquarters Summary
Page 3
PD Parking Reduction
Parking for the proposed office building does not fully comply with current City Zoning Ordinance
requirements for off-site parking. However, the original Planned Development overlay zoning for the
overall project site (offices and apartments) incorporated a 27% parking reduction into the approval and
precise plan (total required 62, with 47 provided for the development). Therefore, as noted in the prior
summary table, the proposed project parking of 44 spaces results in a 28% parking reduction which is of
a similar scope to the originally approved PD parking reduction. The project is in substantial
conformance with the original PD parking reduction with the additional 20 bicycle parking spaces shown
on plans. In accordance with Zoning Regulations Section 17.72.050 C.3, one car space may be deducted
for each five additional bicycle spaces with a TDMP and approval of the review authority, which in this
case would be the Planning Commission. This allows the project parking requirement to be reduced by
four spaces.
Planned Development
The project offices were approved at the site about 50 years ago. The office land use was allowed in the
underlying R-2 zone through a planned development. The project site has a triangular shape and three
street frontages which complicates development and makes compliance with property development
standards more of a challenge. Given the unique history of the establishment of the offices at the site,
the applicant team is seeking flexibility with the analysis of compliance with City development
standards.
Requests for a parking reduction for the project were previously discussed and the required TDMP is
part of the project submittal in support of that request. The project as designed fully complies with
building height and site coverage requirements. Street yards along both High and Beach Streets are 10
feet to the main building structure, which was allowed for the project site with the original PD approval.
The setback for the building from Leff Street is substantially more at 27’6”. With the current plan, there
are continuous street yards provided along both High and Beach Streets without any parking spaces or
back-up areas within the two street yards as is the case currently (see Sheet A3).
Technically, the project will have a 0-foot street yard for parking spaces off Leff Street. Visual impacts
will be mitigated by substantial planters on either side of the bank of 16 parking spaces at the corners of
Leff and High and Leff and Beach Streets, as well as street tree wells and adjacent landscaping. The
design is intrinsic to the proposal to reuse the Leff Street corridor as a complete street with HASLO uses
of offices and apartments on both sides of the block.
A screened trash corral for storage of waste wheelers is provided mid-block on Beach Street with a six-
foot high horizontal-wood siding screen to complement and blend with other parts of the building. The
proposed trash corral will be attractive, coordinate with the main building, and is outside the public
right-of-way.
Affordable Housing Requirement
HASLO is constructing two additional apartment units across the street (456-492 Leff) to meet the
project’s affordable housing requirements.
Item 2
Packet Page 31
HASLO Headquarters Summary
Page 4
Project Signage
HASLO’s sign program, consisting of three signs, is very elegant, tasteful, and understated; it is used to
highlight the two main entries to the building off Leff and High Streets. The larger vertical wall sign adds
interest and character to the main façade and is centrally located on the elevation to the left of a main
building entry. Overall, proposed signage is proportionate in scale with the building walls and features
they will be placed on, and appropriate for the proposed use. The three signs proposed include:
1) One main vertical wall sign on the High Street elevation – Composed of individual 2’4” inch
letters that are 20 feet in total length (46.5 square feet total area).
2) One awning sign above the entry to the building on the High Street elevation – Composed of
individual raised channel letters 7” high mounted on the fascia and 27’ long (15.5 square feet
total area).
3) One awning sign above the entry to the building on the Leff Street elevation – Composed of
individual raised channel letters 7” high mounted on the fascia and 27’ long (15.5 square feet
total area).
• Sign Regulations & Exception Request
The City’s previous Sign Regulations allowed one sign per street frontage up to 20 square feet in
Residential Zones (in effect while plans were being prepared up to November 2019). Current regulations
allow one 20 square-foot sign. Proposed signage for HASLO’s Headquarters would require approval of a
sign exception in terms of the number of signs (three signs where one is allowed) and the total area
(77.5 square feet where 20 square feet is allowed).
• Findings to Support Approval of an Exception
Section 15.40.610 includes findings for approval of an exception which focus on the unusual
circumstances that may warrant support for and approval of an exception. The following includes
suggested wording for the approval of an exception for the proposed signage for this project:
1. There are unusual circumstances applying to the property which make strict adherence to the
regulations impractical or infeasible, such as the uniqueness of the site with a triangular shape with
three street frontages, and a Planned Development approval to have an office use in a R-2,
residential zone. The proposed signs for the new office building are understated and in scale with
the building elevations that they will be placed on, providing for reasonable identification for the
business at this location. Proposed signage represents superior or innovative design appropriate for
the building and location, and is reasonably necessary for the unusual circumstances.
2. The exception is consistent with the intent and purpose of the sign regulations, and is granted as an
alternative to the standards, as it provides for visibility of the business to the public with a superior
design for an office use on a residentially zoned site.
3. The sign exception is for superior design and complies with Design Principles of this Chapter and will
not result in: visual clutter; excessively sized signage in comparison to the building or surroundings;
signage that is inconsistent with the character of the surroundings; or approval of signs that are
prohibited in this Chapter.
Item 2
Packet Page 32
HASLO Headquarters Summary
Page 5
Responses to 4-10-19 Planning Commission Directional Items
1. Re-consider the scale and mass of the building by reducing the square-footage for
compatibility with the neighborhood and surrounding residential developments within the R-2
zone.
HASLO looked at many different alternatives to site development before settling on the current
plan. One alternative that was considered was a three-story podium-style building with about
18,000 square feet of floor area to accommodate on-site ground-level parking. With the current
proposal, which has a larger first floor area for office use, building height is limited to two levels
and within the allowed maximum height of 35 feet.
The project design plans went to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) at two separate
meetings on March 2nd, 2020, and May 4th, 2020. In response to ARC direction, the overall
building height was lowered an additional two feet to not exceed 32 feet by incorporating lower
plate heights. This provides a building massing and scale that steps back from the street with a
smaller second-floor level, is compatible with the existing development in the surrounding
neighborhood, and has a more pedestrian friendly streetscape. Many of the structures in the
vicinity of the site are two-stories and of a similar height.
Other modifications made to project plans to address the building’s scale and compatibility in
response to ARC comments at the March 2, 2020 meeting include:
• Several two-story elements were removed with emphasis added to one-story
articulation.
• Revised character of fenestration rhythm to emulate the surrounding residential and
commercial buildings.
• Revised flat trellis/window shades into pitched awning at the pedestrian level.
• Added a “covered porch” at the High Street entry to enhance the human scale.
• Simplified the colors and materials palette to enhance cohesiveness and simplicity of
the design.
• Modified building elements such as the High Street elevation support column and
brackets to be less imposing.
When the project returned to the ARC on May 4th, the ARC unanimously forwarded a
recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of the development plans.
Item 2
Packet Page 33
HASLO Headquarters Summary
Page 6
2. Review and address the angled parking as it can be a safety issue for oncoming traffic in
proximity to intersections.
3. Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project plans that addresses the
diagonal street parking and right turn into Beach Street regarding safety and maneuverability.
The one-way entry to Leff Street from High Street has been substantially modified to provide a
smooth and safe transition. The northern portion of the entry point has been converted into a
landscape parklet with curbing that works with the expanded bulb-out on the south to allow for
more fluid turning movements and provide a larger transition buffer area between back-up
spaces and entering vehicles. Similarly, the bulb-outs and the four-way stop at Beach and Leff
Streets have expanded planters to keep cars backing out farther from the intersection.
4. Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project that addresses change of uses
of proposed building in the future if HASLO moves from property.
HASLO has been established at this site for nearly 50 years. They are making a substantial
investment in their future by redeveloping their headquarters on the current site that they own
with a contemporary, state-of-the-art building. The potential scenario that HASLO would leave
the site and another use be established here is not a real concern in this case. They are
committed to staying here and expect to be in business for many decades. The need to assist
low-income households with housing is an ongoing issue that will be a long-term City need.
5. The requested parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with a parking demand
study and transportation demand management plan.
The parking reduction was previously described and a TDMP prepared to support allowing the
project to move forward with the parking spaces provided and programs contained within the
TDMP. As has been pointed out at past review hearings and in applicant statements, the
Housing Authority is not looking to hire many more employees with an expanded office space,
but rather to have the facilities to serves its internal needs and those of its clients. This is the
core reason that HASLO is pursuing the amendment to the precise plan is to build a larger
building. Currently, offices have been made from former closets and the HASLO board is forced
to squeeze into an undersized meeting room. There is not a dedicated break room for
employees and many other deficiencies. HASLO is planning a new building to meet its current
and long-term needs that has an efficient floor plan with essential facilities and amenities.
6. The proposed sidewalk along the private property in the front of the office development
should be accessible by public through an easement.
HASLO agrees with making the sidewalk publicly accessible through an easement.
Attachments:
Apartment Parking Exhibit
Travel Demand Management Plan with Addendum
Item 2
Packet Page 34
456-492 LEFF STREET PARKING
Path of travel from
apartment parking to
project entry
HIGH STREETLEFF STREETB
E
A
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
Item 2Packet Page 35
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 29, 2020
To: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Organization: Community Development
Department, City of SLO
From: Pam Ricci
Title: Principal Planner
Project Name: HASLO Headquarters
Project Number: ARCH-0506-2019 &
PDEV-0507-2019
Topic: Travel Demand Management Plan (TDMP) Addendum
Given that a parking reduction is requested with the new project proposal, the amount of
parking spaces available to serve the site and potential impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood have been a focus of discussion and scrutiny. To accompany the project plans
and supporting documents, a TDMP was prepared to look at a menu of different ways to
address parking demand and limit the number of single-vehicle automobile trips needed to the
site.
During the review of the project, HASLO like most businesses has been forced to conduct
business differently since State “shelter at home” orders went into effect mid-March of 2020.
Given this unique set of circumstances, HASLO staff has concluded that there are additional
policies and strategies highlighted in this memo that will augment the TDMP to further address
concerns with parking demand. These include:
1) Plans show an additional 20 bicycle parking spaces beyond the base code requirements.
This was noted in previous parking calculations for the project, but is not formally
incorporated into the TDMP. In accordance with Zoning Regulations Section 17.72.050
C.3, one car space may be deducted for each five additional bicycle spaces with a TDMP
and approval of the review authority, which in this case would be the Planning
Commission. The project narrative incorporated this reduction in parking calculations
which allows the project parking requirement to be reduced by four spaces. With this
reduction in required parking spaces, the proposed parking reduction is 28%, which is in
substantial conformance with the original PD parking reduction.
2) Allow more employees to work from home more frequently. Even beyond COVID-19
times, HASLO believes that this is workable and will be an on-going trend for the future.
This will enable HASLO to further control daily parking demand and to consider varied
shifts for essential workers that need to work out of the office.
Item 2
Packet Page 36
TDMP Addendum
Page 2
To this end, HASLO will offer flex schedules to this to employees able to alternate their
office days/hours to reduce parking demand.
3) To satisfy the TDMP measure for secured bicycle parking, HASLO will provide for this
storage with development of their new building.
4) Bike locker and shower requirements will be provided consistent with Zoning
Regulations Section 17.70.180.
5) HASLO will provide subsidized transit passes to those not using cars, and an equivalent
incentive to those that carpool.
Item 2
Packet Page 37
(805) 316-0101
895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6, Morro Bay, CA 93442
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 12, 2019
To: Pam Ricci and Darin Cabral, RRM Design Group
From: Joe Fernandez and Travis Low, CCTC
Subject: HASLO Travel Demand Management Plan
This memorandum summarizes the Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan for the proposed reconstruction
of the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) headquarters at 487 Leff Street in the City of San Luis
Obispo. The proposed project would not increase the number of employees on site, but instead will better
accommodate existing staff and clients with on-site meeting rooms and other needed facilities. The site is
located in a walkable, bikeable area well served by transit and is well suited to support the City’s goals to reduce
vehicle trips.
To address the calculated employee parking deficit, the applicant could implement this TDM plan to reduce
vehicular trips and parking demand. TDM plans generally incentivize behavior to increase transportation system
efficiency. Because HASLO manages the affordable housing complex near their headquarters building, there is
an opportunity to share parking and implement policies that benefit both HASLO employees and nearby
residents.
The measures have been grouped into two tiers. Tier 1 measures are core strategies and strongly recommended
for immediate implementation. Tier 2 measures are supplemental strategies and recommended for eventual
implementation if feasible.
Tier 1: Strongly Recommended
Participate in SLO Regional Rideshare’s Commute Survey and Trip Reduction Plan program. This program
is provided at no cost to the employer and results in a Trip Reduction Plan prepared by Rideshare
staff.
Offer a parking cash-out program. Under such a program all employees would be offered the choice
of either a parking space or a monthly cash payment. Employees who walk, bike, or take transit to
work would receive the cash benefit while drivers would receive a parking space.
Allow shared use of the 28-space apartment lot by HASLO employees with permits. Field
observations showed numerous available parking spaces in this lot during HASLO business hours.
Employee parking demand complements residential parking demand (e.g. employee spaces are
occupied during the workday, while residential spaces are more heavily used outside of working hours),
resulting in more efficient usage. Per the application materials seven employees should park at the
apartments.
Reserve a portion of close-in parking at the headquarters building for carpools and vanpools to
encourage higher vehicle occupancy.
Provide an on-site bicycle repair station and secured bicycle parking.
Provide on-site bike lockers and showers.
Provide transit pass and bicycle commuter benefits to employees who do not drive to work.
Item 2
Packet Page 38
2 HASLO Travel Demand Management Plan
Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 12, 2019
Tier 2: Recommended if Feasible
Provide on-site parking for a bicycle share program that will be operated by the City.
Work with companies such as Zipcar to provide permanent car sharing parking spot(s) on site.
Unbundle parking spaces for the residential complex across the street managed by HASLO. This
enables households that do not use parking spaces to reduce their housing costs and would include
the following components.
o Offer parking permits for lease to households who need them. Parking costs are currently
bundled in monthly rent, a benefit only for residents with cars.
o Reduce rent for residents who do not purchase a permit thereby making it available for use
by HASLO employees.
Implementing these TDM measures and designating shared parking would reduce the parking deficit and
support other City goals towards a more active mode split. We recommend that the effectiveness of these
measures be monitored regularly via an annual survey of employees and adjusted as needed.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Item 2
Packet Page 39
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USET1# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)TITLE SHEET487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USESITEHIGH ST.KING
LEFF ST.BEA
C
H ST.PROJECT DIRECTORYOWNER:HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO487 LEFF STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ARCHITECT:RRM DESIGN GROUP3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: DARIN CABRALPHONE: (805)-543-1794EMAIL: DJCABRAL@RRMDESIGN.COMPROJECT ADDRESS:487 LEFF STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN:003-623-001PROJECT DESCRIPTIONHASLO PLANS TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 487 LEFF STREET WHERE THEIREXISTING OFFICES ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED WITH A NEW TWO-STORY, 13,118 SQUARE-FOOT HEADQUARTERS BUILDING. THE LARGER BUILD-ING IS NOT DESIGNED TO EXPAND STAFFING BUT BETTER ACCOMMO-DATE THEIR CURRENT BUSINESS NEEDS FOR BOTH EMPLOYEES AND CLIENTS. THE GROUND FLOOR IS INTENDED TO BE THE CUSTOMER USE AREA, PROVIDE CONFERENCE ROOM SPACES, AND A LARGER TRAIN-ING ROOM THAT CAN ALSO ACCOMMODATE BOARD MEETINGS.THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD PROVIDE STAFF OFFICES AND A BREAK ROOM.SINCE HASLO OWNS BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET IN THIS BLOCK OF LEFF STREET, ON-SITE PARKING IS PROPOSED THAT BACK OUT INTO THE STREET ALLOWING FOR THE LARGER FIRST FLOOR FOOTPRINT TO MEET ALL THE CUSTOMER SERVICE NEEDS FOR CLIENTS. THIS CONCEPT WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 4-10-19 AND GENERAL-LY SUPPORTED.PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDE A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PRECISEPLAN APPROVED WITH THE ORIGINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZON-ING AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS. TO AD-DRESS A REQUEST FOR REDUCED PARKING, A PARKING STUDY AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS BEING PRE-PARED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW PROVIDED PARKING CAN HANDLEANTICIPATED DEMAND.THE PROJECT BUILDING DESIGN IS A CONTEMPORARY DESIGN THAT INCLUDES A VARIETY OF MATERIALS AND WALL PLANE MODULATIONTO ADD INTEREST AND ARTICULATION. SIMILARLY, PROPOSED COL-ORS ARE CAREFULLY PLACED AND COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER BUT ARE VARIED. THE BUILDING MASSING AND SCALE IS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ARTICULATION AND THE HIGH STREET ELEVATION ISSTEPPED BACK IN HEIGHT FROM THE STREET FRONTAGES TO ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY.PARKING REDUCTIONCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 17.72.050 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS,A PARKING DEMAND STUDY WITH TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MAN-AGEMENT PLAN (TDMP) WILL BE PREPARED TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW FOR PROPOSED PARKING REDUC-TIONS. THE PARKING STUDY AND TDMP WOULD FURTHER DEFINE WHAT PROGRAMS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR ONSITE PARKING AND PREVENT CARS FROM SPILLING OVER ONTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. A KEY PART OF HASLO’S CASE FOR A PARK-ING REDUCTION IS THAT THE NEW OFFICE SPACE WILL HELP THEM TO OPERATE MORE EFFICIENTLY AND HAVE COMMON OFFICE FUNCTIONSLIKE BREAK AREAS AND MEETING ROOMS RATHER THAN SIGNIFICANTLYADD NEW EMPLOYEES THAT INCREASE PARKING DEMAND.SHEET INDEXT1 TITLE SHEETA1 INSPIRATION IMAGESA2 CONTEXT IMAGESA3 EXISTING SITE PLANA4 PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANA5 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANA6 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANA7 PROPOSED ELEVATIONSA8 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL EELVATIONSA9 SIGNAGE CALCULATIONSA10 SITE SECTIONSA11 ENTRY SCENEA12 BEACH SCENEA13 LEFF SCENEA14 SOUTH SCENEA15 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONA16 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONA17 COLOR AND MATERIALSA18 DETAIL VIGNETTESA19 HIGH ST. ELEVATIONSA20 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONC1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC2 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYC3 UTILITY PLANC4 VEHICLE TURN EXHIBITL1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANPROJECT STATISTICSZONINGR-2-PD - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALPLANNED DEVELOPMENTPARCEL SIZE:0.38 ACRES (16,713 SF)BUILDING GROSS AREA13,082 SFGROUND FLOOR7,329 SFSECOND FLOOR5,753 SFMAX LOT COVERAGE:50% ( 8,357 SF)PROPOSED COVERAGE:44% (GROUND FLOOR/PARCEL SIZE)LANDSCAPE AREA 3,558 SFIMPERVIOUS SURFACE:13,155 SFMAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT:35 FT.MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT:32 FT.YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSEDFRONT15’-0” 27’-6”SIDE10’-0” 10’-0”REAR10’-0” 10’-0”OCCUPANCY TYPES & AREAS:OFFICE10,400 SFRESTROOM 812 SFSTORAGE 333 SFCIRCULATION/LOBBY 1,053 SFKITCHEN/COMMON 520 SFCONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE VBVICINITY MAPPARKINGAUTO PARKINGCALCULATIONSPACECOUNTPARKING REQUIRED:OFFICE1 SPACE PER 300 SF (13,082/300) 4430% PARKING REDUCTION44 * 0.3 = 13.2 REDUCTION(13.2)TOTAL REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED31BICYCLE PARKING REDUCTION 4 SPACE REDUCTION PERMUNICIPAL CODE WITH 20 BICYCLESPACES ADDED(4)PARKING REQUIREDTOTAL REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED - AFTER REDUCTIONS27PARKING PROVIDED16 ON-SITE PARKING AND 4 SHARED OFF-SITE PER P.D.20MOTORCYCLE PARKINGCALCULATIONSPACECOUNTPARKING REQUIRED:PER MUNICIPAL CODE: 27/201/20 AUTO PARKING REQUIRED 1.35PARKING PROVIDED:2 PROVIDED SHARED OFF-SITE PERP.D.2BICYCLE PARKINGPARKING REQUIRED:PER MUNICIPAL CODE: (13,118/1,500)1 PER 1500 SF 8.75SHORT TERM PROVIDED:75% PER MUNICIPAL CODE: (6.56) 7LONG TERM PROVIDED:25% PER MUNICIPAL CODE: (2.18) 320 ADDITIONAL BICYCLE PARKING PER PARKING REDUCTION75% SHORT TERM25% LONG TERM155TOTAL PROVIDED:SHORT TERM 22LONG TERM 8GRAND TOTAL 30Item 2Packet Page 40
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA1# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020INSPIRATION IMAGESItem 2Packet Page 41
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA2# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020CONTEXT IMAGESItem 2Packet Page 42
DISTANCE FROM APRON5' - 0"22' - 0"DISTANCE TO INTERSECTION20' - 0"DISTANCE FROM APRON5' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"DISTANCE TO INTERSECTION20' - 0"123456DISTANCETO INTERSECTION20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"DISTANCE TO APRON5' - 0"DISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"DISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'- 0"9 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES3 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES10 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"20' - 0"6 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA3# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020EXISTING SITE PLAN1” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)Item 2Packet Page 43
Side Setback10' - 0"FrontSetback10'- 0"Side Setback10' - 0"&'2#46/'06ADA VAN STALLHIGH STREETLEFF STREETEXISTING R.O.W. INCLUDING SIDEWALKS50' - 0"BEACH STREET27' - 6"CLEAR DRIVE ASILE24' - 0"PUBLIC ART LOCATIONONE WAYONE WAYEXISTING CENTERLINE OF LEFF STREETSTOP
18 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES16 ON-SITE PARKING SPACESSTOPSTOPSTOPDISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"DISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'- 0"DISTANCE TO INTERSECTION20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"20' - 0"5 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES9 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES40'- 0"25'- 0"11'- 0"66'- 6"12'- 10"142'-6"30' - 0"40' - 6"17' - 0"11' - 0"20' - 6"BLDG. FOOTPRINTF.F. 214'-6"8'-3"--------22'-0"22'-0"22'-0"22'-0"DISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'-0"4 PUBLIC PARKINGSPACES2/T91/T9487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA4# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN1” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)Item 2Packet Page 44
118 SF55'%74''064;68 SF'.191 SF56#+4141 SF64#5*Á ('0%'&%144#.61 SF/'%*411/40'-0"25'- 0"11'-0"66'- 6"12'- 10"142'-6"1270 SF2412'46;/#0#)'/'06(#/+.;5'.(57((+%+'0%;1204 SF#..Á56#((64#+0+0)411/212 SF/'054'56411/203 SF91/'054'56411/210 SF%10('4'0%'411/210 SF%10('4'0%'411/465 SF%10('4'0%'411/395 SF%10('4'0%'411/252 SF5614#)'121 SF4'%'26+10173 SF.1$$;155 SF%+4%7.#6+10284 SF#64+7/193 SF52'%+#.241)4#/5217 SF%#2+6#.+/2418'/'065439 SF':'%76+8'#0&&+4'%614178 SF2#6+1560 SF.170)''40' - 6"17' - 0"11' - 0"20' - 6"38' - 1"11' - 0"21' - 4"39' - 2"109' - 7"89' - 0"19' -11"1' - 0"&'2#46/'06%#2+6#.+/2418'/'065%+4%7.#6+10%.+'064'.#6+105%10('4'0%'411/':'%76+8' &+4'%61451((+%'5(#/+.;5'.(57((+%+'0%;4'56411/52'%+#.241)4#/55614#)'12'- 8"FIRE RISERLOCATION487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA5# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANFIRST FLOOR PLAN1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1Item 2Packet Page 45
1031 SF((+0#0%'68 SF'.520 SF-+6%*'0%1//10Not Enclosed&'%-803 SF*175+0)52'%#.+565&'2#46/'06%+4%7.#6+10':'%76+8' &+4'%61451((+%'5(+0#0%'*175+0)/#0#)'/'064'56411/5614#)'9'..0'55#4'#789 SF&'%-194 SF/'054'56411/203 SF91/'054'56411/76 SF5614#)'558 SF%+4%7.#6+10183 SF56#+451261 SF*175+0)/#0#)/'06#55+56#065801 SF':'%76+8'#0&&+4'%61457' - 6"11' - 0"15'- 10"41'-2"9'-6"11'- 0"40'-8"12'- 4"12'- 2"114'-8"68' - 6"38' - 1"11' - 0"21' - 10"23' - 7"94' - 6"19'- 3"11'- 3"8' - 0"16' -11"SECOND FLOOR PLAN1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1SHOWER INCLUDEDSHOWER INCLUDED487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA6# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANItem 2Packet Page 46
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA7# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED ELEVATIONS35’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-6”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENING35’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-0”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENING35’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-6”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENINGHIGH ST. ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1LEFF ST. ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2BEACH ST. ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)3Item 2Packet Page 47
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA8# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL ELEVATIONS3 ’ - 0”3 ’ - 0”3 ’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”248’-6”A AT RA RA E/ RST SE AX A A EAX R SE2 1’-0”AX AR H E E E TS/ E H S REE214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”248’-6”A AT RA RA E/ RST SE AX A A EAX R SE2 1’-0”AX AR H E E E TS/ E H S REE214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”248’-6”A AT RA RA E/ RST SE AX A A EAX R SE2 1’-0”AX AR H E E E TS/ E H S REEHIGH ST. ELEVATION1/8 = 1-0 (24 X 36 SHEET)1LEFF ST. ELEVATION1/8 = 1-0 (24 X 36 SHEET)2BEACH ST. ELEVATION1/8 = 1-0 (24 X 36 SHEET)3Item 2Packet Page 48
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA9# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SIGNAGE CALCULATIONS - NO CHANGE25’ - 0” MAX.HIGH ST. SIGNAGE1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1LEFF ST. SIGNAGE1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2wall sign (2'-4”x20' = 46.5 sf)raised channel sign (7”x27' = 15.5 sf)raised channel sign (7”x27' = 15.5 sf)Proposed Sign StatisticsHigh Street Raised Channel Signs (1) 15.5 S.F.Wall Signs (1) 46.5 S.F.Leff StreetRaised Channel Signs (1) 15.5 S.F. Item 2Packet Page 49
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA10# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SITE SECTIONSLEFF STREETSTAIRSMENSRESTROOMCONF.ROOM 3LOUNGECAPITALIMPROVEMENTSPROPERTY MANAGEMENT/FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCYMENSRESTROOMWOMENSRESTROOMWOMENSRESTROOMSPECIALPROGAMSHOUSING MANAGEMENT/ASSISTANTSHOUSING MANAGEMENT/ASSISTANTSHOUSINGSPECIALTIESSTAIRSHIGH STREETHIGH STREETBEACH STREETMECHANICAL SCREENING AREASECTION 11/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1SECTION 21/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)235’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-6”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENING35’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-6”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENINGItem 2Packet Page 50
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA11# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020ENTRY SCENEItem 2Packet Page 51
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA12# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020BEACH SCENEItem 2Packet Page 52
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA13# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020LEFF SCENEItem 2Packet Page 53
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA14# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020SOUTH SCENEItem 2Packet Page 54
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA15# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONPREVIOUS SUBMITTALBEACH SCENE1PROPOSEDBEACH SCENE2PROPOSEDHIGH STREET ENTRY SCENE4PREVIOUS SUBMITTALHIGH STREET ENTRY SCENE3Item 2Packet Page 55
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA16# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONPREVIOUS SUBMITTALSOUTH SCENE1PROPOSEDSOUTH SCENE2PROPOSEDLEFF SCENE4PREVIOUS SUBMITTALLEFF SCENE3Item 2Packet Page 56
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA17# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)COLOR AND MATERIALSFA2BCCCIHHA2EEEGGGIFGBRAIN SCREEN SIDINGMATAVERDE GARAPA HARDWOODOPEN-SLAT ALUMINUM SIDINGLONGBOARD - DARK FIRFIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGJAMES HARDIE - HARDIEPLANKPAINTED - SW 6061 TANBARKSTUCCOPAINTED - SW 7506 LOGGIASTUCCOPAINTED - SW 9151 DAPHNEPRECAST CONCRETE BASECDI - PEBBLE FINISHHIANODIZED STOREFRONT SYSTEMCHAMPAGE FINISHPOWDER-COATED STEELHARDENED BROWN FINISHItem 2Packet Page 57
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA18# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)DETAIL VIGNETTESSOLID CUT METAL HASLO SIGNAGEPOWDER-COATED STEEL BANDELEVATOR ACCENT TOWER ARCHITECTURALPROJECTIONOPEN-SLAT ALUMINUM SIDING SCREENPOWDER-COATED STEEL PORCH COVERING OVER HIGH ST. ENTRYRAISED LETTERS METAL SIGNAGEGLAZING AT STAIR TOWERPLASTER COLUMN BASE WITH METAL CAPPOWDER-COATED STEEL COLUMNPOWDER-COATED STEEL BANDSOLAR PANELS EMBEDDED IN AWNINGSTANDING SEAM PITCHED SLOPE AWNING OVER WINDOWSHARDWOOD RAIN SCREEN SIDING SYSTEMWOODEN BRACKETS/STRUCTUREPOWDER-COATED STEEL AWNINGPOWDER-COATED STEEL PROFILEALUMINUM TUBE GUARDRAILOPEN-SLAT ALUMINUM SIDING SCREENItem 2Packet Page 58
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA19# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020HIGH ST. ELEVATIONSEXISTINGHIGH STREET ELEVATION1PROPOSEDHIGH STREET ELEVATION2Item 2Packet Page 59
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA20# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONPREVIOUS SUBMITTALHIGH STREET ELEVATION1PROPOSEDHIGH STREET ELEVATION2Item 2Packet Page 60
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEC1# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET) E E SE SE SE ETE E T EEX ST E TE EEX ST T SE T SE E SE SE S TEX ST E H TAREA ST R A E 0 70 A T 200 600 T T EST TES THESE S E T E SE E T SES T S THE ES S T THE T T T E T T T ES THE SE ST T THE E TH T T ES SH HE E E ESE T THE EST TE ET E E E ET EE THE SE H E THE TE T H EX ST ES THESEEST TES T E S E T S SSES E T SH E S E E TS ST T ST T TE H E T T E H S S ET THESE T T T E T S ST T TE H E THE E E T S THE S S E EE S T E E T THE T/EX T T T ES E TH T T ES1 T T T EX ST ES T E E TT E- S 2 S E SS S ES 2 X X E T T E S 2 X E T EXTE S 2 X E T 60 HES THE SE S T 3 THE T T SH SE TE E T EX ESS ST T TE S S TE E SE/ E E S S SE TE S SH E E E 4 T T T E E E T SH E E T ES T E E TT SH E S S TE T T SH E S E S TE S EE E S T SH TH H ET ST T T T SH ST E- E T E TE THEE E T HE E S E E TE E ST T S THE ST T E TE T T E E TES TES SE SE 6 T E ETE 18 TTE SE 6 T E ETE SE S E SE E EST 1234 821821
S S
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
SS
S S S S S S H H ST EET E H ST EET
E ST EET61
1
1 1
23 SE = 214 1 16 12 2 0
1 1 4 21 4 0 4 348 3 1 1
2 8 3 3 E T E ST E ST TE T E T E T SE T SE T SHE S E E - 1 1 - 1 10 8 3 6 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 6 2 0 0 6 2 8 4 S E E SE T 4 2 1 4 8 2 4 4 6 1 2 0 1 0
1 ET E S E T EE E E S E S 26 201 12 41 E E SE SE SE ETE E T EEX ST E TE EEX ST T SE T SE E SE SE S TEX ST E H T ST R A E 0 70 A200 600 TES THESE S E T E SE SES T S THE ES S T T E T T T ES ST T T T ES SH HE E ET E E E H E THE ES THESEE T S E S T S ET T S T TH T T ES1 T T T EX ST ES T E E TT E- S 2 S E SS S ES 2 X X E T T E S 2 X E T EXTE S 2 X E T 60 HES THE SE S T 3 THE T T SH SE TE E T EX ESS ST T TE S S TE E SE/ E E S S SE TE S SH E E E 4 T T T E E E T SH E E T ES T E E TT SH E S S TE T T SH E S E S TE S EE E S T SH TH H ET ST T T T SH ST E- E T E TE THEE E T HE E S E E TE E ST T S THE ST T E TE T T E E TES TES SE SE 6 T E ETE 18 TTE SE 6 T E ETE SE S E SE E EST 1234 821821PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANItem 2Packet Page 61
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEC2# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY =214 0 =21 ETE ETEH H ST EET E ST EET E H ST EET
E H ETE ETE ETE ETE ETE S ETE ETE ETE H T T TES E SE THE T S S SH T T ET TS 804 8064 E T T THE E H TH S S E S THE T E H E S-1 E H H ST EETS H H T T TES E SE THE T S S S H T T ET TS 804 8064 E T T THE E H TH S S E S THE T S S S E H E S-1 E T T THE THE SE E H H ST EETS H E E T 204 2 Item 2Packet Page 62
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEC3# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)UTILITY PLANS S H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
SS
S S S S S S H H ST EET E H ST EET
E ST EET SE = 214 1234 626 201 12 40 E S T T TES SE 2 TE ES EST TE T E TE T EX ST TE SE 4 00 E TE E TE T EX ST TE SE 4 SE E TE SE 4 SE E SE / E T SE 6 ST SE ST ST T E1234 6 S E E SE SE ETE E T EEX ST E TE EEX ST T SE T SE ST EX ST TE EX ST S T SE TE TE SE S T TE SE E SE SE S TEX ST E H TEX ST S E SE S SE EEX ST E HE E821821IHHW
E ST EET XE SE 1 EX ST T T ES T S E X TE SE E S E T E E TES S T T TES SE 2 TE ES EST TE T E TE T EX ST TE SE 4 00 E TE E TE T EX ST TE SE 4 SE E TE SE 4 SE E SE / E T SE 6 ST SE ST ST T E 1234 6 S E E SE SE ETE E T EEX ST E TE EEX ST T SE T SE ST EX ST TE EX ST S T SE TE TE SE S T TE SE E SE SE S TEX ST E H TEX ST S E SE S SE EEX ST E HE E821821Item 2Packet Page 63
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEC4# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)VEHICLE TURN EXHIBIT
S
L
OH AH A
S
LH A
S
LH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
H AH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
A
S
L
O
A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A A
S
L
O
A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OA S
L
OH A
S
L
OA S
L
OA S
L
OA S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O1 2 E H
2 E2 S -30 EH EEH H HS -30 EH EEH H HST 1 SSE E SS EH E EH ST 1 1 SSE E SS EH E18 2 E H H H2 2 2
E E T S T SH H S H S E E T S T ST EET TH TH 23
61
18 1818 18 3 3 3 8 3 3 6 66
42 22222222 22 Item 2Packet Page 64
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEL1# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ET TH S T E E E T SE T E S TE T T E E TE E T T TH E ST ET SH ST E ETE T T EE E TH TE T DESI E RELIMI R L T LIST T EES E T S ST E T EE ST H E S S H ESE ST HEEX ST T EE T E S SH S E E S E TH S S E E TES E S H ST E E H ET TE T E E SH E E E SS E SS E X EST ES E S S SH X TE E E E E E E E E S S E S T E E T SH E E E TT E E T TT E E E H S T S E S E S E H S E E X TT S S T H H S S S SE S S S ESE E S E E E SES E T S T SS TES 1 S TE SH S SH E E E E E 2 T E S E E S H E - E TE S TE TE E EE E T TE S E T E ETE E IRRI TI D L TI DESI RITERI E THE SE S S T T E E SE T T THE T TE E TE S T T THE E E E TS E HH E T EE SH E E S E TE SE TE H ES S TH T E EST SHE TE E E TE E E E T E T E E E E T E T T ES E S EE E TH E ET T E T TH T TH S T ETTE E TH THE T S STE ES E E EET EX EE THE ST TE E TE E E T S E E ( E ) E S E H TE T E SE E 6426 4 4 EXISTI TREE RTIRRI TI L UL TI S MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA )ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USAGE (ETWU)66xJAKKE MINNICKCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCItem 2Packet Page 65
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual review of a new two-story office development for the Housing Authority Headquarters consisting of 13,113 square feet and associated site improvements. The project includes an amendment to the Planned Development Precise Plan to address street yard setback reductions and parking lot orientation. PROJECT ADDRESS: 487 Leff Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0077-2019 FROM: Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to the applicant on items to be addressed in plans submitted for final review.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans for conceptual review for the subject site located at 487 Leff Street.
The project will include demolishing the existing 5,444 square foot offices, redevelopment of the site,
and development of a new, two-story, 13,114-square foot office building. The project proposes an
amendment to the Planned Development Precise Plan (see Section 2.0) to address requests for a 30
percent parking reduction, and reconfiguration of street parking, providing 17 parking spaces on-site
where 44 parking spaces would normally be required, (Attachment 1, Project Narrative).
The subject property is located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-2-PD) zone with a Planned
Development Overlay (Attachment 3, Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)). The Planned Development
Overlay included a Planned Development Precise Plan (Development Plan) that was approved by the
City Council which included the 20 residential units and the existing office development (Attachment
4, Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)).
Applicant SLO Housing Authority
Representative Pam Ricci, RRM Design Group
Zoning R-2-PD (Medium Density
Residential with Planned
Development Overlay)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area ~16,712 square feet
Environmental
Status
Final plans for the proposed
project will require further
environmental analysis.
Meeting Date: April 10, 2019
Item Number: 3
Item 2
Packet Page 66
ARCH-0077-2019 (Conceptual)
487 Leff Street
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The purpose of conceptual review before the Planning Commission is to offer feedback to the
applicant and staff as to whether the project’s conceptual site layout and building design is headed in
the right direction before plans are further refined; to specifically discuss concerns and questions
related to land use consistency; and to identify the appropriate application submittal process. The
Commission’s purview is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan,
Zoning Regulations, and applicable City development standards and guidelines.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The PD Overlay included development of 20 affordable residential units located at 468 Leff Street,
and the Housing Authority offices located at 487 Leff Street. The existing Development Plan
authorized a street setback reduction for the office development from 20 feet to 10 feet, and a parking
reduction to provide 40 parking spaces where 55 parking spaces would have normally been required
(Attachment 4, Sheet A1, Existing Site Plan).
The applicant proposes to amend the Development Plan to provide for a larger office development
with a reduced setback for vehicle parking within the street yard along Leff Street, and a new vehicle
parking reduction (Attachment 4, Sheet A2, Proposed Site Plan). Zoning Regulations Section
17.48.090 (Amendments to Final Development Plans) stipulates that amendments to final
development plans may be approved by the Planning Commission when limited to changes in the size
and position of buildings, landscape treatment, or the like.
3.0 DISCUSSION
The conceptual review application is not intended to provide the necessary materials (supplemental
studies) needed to provide a detailed environmental review or analysis of the project. Staff has
identified a set of specific discussion items for Commission’s consideration. The following discussion
items highlight the key concerns that the Commission should discuss and provide direction to the
applicant and staff:
1. Site Layout and Building Design: The proposed project provides an office development within
the residential zone. The project will be reviewed for consistency with Community Design
Guidelines Chapter 3.4 (Guidelines for Specific Commercial and Industrial Uses) for Office
development projects. Office structures differ from other commercial buildings in that their
Figure 1: Project Rendering as seen from High Street.
Item 2
Packet Page 67
ARCH-0077-2019 (Conceptual)
487 Leff Street
Page 3
intensity of use is lower while building scale is typically larger, without careful attention in design
to building form and mass, and street level features, these structures can impair the pedestrian
orientation of a streetscape.
Discussion Item #1: The Commission should discuss whether the conceptual site layout and
building design is compatible with adjacent uses. Specifically, the Commission should discuss
and provide direction to the applicant, staff, and the Architectural Review Commission regarding
the building orientation along the street frontages, parking within the street yard setback, and
building designs adjacent to existing residential developments.
2. Parking Requirements. The existing Development Plan, which was approved in the 1970s
included a 27 percent parking reduction to allow for 40 parking spaces for the residential units,
where 55 were normally required. In total the project provided 47 parking spaces for all proposed
uses at the time of development (37 spaces at 468 Leff Street and 10 spaces at 487 Leff Street).
Since the 1970s, parking requirements have changed for low-income residential units, and the
parking requirement under the standards that are in place today would require only 21 spaces for
the 20 units. See the table below for a breakdown of the parking requirements from the original
approval compared to the parking requirements under the proposed project.
Table 1: Comparative Parking Requirements
Original Parking
Requirement
Parking
Spaces
Proposed Parking
Requirement
Parking
Spaces
Residential (20 units) 55 Residential (20 units) 21
Office (2,000 sq. ft.) 7 Office (13,114 sq. ft.) 44
Parking Reduction (27%) -15 Parking Reduction (29%) -19
Total: 47 Total: 46
The applicant is requesting a parking reduction similar to the original project; however, the
reduction would be for the office uses rather than the residential units. The proposed project would
provide 29 parking spaces at 468 Leff Street and 17 spaces at 487 Leff Street, with a total of 46
parking spaces for the overall development, where 65 spaces would normally be required.
Discussion Item #2: The Commission should discuss whether the parking reduction is consistent
with the original Development Plan. The Commission may provide comments, suggestions, or
questions regarding the submittal of a parking study for features or programs to be included or
addressed, such as: excess bicycle parking or motorcycle parking, shower facilities, and other
programmatic opportunities or incentives.
3. Street Parking Re-configuration. The proposed project includes reconfiguration of street access
and parking along Leff Street and Beach Street, providing an additional 5 public parking spaces
along the street frontages. The applicant has been working with the City’s Transportation and
Engineering Divisions related to the public improvements; however, a more detailed review of
the changes will occur upon submittal of the Major Development Review application.
Discussion Item #3: The Commission may provide comments, suggestions, or questions related
to the reconfiguration of Leff Street and the orientation of public and private parking for the
applicant and staff to address upon submittal of the Major Development Review application.
Item 2
Packet Page 68
ARCH-0077-2019 (Conceptual)
487 Leff Street
Page 4
4.0 NEXT STEPS
Pending direction from the Commission, the applicant will apply for the appropriate entitlement
applications which are anticipated to include: Final Development Plan Amendment, and Development
Review (Major). After the entitlement applications have been deemed complete, the project will be
reviewed by Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to evaluate consistency with the City’s
Community Design Guidelines, with a recommendation to the Planning Commission for final review.
5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed1 Required2
Setbacks
Front Yard (Leff St.)
Corner Street Yard (High St.)
Corner Street Yard (Beach St.)
30 feet
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Height of Structures Not Available 35
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 44% 60%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.78 No requirement
Density Units 29 DU3 16.79 DU
Vehicle Parking 17 spaces 44 spaces
1 Project Plans (Attachment 2)
22019 Zoning Regulations
3Approved through Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
A pre-application meeting was held on September 6, 2018, and comments from other City
Departments including Engineering, Transportation, Utilities, Fire, and Building have been provided
to the applicant team outlining the necessity of the supplemental studies and materials requested in
conjunction with the entitlement application submittal.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Narrative
2. Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)
3. Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
4. Project Plans
Item 2
Packet Page 69
CityofSan Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, CityHall, 990Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Minutes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 6:01 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Vice-Chair Stevenson.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
OATH OF OFFICE
City Clerk Purrington administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Kahn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Robert Jorgensen, Steve Kahn, John McKenzie, Nicholas
Quincey, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chair Hemalata Dandekar, and Chair
Michael Wulkan.
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Community
Development Deputy Director Xzandrea Fowler, Interim Assistant City
Attorney Roy Hanley, Recording Secretary Summer Aburashed.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Vice-Chair Stevenson nominated Commissioner Wulkan for Chair, Commissioner Dandekar
seconded; consensus vote was unanimous.
Vice-Chair Stevenson nominated Commissioner Dandekar for Vice-Chair, Commissioner
Wulkan seconded; consensus vote was unanimous.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Lori Zahn
Steven Bromar
Item 2
Packet Page 70
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2019
Page 2 of 5
1.CONSENT AGENDA – CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, CARRIED 7-0-0 to approve the minutes of March 13,
2019, as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Project Address: 3985 Broad Street And 660 Tank Farm Road. Case #: ARCH-1486-
2018, EID-1484-2018, SPEC 1482-2018, SBDV-1483-2018, BP-SP, C-C-SF, and C/OS-
SP zones; NKT Development LLC and Westmont Development LLC, applicants.
Senior Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report and responded to Commission
inquiries.
Applicant Representatives, Carol Florence, Michael O’Rourke provided an overview of the
project . The Applicant Representative s, along with Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula,
responded to Commission inquires.
Chair Wulkan opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
Kim Love
Chair Wulkan closed the public hearing
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE, CARRIED 7-0-0 to adopt Resolution No. PC1002-2019
entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE AIRPORT AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONE, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, CREEK
SETBACK EXCEPTION, AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE
PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND
COMMERCIAL CENTER AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 10, 2019 (660 TANK FARM
ROAD, 3985 BROAD STREET; EID-1484-2018, SPEC-1482-2018, SBVD-1483- 2018,
ARCH-1486-2018)” with the following modifications:
Add the following condition of approval:
Item 2
Packet Page 71
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2019
Page 3 of 5
The project shall make efforts to encourage bicycle and transit users. To this end, the project
shall include the following:
Transit – immediately south of the Broad Street ingress/egress (near buildings 5 & 6),
the planned sidewalk/landscape area along Broad Street shall be designed to easily
accommodate a bus turnout, should such demand arise in the future. Furthermore, the
applicant would not object should the transit authority determine such an
improvement was warranted.
Bike Racks – the following additional elements shall be installed to attract the use of
bicyclists: a) bike racks shall be located as close to building entrances as is practical;
b) at each bike each location, protective rain/sun canopies shall be installed, as well as
security lighting.
Modify the following Mitigation Measures as shown in strikethrough and underline:
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, and vegetation removal is
conducted within 5 days of the survey and is done continuously, then no further mitigation
survey work shall be required. Additional surveys during the nesting season shall be conducted
as needed if there is any break in vegetation removal, grading and/or construction lasting more
than 5 days. If any active nests are found that would be impacted by vegetation removal, grading
and/or 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 within the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young
of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival (have fledged) as determined by a
qualified biologist. All workers shall receive training on good housekeeping practices during
construction that will discourage nests from being established within the work area (e.g., cover
stored pipe ends, cover all equipment being used daily, etc.) A qualified biologist shall regularly
walk the construction area to look for nest starts and review site for good housekeeping practices.
As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting
birds to a less-than-significant level.
N-1 Sound Wall and or Special Building Considerations South Elevation Assisted Living
Facility. At the time of submittal of construction plans for the assisted living facility, an
acoustical engineering report/analysis will be submitted detailing construction techniques
for noise mitigation to ensure interior habitable spaces facing south and to the east facing
the loading dock area at Building 1, do not exceed annual CNEL = 45 dBA. The
mitigation will most likely be wall, window and door assemblies, or a combination of
these, with an enhanced Sound Transmission Class rating to resist the street noise coming
from Tank Farm Road.
Item 2
Packet Page 72
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2019
Page 4 of 5
Delete Condition #40.
Consider modifying parking adjacent to the woonerf to be parallel instead of
perpendicular.
Consider exploring ways to address noise levels at outdoor areas in the commercial
project; especially at buildings 5 & 6.
RECESS:
The Commission recessed at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at 8:13 p.m. with all Commissioners
present .
3.Project Address: 487 Leff Street. Case #: ARCH-0077-2019, R-2-PD zone; The
Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commission
inquiries.
Applicant Representative s, Pam Ricci and Derek Rod, provided an overview of the project
and responded to Commission inquires.
Chair Wulkan opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
None
Chair Wulkan closed the public hearing
By consensus, the Co mmission recommended to continue the project to a date uncertain and
provide direction to the applicant on items to be addressed in the plans submitted for final
review.
The Commission provided the following directional items to be considered upon resubmittal
of the project plans;
Re-consider the scale and mass of the building by reducing the square-footage for
compatibility with the neighborhood and surrounding residential developments
within the R-2 zone.
Review and address the angled parking as it can be a safety issue for oncoming
traffic in proximity to intersections.
Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project that addresses change
of uses of proposed building in the future if HASLO moves from property.
Item 2
Packet Page 73
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2019
Page 5 of 5
The requested parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with a parking
demand study and transportation demand management plan.
Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project plans that addresses
the diagonal street parking and right turn into Beach Street regarding safety and
maneuverability.
The proposed sidewalk along the private property in the front of the office
development should be accessible by public through an easement .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
3.Agenda Forecast – Community Development Deputy Director Xzandrea Fowler provided an
update of upcoming projects and agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the location, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 06/26/2019
Item 2
Packet Page 74
Meeting Date: March 2, 2020
Item Number: 3
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of a two-story, 13,118-square foot office structure. The project will
include demolishing the existing 5,444-square foot offices, and redevelopment of the site, the project
proposes an amendment to the Planned Development Precise Plan (see Section 4.0) to address
requests for a 40 percent parking reduction, and reconfiguration of street parking, providing 16
parking spaces on-site where 44 parking spaces would normally be required (Attachment 1, Project
Description). The project includes exceptions to the street yard setback to allow for parking along Leff
Street, where a 20 foot setback is normally required, and an exception to allow a trash enclosure along
Beach Street, where a 10 foot setback is normally required (Attachment 2, Project Plans). The project
also includes exceptions to the sign regulations to allow three signs with a total area of 77.5 sq. ft.,
where normally limited to one sign of 20 sq. ft. (Attachment 3, Project Signage).
General Location: The 16,712-square foot
project site is located on developed property
along High Street, Leff Street, and Beach Street ,
with direct access from Beach and Leff Streets.
Present Use: HASLO Headquarters (Office)
Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2-PD)
zone within a Planned Development Overlay
General Plan: Medium Residential Density
Surrounding Uses:
East: Warehousing and Distribution
West: Multi-Family Housing
North: Multi-Family Housing
South: Multi-Family Housing
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary architectural design
Design details: Flat roof system with varying parapet heights and entry towers, outdoor sitting areas,
upper level balcony, trellises, rain screen, and awnings.
Materials: Stucco, fiber cement lap siding, open-slat aluminum siding, anodized aluminum storefront,
and precast concrete base.
Colors: Primary various wood elements; secondary colors include light blue, beige, greenish grey, with
a light-brown storefront and dark brown trim.
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 487 Leff Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
APPLICANT: Scott Smith REPRESENTATIVE: Pam Ricci
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 2
Packet Page 75
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 2
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations, and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments
and recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=24661
BACKGROUND
The Planned Development (PD) Overlay included development of 20 affordable residential units
located at 468 Leff Street, and the Housing Authority offices located at 487 Leff Street. The existing
Development Plan authorized a street setback reduction for the office development from 20 feet to
10 feet along High Street (Project Plans Sheet A3, Existing Site Plan). The applicant proposes to amend
the Development Plan to provide for a larger office development with a reduced setback for vehicle
parking within the street yard along Leff Street (Project Plans Sheet A4, Proposed Site Plan). Zoning
Regulations Section 17.48.090 (Amendments to Final Development Plans) stipulates that amendments
to final development plans may be approved by the Planning Commission when limited to changes in
the size and position of buildings, landscape treatment, or the like.
On April 10, 2019, the Planning Commission provided a conceptual review of the proposed project to
offer feedback to the applicant and staff on the project’s conceptual site layout and building design;
and to specifically discuss concerns and questions related to land use consistency (Attachment 4, PC
Report, Meeting Minutes 4.10.19). The Planning Commission provided the following comments:
• Re-consider the scale and mass of the building by reducing the square-footage for compatibility
with the neighborhood and surrounding residential developments within the R-2 zone.
• Review and address the angled parking as it can be a safety issue for oncoming traffic in
proximity to intersections.
• Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project that addresses change of uses
of proposed building in the future if HASLO moves from property.
• The requested parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with a parking demand
Figure 2: Rendering of project design from the intersection of Leff Street and High Street.
Item 2
Packet Page 76
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 3
study and transportation demand management plan.
• Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project plans that addresses the
diagonal street parking and right turn into Beach Street regarding safety and maneuverability.
• The proposed sidewalk along the private property in the front of the office development should
be accessible by public through an easement.
The applicant has modified the project plans to reflect the Planning Commission’s comments, a
response to each directional item has been provided in the project description (Attachment 1).
DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and CDG. The proposed project provides an office development within the residential
zone. Office structures differ from other commercial buildings in that their intensity of use is lower
while building scale is typically larger. Without careful attention in design to building form and mass,
and street level features, these structures can impair the pedestrian orientation of a streetscape. Staff
has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with CDG Chapter 3.1 (Commercial
Project Design Guidelines), CDG 3.4 (Guidelines for Specific Commercial and Industrial Uses), and the
Sign Regulations 15.40.600 (Exceptions to Sign Standards).
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
Chapter 3.1 – Commercial Project Design Guidelines
§ 3.1.B.2 Neighborhood
Compatibility
The CDG notes that new development should maintain its own identify
and be complementary to its surroundings. A new building can be
unique and interesting and still show compatibility with the
architectural styles and scale of other buildings in the vicinity. The ARC
should discuss whether the office development provides sufficient
design factors to contribute to neighborhood compatibility; design
theme, building scale/size, setbacks and massing, colors, textures, and
building materials.
§ 3.1.B.13 Signs
The CDG states that every structure should be designed with specific
consideration for adequate signage, including provisions for sign
placement, and scale in relation to building scale. The ARC should
discuss the proposed signage as it relates to placement and proportion
in relation to the building scale and design.
§ 3.1.C.2.i Building and Parking
Locations
The CDG states that the visual impact of parking lots should be
minimized by locating parking to the portion of the site that is the least
visible from the street. The ARC should discuss whether the placement
of parking areas is consistent with the intent of the CDG, as the parking
area has been oriented along the street and disguised as street parking.
CDG Chapter 3.4 – Guidelines for Specific Commercial and Industrial Uses
§ 3.4.C.2 a-b Building Design
The CDG provides specific design standards for office developments, to
address concerns for scale and pedestrian character along the
streetscape. The ARC should discuss whether the proposed design of
the building provides sufficient upper story step backs, vertical and
horizontal wall plane offsets, window areas, and visibly significant
architectural entry features.
Item 2
Packet Page 77
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 4
Sign Regulations – Exceptions to Sign Standards
§ 15.40.600 Findings for Approval
of an Exception
The Sign Regulations provide sign limitations based on zone, where the
proposed project is an office development on a residential zone the
project is still subject to the limitations of the R-2 zone. The ARC should
discuss whether the requested sign exceptions for the three signs with
a total area of 77.5 sq. ft., where normally limited to one sign with a
maximum size of 20 sq. ft. within the R-2 zone (Attachment 3), are
consistent with the findings for an exception from the Sign Regulations1.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Building Setbacks
Leff Street
Beach Street
High Street
28 feet
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Parking Setback 0 feet (Leff Street) 20 feet
Trash Enclosure Setback 0 feet (Beach Street) 10 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 34 feet 35 feet
Building Coverage 44% 50%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.78 No Requirement
Signage
Number of Signs
Maximum Area
3
77.5 sq. ft.
1
20 sq. ft.
Public Art Location identified on Sheet A4
(separate application required) Optional
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
44 (30% reduction)
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
30
65
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
9
Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)
*2019 Zoning Regulations
1 15.40.610 Findings for Approval of an Exception. Exceptions to the Sign Regulations must meet all of the following findings:
(A) There are unusual circumstances applying to the property which make strict adherence to the regulations impractical or
infeasible, such as building configuration, historic architectural features, architectural style, site layout, intervening
obstructions, or other unusual circumstances. Exceptions shall not allow for additional signage in number or size beyond what
is necessary to compensate for the unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances may also include sign designs which are not
expressly provided for or exempted in this Chapter, but which represent superior or innovative design appropriate for the
building and location. (B) The exception is consistent with the intent and purpose of the sign regulations (see Section 15.40.110)
and the exception is not being granted in cases where alternative options of allowed signage in this Chapter could provide an
adequate alternative for sufficient visibility to the public with equal or superior design. (C) The sign exception is for superior
design and complies with Design Principles of this Chapter and will not result in: visual clutter; excessively sized signage in
comparison to the building or surroundings;
Item 2
Packet Page 78
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 5
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application
will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action. This action may include
recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
6.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Description
2. Project Plans
3. Project Signage
4. Previous PC Report, Meeting Minutes
5. Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)
6. Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
Item 2
Packet Page 79
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, March 2, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
March 2, 2020 at 5:06 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Micah Smith, Christie Withers, Vice-Chair Amy
Nemcik and Chair Allen Root
Absent: Commissioners Michael DeMartini and Mandi Pickens
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Senior Planner Shawna Scott and
Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
--End of Public Comment--
PRESENTATION
1. Community Development Director Michael Codron provided a presentation on SLO
Forward
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of
December 2, 2019.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITHERS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BELLER, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioners DeMartini and Pickens absent) to approve the
minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission meeting of December 2, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 80
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 2, 2020 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vice Chair Nemcik recused herself from Item #3 due to the close proximity of her residence to the
proposed project; she exited the room at 5:35 p.m.
3. Project Address: 487 Leff Street; Case #: ARCH-0506-2019; Zone: R-2-PD; Housing
Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), applicant. Development review of a new, two-
story, 13,118-square foot office building as part of an existing Planned Development (PD
0274). The project includes an amendment to the adopted Precise Plan approved through
Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series) to address the new office development as it relates to the
Planned Development. The project also includes exceptions for parking and trash enclosures
within the street yard setback (0 feet where a 20-foot setback and 10-foot setback, respectively,
are normally required), exceptions to sign regulations, and a 40% parking reduction and off-
site parking. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative Scott Smith with HASLO, David Gibbs, RRM, Darren Cabral, RRM
responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Julie LeBrec
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITHERS, DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND,
to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project as presented.
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR ROOT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SMITH,
CARRIED 3-1-1-2 (Commissioner Withers dissenting, Vice Chair Nemcik recused,
Commissioners DeMartini and Pickens absent) to continue the item to a date uncertain with
the following conditions:
• Plans shall be revised to incorporate lower plate heights of the building to reduce the mass
and scale of the structure.
• Plans shall be revised to reduce the bulk and mass of the vertical support column along the
High Street elevation.
• Plans shall consider incorporating pitched roof elements into the project to address further
compatibility with adjacent residential structures.
• Plans shall consider simplifying materiality of the project by reducing either the number of
colors or types of materials to reduce clutter and simplify the design.
• The applicant shall demonstrate safe vehicle circulation for vehicles that maneuver in and
out of the on-site parking space closest to the intersection of High Street and Leff Street.
Vice Chair Nemcik rejoined the meeting at 6:52 p.m.
Item 2
Packet Page 81
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 2, 2020 Page 3
RECESS
The Commission recessed at 6:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting with all members present at
7:56 p.m.
4. Project Address: 810 Orcutt Road; Case #: ARCH-0847-2019; Zone: C-7; Mark and
Missy Cameron, owner/applicant. Development review of a new 23-foot tall, 4,131-square
foot warehouse structure to be constructed on the rear portion of an existing lot, with an
existing 2,000-square foot structure to remain. The project includes proposed site
improvements to the surface parking area. The project is categorically exempt from
environmental review (CEQA).
Assistant Planner Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representative Carol Isaman with Isaman Design Inc. responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Public Comments:
None.
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
WITHERS, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioners DeMartini and Pickens absent) to recommend
that the Community Development Director approve the project with the following
consideration for the applicant:
• Consider adding more contrasting or lighter colors to the front of the building
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2020
Item 2
Packet Page 82
Meeting Date: May 4, 2020
Item Number: 1
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of a two-story, 13,084-square foot office structure. The project will
include demolishing the existing 5,444-square foot offices, and redevelopment of the site. The project
proposes an amendment to the Planned Development Precise Plan (see Section 4.0) to address
requests for a 40 percent parking reduction, and reconfiguration of street parking, providing 16
parking spaces on-site where 44 parking spaces would normally be required (Attachment 1, Project
Description). The project includes exceptions to the street yard setback to allow for parking along Leff
Street, where a 20 foot setback is normally required, and an exception to allow a trash enclosure along
Beach Street, where a 10 foot setback is normally required (Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans). The
project also includes exceptions to the sign regulations to allow three signs with a total area of 77.5
sq. ft., where normally limited to one sign of 20 sq. ft. (Attachment 3, Project Signage).
General Location: The 16,712-square foot
project site is located on developed property
along High Street, Leff Street, and Beach Street ,
with direct access from Beach and Leff Streets.
Present Use: HASLO Headquarters (Office)
Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2-PD)
zone within a Planned Development Overlay
General Plan: Medium Residential Density
Surrounding Uses:
East: Warehousing and Distribution
West: Multi-Family Housing
North: Multi-Family Housing
South: Multi-Family Housing
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary architectural design
Design details: Flat roof system with varying parapet heights and entry towers, outdoor sitting areas,
upper level balcony, trellises, rain screen, and awnings.
Materials: Stucco, fiber cement lap siding, open-slat aluminum siding, anodized aluminum storefront,
and precast concrete base.
Colors: Primary various wood elements; secondary colors include light blue, beige, greenish grey, with
a light-brown storefront and dark brown trim.
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 487 Leff Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
APPLICANT: Scott Smith REPRESENTATIVE: Pam Ricci
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 2
Packet Page 83
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 2
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC) role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations, and applicable City
Standards and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission (PC).
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=24661
BACKGROUND
The Planned Development (PD) Overlay included development of 20 affordable residential units
located at 468 Leff Street, and the Housing Authority offices located at 487 Leff Street. The existing
Development Plan authorized a street setback reduction for the office development from 20 feet to
10 feet along High Street (Project Plans Sheet A3, Existing Site Plan). The applicant proposes to amend
the Development Plan to provide for a larger office development with a reduced setback for vehicle
parking within the street yard along Leff Street (Project Plans Sheet A4, Proposed Site Plan). Zoning
Regulations Section 17.48.090 (Amendments to Final Development Plans) stipulates that amendments
to final development plans may be approved by the PC when limited to changes in the size and position
of buildings, landscape treatment, or the like.
On April 10, 2019, the PC provided a conceptual review of the proposed project to offer feedback to
the applicant and staff on the project’s conceptual site layout and building design; and to specifically
discuss concerns and questions related to land use consistency (Attachment 3, PC Report, Meeting
Minutes 4.10.19). The applicant had modified the project plans prior to initial ARC review to reflect
the PC’s comments, a response to each directional item has been provided in the project description
(Attachment 1).
The ARC reviewed the project on March 2, 2020 and continued the project to a date uncertain to
address concerns for consistency with the CDG (Attachment 4, ARC Report and Minutes). During their
review the ARC identified five directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns related
to building and site design, as discussed in detail in the section below.
Figure 2: Rendering of project design from the intersection of Leff Street and High Street.
Item 2
Packet Page 84
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 3
DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The ARC recommended five directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final action
on the project. The applicant has updated the project plans and made the following changes in
response to the directional items (Attachment 5, Applicant’s Response Letter):
ARC Directional Item #1: Plans shall be revised to incorporate lower plate heights of the building to
reduce the mass and scale of the structure.
Response: The applicant has revised the project design and reduced the plate heights, reducing the
overall height of the project by two feet.
ARC Directional Item #2: Plans shall be revised to reduce the bulk and mass of the vertical support
column along the High Street elevation.
Response: The applicant has revised the support column along the High Street elevation by reducing
the width by one-third and removing the 45-degree brackets, to reduce the bulk and prominence of
the column. Staff recommends
the following condition for PC
consideration: Plans submitted
for a building permit shall reduce
the width of the stucco base that
extends from the support column
of the second story awning along
the High Street elevation to further
reduce the mass and bulk of the
column, subject to the satisfaction
of the Community Development
Director.
ARC Directional Item #3: Plans shall consider incorporating pitched roof elements into the project to
address further compatibility with adjacent residential structures.
Response: The applicant has modified the project design to include pitched awnings instead of the flat
window shades previously provided (Figure 3). However, the applicant has expressed concerns with
incorporating additional pitched roof elements to the project design, a s a pitched roof system or
mansard roof design would add to the bulk and mass of the structure and would be disingenuous to
the architectural style’s authenticity. The applicant has also expressed their intent with compatibility
beyond the immediate vicinity to incorporate the character of High Street between Higuera and Broad
Streets. The project site would provide an architectural connection between the commercial
structures throughout High Street, which includes a variety of uses and architectural styles for existing
commercial structures with very similar circumstances.
The primary goals of the CDG are to maintain the community’s quality of life for residents, maintain
property values, attract growth in the local economy, and preserve the City’s natural beauty and visual
character (CDG Section 1.4). The CDG also state that the ARC may interpret these guidelines with
flexibility in their application to specific projects, as not all design criteria may be workable or
Figure 3: Original column design (left), revised column design (right).
Item 2
Packet Page 85
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 4
appropriate for each project, the overall objective is to ensure that the intent and spirit of the design
guidelines are followed (CDG Section 1.3). Staff has reviewed the applicant’s response letter with
consideration of the overall objectives of the CDG. While the project may conflict with specific
guidelines of the CDG such as architectural compatibility of the immediate vicinity, no evidence has
been found that the architectural style would be detrimental to th e quality of life or property values
of residents. Furthermore, the project promotes growth of an existing local business that will continue
to support the local economy, and the project’s overall design does not distract from the City’s natural
beauty and enhances the visual character of the neighborhood.
Discussion Item #1: The ARC should provide feedback to the PC on whether or not the applicant’s
request to deviate from the strict interpretations of the CDG for neighborhood compatibil ity in
consideration of the unique circumstances of the site and the context of High Street is in keeping
with the overall intent and spirit of the design guidelines.
ARC Directional Item #4: Plans shall consider simplifying materiality of the project by reducing either
the number of colors or types of materials to reduce clutter and simplify the design.
Response: The applicant has revised the project design by removing various materials to reduce clutter
and simplify the design (see Project Plans Sheets A7, A8, A15, A16, and A17 for detailed comparison
of the revisions). Materials that have been removed include the green stucco color, one of the fiber
cement siding materials, and one of the wainscot/base materials, other improvements and efforts
have also been incorporated into the design to further reduce clutter (Figure 4).
ARC Directional Item #5: The applicant shall demonstrate safe vehicle circulation for vehicles that
maneuver in and out of the on-site parking space closest to the intersection of High Street and Leff
Street.
Response: The applicant has requested to defer this concern to the PC. The City’s Transportation
Division reviewed and evaluated the layout of the parking spaces in response to concerns from the
PC conceptual hearing and the ARC. Transportation staff have recommended the following condition
Figure 4: Original High Street Elevation (top), revised High Street Elevation (bottom).
Item 2
Packet Page 86
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 5
for PC consideration: The applicant shall incorporate into the improvement plans traffic calming
measures such as colored/textured pavement surface at the entry or along the full of block of Leff,
raised crosswalk/speed table for the pedestrian crossing Leff Street at High Street, or other traffic
calming features, subject to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
PROJECT STATISTICS (UPDATED)
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Building Setbacks
Leff Street
Beach Street
High Street
28 feet
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Parking Setback 0 feet (Leff Street) 20 feet
Trash Enclosure Setback 0 feet (Beach Street) 10 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 32 feet 35 feet
Building Coverage 44% 50%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.78 No Requirement
Signage
Number of Signs
Maximum Area
3
77.5 sq. ft.
1
20 sq. ft.
Public Art Location identified on Sheet A4
(separate application required) Optional
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
44 (30% reduction)
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
30
65
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
9
Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)
*2019 Zoning Regulations
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application
will be forwarded to the PC for final action. This action may include recommendations for
conditions to address consistency with the CDG.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Description
2. Revised Project Plans
3. Previous PC Report, Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019
4. Previous ARC Report and Minutes March 2, 2020
5. Applicant Response Letter
6. Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)
7. Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
Item 2
Packet Page 87
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, May 4, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, May
4, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Michael DeMartini, Mandi Pickens, Micah Smith,
Christie Withers and Chair Allen Root
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
End of Public Comment--
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
1.Elect the Chair and Vice Chair to serve a one-year term.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 6-0-0 to elect Allen Root to the position of Chair.
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR ROOT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PICKENS,
CARRIED 6-0-0 to elect Christie Withers to the position of Vice Chair.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2.Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of
April 20, 2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Pickens abstaining) to approve the minutes of the
Regular Architectural Review Commission meeting of April 20, 2020.
Item 2
Packet Page 88
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of May 4, 2020 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING
3.Project Address: 487 Leff Street; Case #: ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019; Zone:
R-2-PD; Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), applicant. Continued
development review of a new, two-story, 13,084-square foot office building as part of an
existing Planned Development (PD 0274). The project includes an amendment to the adopted
Precise Plan approved through Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series) to address the new office
development as it relates to the Planned Development. The project also includes exceptions for
parking and trash enclosures within the street yard setback (0 feet where a 20-foot setback and
10-foot setback, respectively, are normally required), exceptions to sign regulations, and a 40%
parking reduction and offsite parking. The project is categorically exempt from environmental
review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representatives, David Gibbs and Darin Cabral with RRM Design Group, responded
to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH SECOND BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS
CARRIED 6-0-0 to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project as
presented.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, May 18, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 05/18/2020
Item 2
Packet Page 89
487 Leff Street
HASLO Headquarters
ARCH-0506-2019
Review of a new two-story office building consisting of 13,118 square
feet, as part of an existing Planned Development. The project includes
exceptions to the street yard setback requirements, sign regulations,
and includes a 32% parking reduction and off-site parking.
June 10, 2020
Applicant: SLO Housing Authority
Recommendation
Find the project consistent with the General Plan, and
Zoning Regulations to approve the project, subject to
findings and conditions.
Project Background
4
Leff Street Apartments;
◼Planned Development Overlay established in 1970
◼Development Plan approved in 1971
◼Building modifications between 1978-2019
The existing Development Plan authorized a street
setback reduction from 20 feet to 10 feet, and a 27%
parking reduction.
Project Background
5
On April 10, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the
conceptual site layout and building design and provided
feedback to the applicant and staff.
On March 2, 2020, the ARC reviewed the project and
identified concerns for consistency with the design
guidelines and provided five directional items.
On May 4, 2020, the ARC recommended that the PC
approve the project as presented (6-0-0).
PC Directional Items
1.Reconsider the scale and mass of the structure.
2.Address safety concerns with angled parking.
3.Provide statement to address future changes of
uses of the structure.
4.Consider a transportation demand management
plan to address parking reductions.
5.Address maneuverability of angled parking and
right turns into Beach Street.
6.Incorporate a public access easement for the
re-routed sidewalk.
6
Site Plan Progression
7
Parking
8
Parking Requirement Parking
Spaces
Residential 21
Office 44
Total:65
Off-site Parking Available:7
Bicycle Parking Reduction:-4
TDMP Reduction 28%:-17
Parking Required:44
Parking Provided:44
Street Parking Parking
Spaces
Leff Street +3
High Street +1
Beach Street +2
New Street Parking:6
Signage
9
One main vertical wall sign
on High Street
-46.5 sq. ft.
Two awning signs above
the entries on High Street
and Leff Street
-15.5 sq. ft. each
Total size: 77.5 sq. ft.
Recommendation
Find the project consistent with the General Plan, and
Zoning Regulations to approve the project, subject to
findings and conditions.
HASLO Headquarters -487 Leff Street
City of SLO Planning Commission –
June 10, 2020
•HASLO has been at site for nearly 50
years.
•Owns property across street -
apartments.
•Wish to keep services downtown for
convenience of clients.
•Goal -not to add staff but have more
efficient space for business.
Proposed new offices will meet basic
needs –break area, conference
rooms, separate offices, IT needs,
customer service, storage, etc.
HASLO Introduction
Previous Review
•4-10-2019 –Conceptual Review by Planning
Commission
❖Project design and massing needs to reflect
neighborhood character
❖Manage parking demand created by larger office space
•3-2-2020 –ARC Review continued with direction
•5-4-20 –ARC recommended approval to PC on a
unanimous vote. Changes made to reduce scale
and simplify materials per prior direction.Previous Review
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE
•Land Use unique –
approved through
Planned Development in
1971.
•Included both offices &
apartments.
•Special Circumstances
with office project site:
•3 street
frontages;
•Triangular
shape; &
•Relationship to
apartments
History of Site
Parking Calculations –consistent
with approved PD
Use Parking Required Parking Provided
Apartments 21 28
Offices 44 16
Subtotal 65
20 additional bicycle spaces –
reduce car parking by 1car/5
spaces
-4
Proposed Parking Reduction
28%
61 –17 = 44 44
Parking Calculations
Apartment Parking
at 468 Leff –
28 spaces
7 spaces available
for office uses
Travel Demand Management Plan (TDMP)
Goal -limit single-occupancy trips to site by employees & clients.
HASLO has agreed to the following specific measures:
•Offer flex schedules to employees to alternate their office
days/hours to reduce parking demand.
•Provide secured bicycle parking with development of their
new building.
•Provide bike locker and shower requirements consistent
with Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.180.
•Offer subsidized transit passes to those not using cars, and
an equivalent incentive to those that carpool.
TDMP