HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Architectural Review Commission
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Hearing Room
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 4, 2014 Monday 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:Commrs. Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy Nemcik,
Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle
McCovey-Good
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of July 21, 2014. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items
raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
INFORMATIONAL UPDATE:
1. Staff update on proposed modification to planned public art at the Portola Fountain
located at Higuera and Marsh Street intersection. (Melissa Mudgett)
CONSENT ITEM:
1.163 Suburban Road.ARC 39-14; Adopt a resolution approving two industrial
buildings for a brewery and for manufacturing and storage uses, each with a
caretaker residence; M-SP zone; Earthwood Lane Properties, LLC, applicant.
(Continued from July 21, 2014)(Walter Oetzell)
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record.
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City
Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the
Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
Architectural Review Commission
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
1.2207 San Luis Drive.ARCMI 77-14; Review of a new single-family residence on
a sensitive site; R-1-S zone; Mr. and Mrs. Mark A. Anelli, applicants. (Walter
Oetzell)
2.1327 Osos Street.ARC 96-13; Review of plans for a mixed-use project with nine
(9) condominium units and 8,000-square feet of office space in the Old Town
Historic District, including a request for an approximately 30% parking reduction
through a shared parking reduction and automobile trip reduction program; R-3-H
zone; Mission Medical, LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
3.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planners: Walter Oetzell and Pam Ricci
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEMO
SUBJECT:Staff update on proposed modification to planned public art at the Portola Fountain
located at Higuera and Marsh Street intersection.
PROJECT ADDRESS:Higuera/Marsh BY: Melissa Mudgett, Parks and Rec Mngr.
Phone Number: 805-781-7296
E-mail:mmudgett@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER:ARC-PA 111-09 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Representative Melissa Mudgett, Parks &
Recreation Department
Zoning Public Right of Way (ROW)
General Plan Public Right of Way
Site Area Landscaped median - Intersection
of Higuera Street and Marsh
Street
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt under Class
11, Accessory Structures, of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SUMMARY
Background
In August 1967, the San Luis Obispo Monday Club (a non-profit civic organization with a long
history of community service) built the Portola Fountain as part of a City beautification project.
While appropriate at the time, the fountain has since become dated in design, minimized by the
amount of activity surrounding it, and now functions as a gateway to the City (as shown in the
Downtown Concept Plan) making it a prime candidate and location for a substantial piece of
public art. For almost a decade now, the fountain basin has been in need of significant repairs
and no longer functions as a water fountain.
A request for qualifications (RFQ) for a public art project at the fountain was released in October
2008. In 2009, an Art Jury reviewed and recommended a single public art design for this
location, titled “Qishi-Souhi”. This public art piece, a 35-foot tall kinetic sculpture, was to be
located within the fountain basin. The conceptual art design was supported by the Architectural
Review Commission at its May 17, 2010 meeting (Attachment 1). On June 2, 2010, the City
Council approved the public art design and awarded a contract to the artists (Jeffrey Laudensager
and Deane Sabeck) in the amount of $125,000.
Meeting Date:8-4-14
Item Number:Info-1
Project Site
Info1 - 1
ARC MEMO: Public Art Project Modifications Portola Fountain
Page 2
2
EVALUATION
Intersection Modifications
The Capital Improvement Project for Mid-Higuera Widening was approved as part of the
approved 2009-11 Financial Plan. In 2011 to 2012, various intersection improvements were
constructed at the intersection of Marsh and Higuera streets to widen the corridor, accommodate
undergrounding of utilities, construction of curb ramps to ensure compliance with Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), and traffic signal/street sign modifications.
Figure 1 below is intended to provide examples of pre and post construction improvements
which have added an accessible pedestrian walkway around the Portola fountain base (proposed
placement of the art piece) now allowing for safe and accessible intersection crossing.
Figure 1: Intersection Improvements
Pre-Construction (October 2011) Post Construction (2014)
Proposed Public Art Modifications
The original public art design was a 35-foot tall kinetic sculpture with three dynamic moving
pieces; each ranging from 16 to 17 feet long. The kinetic sculpture was to sit on top of a dichroic
Info1 - 2
ARC MEMO: Public Art Project Modifications Portola Fountain
Page 3
3
glass sculpture in which the water from the fountain would undulate over, falling into the water
basin below.
City team representatives from the Parks and Recreation public art program and Community
Development Review staff continue to work collaboratively with the artists to address various
project conditions and recommend enhancements to the public art piece that are consistent with
site conditions. Preliminary structural analysis has been completed on this original design
concept which has led to the proposal of minor public art project modifications to the overall
piece size, shape of the kinetic pieces, enhancements to the structural base which provide for
pedestrian and vehicle safety enhancements as well as to improve the aesthetics of the piece
given the changes to the site.
Due to an advanced state of deterioration of the fountain basin, it no longer functions as a viable
water fountain. In addition staff does not recommend undertaking the costly repairs needed to
make the fountain fully waterproof to support a fountain function. Given the current prolonged
drought in the State of California and the City’s longstanding water conservation efforts, a water
fountain at our gateway is not an environmental or fiscally sustainable endeavor. With water
conservation an upmost priority for our community, higher than anticipated repair costs and
ongoing water/maintenance costs, both staff and the artists are recommending elimination of the
water feature component for this project.
The four proposed minor project modifications and potential benefits are listed below;
Proposed Modification Benefit
A graphical comparison of the proposed project modifications is provided in Figure 2.
ͻ Reduced Cost of Repairs
ͻ Compliant with Water Conservation Efforts
ͻ Reduced Cost of Water/Ongoing Maintenance
Elimination of
Glass/Water Feature
ͻ Compliant with California Building Code (CBC)
ͻ Improved Pedestrian, Vehicle Safety and Traffic Flow due to lessoned
impact (overarching) on lanes of travel
Modified Structural
Base
ͻ Compliant with California Building Code (CBC)
ͻ Improved Pedestrian, Vehicle Safety and Traffic Flow due to lessoned
impact (overarching) on lanes of travel
Decrease in Scale
(Height) to 16 ft.
ͻ Improved Pedestrian, Vehicle Safety and Traffic Flow due to lessoned
impact (overarching) on lanes of travel
ͻ Visual Aesthetic Improvements to Site
Modified Rounded
Shape of Kinetic Pieces
Info1 - 3
ARC MEMO: Public Art Project Modifications Portola Fountain
Page 4
4
Figure 2: Design Comparison/Project Modifications.
CONCLUSION
Staff has determined that the modifications to the design of the public art project are consistent
with the City’s Public Art Policy criteria that the ARC originally used to evaluate the proposal.
The modifications to the form of the sculptural elements and the elimination of the water feature
respond to intersection modifications and environmental conditions.
If the ARC feels further discussion and evaluation is necessary, then the public art project can be
scheduled for a future meeting. If the ARC agrees with staff’s conclusions that the modifications
are justified and consistent with the City’s Public Art Policy criteria, the no further action is
necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
1. ARC Agenda Report May 17, 2010
Info1 - 4
Attachment 1
Info1 - 5
Attachment 1
Info1 - 6
Attachment 1
Info1 - 7
Attachment 1
Info1 - 8
Attachment 1
Info1 - 9
Attachment 1
Info1 - 10
Attachment 1
Info1 - 11
Attachment 1
Info1 - 12
Attachment 1
Info1 - 13
Attachment 1
Info1 - 14
Attachment 1
Info1 - 15
Attachment 1
Info1 - 16
Attachment 1
Info1 - 17
Attachment 1
Info1 - 18
Resolution No.XXXX-10
Page 3
Exceptions to strict adherence to the above standards may be granted with the approval of
both the Community Development Department and Public Works Directors based on a
finding that the safety concerns with the piece can be mitigated. Techniques to help
achieve the desired clearances include, but are not limited to, adjusting the walkway
location, adding landscaping and modifying the slumpstone wall cap.
9. The City is responsible for providing all maintenance necessary to preserve the public art
in good condition, and to protect it against physical defacement, mutilation, or alteration.
10. The City of San Luis Obispo shall assume full responsibility and liability for the piece
once approved, installed and completed.
11. Include additional landscaping to soften the appearance of the slumpstone wall while
retaining views of the commemorative plaque.
Code Requirements
1. A soils report may be required in order to determine soil and seismic design parameters.
2. The submittal of working drawings shall include a special inspection program. Special
inspections may include but are not limited to structural welding, soils
investigation/inspections, and structural observations.
On motion by Commissioner Wilhelm, seconded by Commissioner Ehdaie, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Ehdaie, Hopkins, Weber, and Palazzo
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Duffy and Wynn
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of May, 2010.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
G:\CD-PLAN\PRICCI\ARC\Public Art\ARC PA 111-09 (Marsh- Higuera fountain)\Staff reports\Reso ARC PA 111-09 (Marsh & Higuera).doc
Attachment 1
Info1 - 19
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT:Review of two buildings with a total floor area of 11,548 square feet of industrial
space, each with a 1,000 square-foot caretaker dwelling.
PROJECT ADDRESS:163 Suburban Rd BY:Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER:ARC 39-14 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), approving the construction of
two new industrial buildings with caretaker dwellings.
SITE DATA
Applicant Earthwood Lane, LLC
Representative Pat Blote, RRM Design Group
Zoning Manufacturing (M)
Specific Plan (SP) Overlay
General Plan Services and Manufacturing
Specific Plan Airport Area Specific Plan
Manufacturing
Site Area 26, 573 square feet
Application
Complete
June 13, 2014
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt:
Infill Development Projects
(CEQA Guidelines §15332)
SUMMARY
The applicant, Earthwood Lane, LLC, has submitted an application for architectural review of a
project comprised of two new two-story buildings designed to accommodate industrial uses. One
building is proposed to be used as a brewery, the other for light manufacturing and warehousing.
Each building includes a residential caretaker dwelling on the second floor.
The project was reviewed at the last Commission hearing, July 21, 2014, and staff recommended
that the Commission provide direction to the applicant on the provision of parking, the design of
perimeter walls, trash enclosure location, and signage details. The Commission found the
proposed parking to be adequate, and considered the design of the perimeter walls to be
Meeting Date: August 4, 2014
Item Number: C-1
r
$5&&
wo
ARC 39-14 (163 Suburban Rd)
Page 2
appropriate, particularly since they are likely be obscured by future development built at a “zero
setback” from property lines. The Commission continued consideration of the application to this
hearing, with direction to the applicant to lower the height of the projecting sign on Building 1 to
comply with height limits, and to modify the design of the trash enclosure to incorporate
materials to give it an appearance that is compatible with the other structures on the site.
1.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
1.1 Trash and Storage Areas:A solid waste enclosure constructed of concrete masonry units
and metal doors is provided at the east end of the parking lot. Collection vehicles have
maneuvering space to turn around and exit the site safely in a forward direction. However, the
Commission found that materials used to construct the enclosure should be more compatible
with the other structures on the site. It was suggested that some of the same materials used for
the buildings themselves also be used for the enclosure. In response, the applicant has redesigned
the enclosure so that it is constructed out of the precision block, arranged in a colored pattern,
used throughout the project, and the metal gates are made with the same material used on the
standing seam roof.
1.2 Signs: Design Standards in the Airport Area Specific Plan aim to achieve a consistent, high
quality system of signs, emphasizing simplicity and functionality. Project plans include the
location of signs for building tenants, but no information about sign color, materials, or
illumination. Condition #5 includes standard wording that a sign program complying with
conditions return to the Community Development Director for approval.
Each building has a large projecting sign at its west end, identifying its main tenant, and three
additional spaces for smaller projecting signs are distributed along the remainder of each
building elevation, near the roll-up doors. As discussed during the last hearing, projecting signs
are not typically permitted in the M zone, but staff and the ARC found that the use of them in
this project would provide for a consistent and functional form of signage in this development
given the orientation of entries to the interior of the project. The draft resolution includes a
finding (#6) supporting an exception from Sign Regulations to accommodate the signs. It was
also noted that the projecting sign at the westerly end of Building 1 was mounted at a height in
excess of the height limits allowed by Sign Regulations. Condition #4 requires that the height of
the sign be lowered to comply with regulations.
2.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.Vicinity Map
3.Trash Enclosure Plan and Details
$5&&
RESOLUTION NO. ####-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
WITH TWO CARETAKER DWELLINGS AT 163 SUBURBAN AVENUE
(MANUFACTURING (M) ZONE; ARC 39-14)
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 August 4, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ARC 39-14, Earthwood, LLC, applicant to allow construction of two industrial buildings with
caretaker dwellings; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the proposed project (ARC 39-14), based on the following findings:
1.The project conforms to the policies and goals of the City’s General Plan. It consists of
development of industrial buildings in a Manufacturing zone, in conformance to use
limitations and development standards set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2.The project is compatible in scale and character with nearby structures on the site and in the
neighborhood. Most structures in the vicinity are of a similar size or larger, and used for
manufacturing and other industrial purposes.
3.The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to
industrial development. The buildings project an image of high quality, with attractive well-
landscaped entries, diverse and appropriate colors, textures, and materials, and efficient
parking and loading circulation.
4.The location and design of the residence addition will minimize impacts to scenic resources,
water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and
movement. The buildings will be constructed on a site containing with no waterways, no
significant natural habitat, or significant topographical features.
5.An exception to Parking and Driveway Standards related to Planting Area Placement is
appropriate. Placement of planting areas interior to the parking area is constrained by the
site’s limited area. In compensation for fewer plantings in the parking and loading area,
$5&&
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 2
163 Suburban Av, ARC 39-14
larger planter areas have been provided at the front and the rear of the site to provide space
for more extensive tree planting and other landscaping.
6.An exception to the Sign Regulations related to the use of projecting signs in a
Manufacturing (M) Zone is appropriate. The proposed use of such signs will not result in
visual clutter, results in superior design, and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Sign Regulations.
7.The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It is an In-Fill Development Project, as described in §15332 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARC 39-14), with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning
1.Conformance to Plans and Conditions: Construction drawings submitted for building
permits must be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A
separate, full-size sheet, (labeled and listed as sheet number 2) must be included in working
drawings, listing all conditions of project approval. Any change to approved design, colors,
materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the
Community Development Director or the Architectural Review Commission, as
appropriate.
2.Landscaping Plans: Plans submitted for construction permits will include a landscaping
plan indicating the extent of landscaped area, hardscape, plant selection, and method of
irrigation, consistent with Community Design Guidelines and Engineering Standards, as
applicable.
3.Night Sky Preservation: Plans submitted for construction permits must show sufficient
information, as described in §17.23.030, to determine that exterior lighting is in compliance
with Night Sky Preservation regulations. The location of all exterior lighting fixtures must
be clearly indicated and building-mounted fixtures must be depicted on building elevation
drawings.
4.Sign Location: The location of the projecting sign at the westerly end of Building 1 will be
lowered so that it does not exceed the maximum height (25 feet) set forth in the Sign
Regulations (§15.40.420).
5.Sign Program: The applicant will develop a formal sign program for review and approval
by the Community Development Director. The program must include sufficient
information, including sign types, number, location, materials, dimensions, height, and
methods of illumination, to determine compliance with the City’s Sign Regulations.
$5&&
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 3
163 Suburban Av, ARC 39-14
6.Solid Waste Enclosure: The solid waste enclosure will be designed to incorporate materials
used on the site’s buildings, to achieve an appearance that is compatible with the structures
on the site.
Public Works
7.A common driveway agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The
agreement shall be amended to include any shared facilities including but not limited to
shared parking, common drainage system, solid waste management, and the shared
accessible parking space.
8.The accessible parking space should be located near the primary entry in accordance with
the California Building Code. The accessible path of travel from the public right-of-way
and between buildings shall be detailed on the building plan submittal. The accessible path
between buildings shall not rely on the accessible parking space loading zone.
9.The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees, landscape
irrigation, and how the existing common irrigation system will be maintained or
terminated. The plans shall show all existing and proposed improvements within the public
right-of-way. Public improvement plans and final map for this subdivision are available
upon request.
10.The building plan submittal should include a complete site and utility plan showing all
existing and proposed public and private improvements. The size and number of required
domestic and landscape water meters should be resolved to the satisfaction of the Utilities
Department.
11.The existing subdivision infrastructure includes irrigation meter vaults with service
connections to a “dry” recycled water main. Recycled water has not yet been delivered to
this subdivision. Rather than installing new irrigation services to the domestic water main,
the city supports the use of a tap off the domestic meter for irrigation purposes. The
irrigation plan shall show this tap, shall provide a private irrigation sub-meter, and shall
include system sizing for future connection to recycled water. The irrigation system shall
otherwise be installed in accordance with the recycled water standards. The separate
irrigation meter water impact fee shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
12.The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed
easements/easement agreement areas.
13.The building plan submittal should include a complete grading and drainage plan and a
drainage report to show compliance with the subdivision conditions, City Engineering
Standards, Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, the Airport Area
Specific Plan drainage requirements, and the City of San Luis Obispo Interim Low Impact
Development requirements for a Tier 3 project.
$5&&
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 4
163 Suburban Av, ARC 39-14
14.The drainage plan and report should consider any historic and off-site/upslope watershed
that may be tributary to these two lots. Any historic drainage shall be collected and
conveyed in a non-erosive manner to an approved point of disposal.
15.All sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Fire
16.Address Numbers: Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such
a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers
shall be a minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background.
17.Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air-
handling systems, automatic fire-protection systems, or other diction, suppression or
control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in
the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating “Fire
Sprinkler Riser” and “Fire Alarm Control Panel”. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a
room with exterior door access. Show Riser rooms on floor plans.
18.Knox Box: A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room
with a key to the room.
19.Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be installed in
accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13 system
will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to installation.
20.Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or
demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC.
Utilities
21.The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location/size of the project’s proposed
water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of connection at the City
water and sewer mains in Earthwood Lane.
22.In addition to water meters for the proposed industrial warehouse spaces, the caretaker
units shall each have separate water meters. A separate water meter for landscape irrigation
is also required. A water/sewer impact fee will be charged for each unit and the industrial
warehouse spaces.
23.Provisions for grease interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid
waste enclosure(s) shall be provided with the design. These types of facilities shall also
$5&&
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 5
163 Suburban Av, ARC 39-14
provide an area inside to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall
be drained to the sanitary sewer.
24.Upon connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system, the facility will be enrolled as an
Industrial User in the Pretreatment Program per section 13.08 of the Municipal Code.
25.Consistent with the City’s Solid Waste Enclosure Standards, please include size, capacity,
and location of the solid waste enclosures to serve the project. The applicant will provide
written verification that the proposed enclosures and collection method meets the
requirements of San Luis Garbage.
26.The project’s proposed landscape must comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape
Standards. Landscape and irrigation plans must be in compliance with the City’s Municipal
Code Chapter 17.87 and Engineering Standards.
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 4th day of August, 2014.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
$5&&
M-SP
C-S-SP
C-S
M-SP
BP-SP
C-S-SP
C-S
C-C
C-S-PD
SUBURBAN
CROSS
SHORTEARTHWOODLONGVICINITY MAP File No. 39-14
163 Suburban Rd.¯
$5&&
ATTACHMENT 2
$5&&
ATTACHMENT 3
$5&&
$5&&
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT:Review of a new single-family residence to be constructed on a sensitive site.
PROJECT ADDRESS:2207 San Luis Dr. BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCMI 77-14 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Continue consideration of the application to a future date with direction on potential design
changes that would make the project more consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines.
SITE DATA
Applicant Mr. and Mrs. M. Anelli
Zoning Low Density Residential (R-1)
Special Considerations (S)
General Plan Low Density Residential
Site Area 8,285 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from CEQA,
as a small structure (Guidelines
§15303)
SUMMARY
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Anelli, have submitted an application for architectural review of a
residence to be constructed on a site within a Special Considerations (S) Zone. The original
subdivision, Tract 1259, was approved subject to the condition that new residences built in the
tract would require architectural review. Residences constructed in this tract are often determined
to be minor projects that do not require Architectural Review Commission approval.
However, staff finds that the proposed residence may not be consistent with the General Plan
policies related to view preservation, or with the City’s Community Design Guidelines
Meeting Date: August 4, 2014
Item Number:PH-1
$5&
ZR
ARCMI 77-14 (2207 San Luis Dr)
Page 2
discouraging large, flat building planes in hillside areas. While the overall design of the
residence is attractive and otherwise appropriate to its location, the southwest wall of the
building presents a large, flat, unrelieved plane that cannot be characterized as having a “low
profile”, and that may obscure views of surrounding hills
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with General Plan
policies, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable development standards.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information
The site is an undeveloped lot about 400 feet southwest of the northerly terminus of San Luis
Drive. It is Lot 10 of Tract 1259, which was subdivided in 1985. It is located in a Low Density
Residential (R-1) Zone at the base of hillside open space. A portion of the rear of the lot is within
a Conservation/ Open Space (C/OS) Zone, preserved as open space with an open space easement
granted to the City by the subdivider. The nearest waterway is San Luis Obispo Creek, located
about 75 feet to the north, across San Luis Drive. Beyond the creek, about 120 feet from the site,
is Highway 101.
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area (Gross): 8,285 sq ft
Area (Net): 7,840 sq ft (excludes open space easement)
Width: varies between 31 and 91 feet
Depth: varies between 149 and 159 feet
Street Frontage: 91 feet
Present Use Vacant, undeveloped
Topography Mostly flat, with slope increasing toward the rear of the lot into steep
hillside; trees and vegetation the rear of the lot; no waterways or other
significant topographical features.
Surround Use /
Zoning
East and West: Single-family residential building sites in a Low-Density
Residential (R-1) Zone
South: Open Space in a Conservation/ Open Space (C/OS) Zone
North: Undeveloped, creek bank
2.2 Project Description
The applicants propose to develop the site with a four-bedroom single-family residence of about
3,760 square feet of floor area (excluding the garage) on two levels. Building elements are
balanced and in proportion to one another, and the site character and constraints have been
considered in siting the residence. Its style is contemporary, with two upright rectangular forms
arranged around a central recessed entry under a metal roof cover.
$5&
ARCMI 77-14 (2207 San Luis Dr)
Page 3
On the right side of the building’s front elevation are two overhead doors providing access to the
garage, with a small balcony above. On the left side is a row of windows along the upper floor,
capped by a flat roof overhang. Sand-finished textured stucco is the primary siding material,
accented on the façade by stone detailing in grey and brown granite colors. The rear of the
building features a standing seam metal roof that slopes downward toward the back patio.
The east side of the building is well articulated. Variation in wall planes provides alternating
light and dark surfaces that blend with similar contrasts in the natural surroundings. Articulation
is also provided along the west side of the building, but at the southeast corner the exterior walls
appear inappropriately massive and may unnecessarily block hillside views. Along the west
elevation, the building design does not conform to the natural slope or maintain a low profile.
Figure 2: Front and rear elevations
Figure 3: West elevation
Figure 1: East elevation
$5&
ARCMI 77-14 (2207 San Luis Dr)
Page 4
The same portion of the building, presents another large wall plane, along the westerly side of
the building entry, relieved only by wall reveals and a landscaped trellis (not depicted on
elevation drawings, but visible in conceptual renderings).
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The City’s General Plan sets forth policies related to the conservation and development of
residential neighborhoods, in the Land Use Element (LUE), and to the protection of natural and
scenic resources, in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). The Architectural
Review Committee applies the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) to individual
development projects to maintain and enhance the City’s character.The Commission may
interpret guidelines with some flexibility, while ensuring their intent and spirit are followed. This
project is located in a hillside area, and so is subject to policies and guidelines applicable to
hillside development:
Policies and Guidelines Related to Views:
Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site
features, such as land forms, views, creeks (LUE §2.2.8).
Residential projects should provide pleasant views from and toward the project…
(LUE §2.2.12).
Private development designs should cause the least view blockage for neighboring
property that allows project objectives to be met.(COSE §9.2.2).
Maintain views of hillsides surrounding the city.(CDG §1.4(C.2))
Each proposed structure should be designed and located to avoid unnecessarily blocking
views from other properties.(CDG §7.2(B.9))
Policies and Guidelines Related to Building Surfaces:
The City encourages well-articulated, but not cluttered, building elevations. Large roof
and wall planes unrelieved by shadow or texture interest are generally not acceptable.
(CDG §2.2(B)).
Attention to detailing, and emphasis on vertical and horizontal articulation, are
encouraged as tools to visually reduce the apparent mass of a building (CDG §2.2(C))
The apparent size of exterior wall surfaces visible from off the site should be minimized
through the use of single-story and small-scale elements, setbacks, overhangs, roof
pitches, and other means of horizontal and vertical articulation to create shade and
shadow, and break up otherwise massive forms.(§7.2(B.1)).
$5&
ARCMI 77-14 (2207 San Luis Dr)
Page 5
As mentioned in the project description, it is the westerly portion of the residence that presents
large wall masses, especially when viewed from the southwest. In response to staff’s concerns
about the apparent mass of these wall surfaces, further articulation has been provided with
projecting wall elements, reveals, and a vertical landscape trellis (on the northwest side of the
wall). This has provided visual interest, but has not reduced the apparent mass of the wall surface
or reduced view blockage. It may be desirable for the scale of the building to be reduced at this
side and for single-story elements and setbacks to be employed to result in a less massive wall
surface and to block less of the view to the hillsides. To this end, staff suggests that the
Commission provide the following directional item to the applicant:
Directional Item—Wall Massing and Views:Consider revisions to the project design,
such as setbacks and single-story and small scale elements, that would further reduce the
apparent size and mass of the wall surfaces at the southwesterly corner of the building
and minimize blockage of views to the hillsides.
Another concern staff discussed with the applicant, was the relatively unarticulated wall plane
visible from the street at the front of the east elevation. Score lines and a landscaped trellis are
proposed to relieve the larger surface area, but it is otherwise unarticulated.
Directional Item—Unrelieved Wall Plane:Consider additional articulation, such as the
addition of horizontal windows, to add visual interest from the street of the front portion of
the east elevation.
Summary
As discussed, the proposed residence is in large part consistent with Community Design
Guidelines and appropriate to its location. The wall surface at the southwest corner of the
building, however, may be inappropriately massive and unnecessarily block views to the
hillsides beyond. Revising the design of this side of the building could reduce the apparent size
and massing of the wall area, minimize view blockage, and result in a lower profile that is more
consistent with Community Design Guidelines. In addition, installation of some horizontal
windows to the front portion of the east elevation might provide relief to the wall plane and
create visual interest from the street.
$5&
ARCMI 77-14 (2207 San Luis Dr)
Page 6
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). It involves new construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone; a
small structure as described in §15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Plans for this project were distributed to several departments for their review and comment.
Comments were received on a wide range of issues related to noise mitigation, vegetation
management, ignition-resistant construction, site improvements, and utilities. Those comments
have been incorporated into conditions of approval for the project.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Adopt a resolution approving the project, based on finding it to be in conformance to the
policies, goals, and standards of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and consistent
with the spirit and intent of the Community Design Guidelines. A resolution with these
findings has been prepared and is attached.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
$5&
RESOLUTION NO. ####-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE ON A SENSITIVE SITE LOCATED AT 2207 SAN LUIS DRIVE
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1-S) ZONE; ARCMI 77-14)
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 August 4, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ARCMI 77-14, Mr. and Mrs. Mark A. Anelli, applicants, to allow construction of a new single-
family residence on a sensitive site; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the proposed project (ARCMI 77-14), based on the following findings:
1.The project conforms to applicable General Plan Policies. It consists of the construction of a
detached two-story, single-family residence within an existing neighborhood in a Low-
Density Residential area. By its design and by conformance to the conditions of approval of
the original subdivision (Tract 1259) and to Administrative Use Permit 77-14, it respects
constraints imposed by its hillside location, the presence of significant trees, and adjacent
open space. Under the conditions of this approval, noise is mitigated to acceptable levels,
and protection from wildland fire is incorporated into the project.
2.The project, under the conditions of this approval, conforms to the applicable standards and
limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. It consists of the construction of a single-family
residence in a Low-Density Residential (R-1) Zone. By conformance to the conditions of
approval of Administrative Use Permit 77-14, it is compatible with its surroundings and
solves problems related to its location in a Special Considerations (S) Zone and on a sensitive
site.
3.The project is consistent with the intent and spirit of the City’s Community Design
Guidelines. The project is attractive and environmentally sensitive. The design considers the
character and constraints of its location and minimizes changes to natural features.
4.The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It involves new construction of one single-family residence in a
residential zone; a small structure as described in §15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
$5&
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 2
2207 San Luis Dr, ARCMI 77-14
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARC 175-13), with incorporation of the following conditions and code
requirements:
Planning
1.Plan Conformance and Code References: Plans submitted for construction permits
must be in full conformance to the plans approved with this application, including
the provisions of the Administrative Use Permit (A 77-14) granted for residential use
of this site. A separate, full-size sheet must be included in construction drawings
listing the conditions of architectural review and use permit approval. Plans will
reference the current adopted 2013 California Building Codes and the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code.
2.Noise Mitigation – Interior Noise Levels: Indoor noise exposure must not exceed 45
decibels. The Standard Noise Mitigation Package for achieving a noise level
reduction of 25 dB for interior noise levels will be implemented, as described in the
City’s Noise Guidebook. Plans submitted for construction permits must clearly
indicate and describe the noise mitigation measures, techniques, and materials
implemented.
3.Ignition Resistant Construction: The project will be designed and constructed in
compliance with the requirements of the California Residential Code §R327
pertaining to construction within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Plans
submitted for construction permits must clearly indicate the use of fire-resistive
materials and construction details, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
4.Landscaping: No construction permit will be issued and no site preparation will be
initiated until a landscaping plan is prepared and approved, pursuant to condition #4
of Administrative Use Permit 77-14. The landscaping plan will include a
documentation package in conformance to the requirements of Chapter 17.87 of the
Zoning Ordinance (Water Efficient Landscape Standards) applicable to Category II
projects (projects requiring architectural review).
5.Tree Protection: No trees may be removed, except pursuant to Municipal Code
§12.24.090 (Tree Removal). No construction permit will be issued and no site
preparation will be initiated until appropriate tree protection measures are reviewed
and approved by the City Arborist in accordance with condition #5 of Administrative
Use Permit 77-14.
6.Defensible Space: “Defensible Space” will be provided for wildfire protection,
pursuant to condition #6 of Administrative Use Permit 77-14.
$5&
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 3
2207 San Luis Dr, ARCMI 77-14
7.Vegetation Management: No construction permit will be issued and no site
preparation will be initiated until a Vegetation Management Plan is reviewed and
approved by the Fire Marshal, pursuant to condition #7 of Administrative Use
Permit 77-14.
8.Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting must be oriented, recessed, or shielded to
prevent light trespass and pollution, in compliance with Night Sky Preservation
regulations (Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17.23).
9.Wall and Fence Height: Plans submitted for construction permits will 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
(§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges).
10.Solid Waste Enclosure: Plans submitted for construction permits will include
elevation and detail drawings depicting solid waste enclosures and their screening,
including colors and materials. Enclosures and screening are subject to review by
the Community Development Director for compliance with Community Design
Guidelines.
Building
11.Plans submitted for construction permits will reference the proposed “Type of
construction”.
12.Plans submitted for construction permits will reference the “Occupancy of the
proposed use”.
Public Works
13.The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo
plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades
located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance.
The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that will
need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage.
14.The building plan submittal shall include a drainage report with analysis of the
upslope watershed and potential impact to the proposed structure and adjoining
properties. The upslope watershed tributary to the retaining wall shall be collected
and conveyed to the street in a non-erosive manner. The watershed tributary to the
rear of building pad should be conveyed to replicate the natural sheet flow to
regenerate the existing trees and shrubs.
$5&
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 4
2207 San Luis Dr, ARCMI 77-14
15.The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the Post
Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. A simplified compliance checklist is available on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org/publicworks/stormwater/1intro.asp).
16.The proposed development on this site has the potential to intercept subsurface or
spring water. The constant flow of spring water to the street may create a nuisance.
All wall drains and French drains for the site retaining walls and foundation
retaining walls shall outlet to a natural drainage course or open space where feasible.
Where infeasible, an engineered dry well or other suitable outlet may be required.
Provide a non-erosive outlet as necessary. Surface runoff from storm events may be
directed to the public street.
17.The developer shall coordinate with the Public Works Department and Post Master
on the strategy for mail delivery prior to final inspection approval and/or placement
of a private mailbox or common mailbox unit (MBU) within the public right-of-way.
A note shall be added to the plans accordingly.
18.The building plan submittal shall include all required tree preservation notes and
measures in accordance with the City Engineering Standards and Standard
Specifications and as recommended by a Certified Arborist.
19.All sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk shall be repaired or
replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Fire
20.Address Numbers: Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in
such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property.
Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting
background
21.Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be installed in
accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA
13D system will be required for this residence, inclusive of the garage. Shop
Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to
installation. Upgrade water meter to 1” minimum.
22.Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or
demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC.
23.Ignition Resistant Construction: This structure is proposed to be built in a designated
“local very high fire hazard severity zone” and shall be designed and constructed to
the California Residential Code section R327.4.
$5&
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 5
2207 San Luis Dr, ARCMI 77-14
24.Landscaping and Vegetation Management: All new landscaping shall be approved
for areas prone to wildfire. All other areas of the lot adjacent to Open Space Areas
and within 30 feet of the house shall have the natural vegetation treated as prescribed
by a registered professional forester or licensed arborist and approved by the City
Fire Marshal and Natural Resource Manager/City Biologist to provide for defensible
space in the event of a wildfire. Vegetation Management Plan and Landscape Plans
shall be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. Required vegetation fuel
reduction shall be completed prior to the start of combustible construction. Shredded
wood mulch, such as “gorilla hair” is not permitted within 30 feet of the structure in
Very High Fire Severity Zones.
Utilities
25.The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must
pass a video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The
CCTV inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for
review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building
Permit.
26.During the Building Permit review process, Applicant shall provide a Utilities Plan
that includes the size of the project’s water service and proposed water meter.
Code Requirements
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give
the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check
process.
1.Frontage improvements are generally required as a condition of building permit.
The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed improvements.
The installation of public sidewalk may be deferred at this time. Any request to
defer the installation of sidewalk shall be in writing to the Public Works Director. A
covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer sidewalk installation shall be
recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city, upon request, will prepare the
agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required.
2.An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any
work or construction staging in the public right-of-way.
3.The building plan submittal shall show and label the PUE, street tree easement, open
space, and any other existing or proposed easements.
$5&
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 6
2207 San Luis Dr, ARCMI 77-14
4.The building plan submittal shall note or dimension the right-of-way width on the
site plan. The plan shall show the dimensions of the centerline to property line,
centerline to face of curb, and face of curb to property line for reference.
5.The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing
and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. All work
in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted.
6.The building plan submittal shall include a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) in
a format provided by the Building Division. This summary shall be provided in
conjunction with any required erosion and sediment control plan.
7.Water, wastewater, and traffic impact fees are required and shall be paid prior to
building permit issuance for the added dwelling units.
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 4th day of August, 2014.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
$5&
$5&
ATTACHMENT 2
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
$5&
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT:Review of a mixed use project known as Pacific Courtyards with 8,050 square feet
of office space and nine residential units located on three properties between Osos and Morro
Streets that are currently used as a parking lot in the Old Town Historic District, including a
request for an approximately 30% parking reduction through a shared parking reduction and
automobile trip reduction program.
PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1321 & 1327 Osos St. BY:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
Phone Number: 781-7168
E-mail: pricci@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER:ARC 96-13 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on
pertinent issues.
SITE DATA
Applicant Mission Medical LLC
Representative Oasis Assoc., Carol Florence
Zoning Office (O-H) & Medium-High
Density Residential (R-3-H)
(historical preservation overlay
zone)
General Plan Office & Medium-High Density
Residential
Site Area
23,600 square feet (0.54 acre)
Environmental
Status
The City Council approved an
Addendum to the adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration
on June 10, 2014.
SUMMARY
The applicant submitted an application to the City for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (to create both commercial and residential condominiums), and
architectural review, to allow the development of a new mixed use project. The proposed mixed
use project includes 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential units on an
approximately half-acre site located between Osos and Morro Streets that is currently used as a
parking lot.
Meeting Date: August 4, 2014
Item Number: PH-2
Old Town
Historic
District
Site
ARC2 - 1
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 2
A previous mixed-use project was approved by the City for the site in 2008-2009. The current
version of the project was submitted in June of 2013 to reorient the office and residential uses on
the site and to pursue a contemporary architectural style. There have been several modifications
to the current project since it was initially submitted. An earlier version of the current project
was conceptually reviewed by the ARC in December of 2013 and continued with direction.
The project is now before the ARC for final architectural review including a request for a
parking reduction. At this time, staff finds that the applicant’s design submittal is not consistent
with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines or the Community Design Guidelines. This is
primarily due to the building elevations facing Osos Street and the fact that the mass, form and
design components do not relate to the existing historic elements of the neighborhood.
Therefore, staff is recommending a continuance to direct the applicant to make further changes
to the design.
In addition, staff is continuing to work with the applicant team on their Transportation Demand
Management Plan to support the full extent of the automobile parking reduction requested.
However, staff has also prepared a resolution approving the design if a majority of the ARC
supports the revised project design. The other alternative would be to deny the project design
based on inconsistency with applicable guidelines.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to take into consideration the recommendation of the CHC that the project is
not a good fit in the context of the site’s location in the Old Town Historic District, and to review
the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and the General Plan
should guide the ARC’s deliberations and action.
The ARC is also charged with reviewing a request for a parking reduction. The Planning
Commission discussed parking with their review of the project and recommended approval of a
parking reduction. The parking reduction is discussed in Section 3.6 of the staff report.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Review/History
On November 25, 2013, the project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
since the site is within the Old Town Historic District. The CHC had fundamental concerns with
the massing, roof design, and materials of the project and adopted a resolution recommending
denial of the project, based on a finding of inconsistency of the design with the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 3). On December 16, 2013, the ARC conceptually
reviewed the project. The ARC continued action and provided directional items. The main issues
discussed by the ARC were parking, building massing and materials (Attachment 4).
ARC2 - 2
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 3
On June 10, 2014, the City Council through Resolution No. 10531 approved a Vesting Tentative
Map to create residential and commercial airspace condominium units, and a General Plan
Amendment & Rezoning to “flip” the zoning and land use from what was approved in 2008
(Attachment 5). The approved rezoning orients the offices uses to Osos Street and the residential
development to Morro Street.
Figure 1. Zoning Exhibit
Now that the site zoning has been set, the project is required to return to both the CHC and ARC.
On June 23, 2014, the CHC reviewed a revised version of the project from what they reviewed in
November of 2013. The CHC adopted a resolution again recommending denial of the project,
based on a finding of inconsistency of the design with the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (Attachment 6).
2.2 Site Information/Setting
The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot that contains a total of 47 spaces.
The portions of the parking lot that are currently zoned R-3 are considered non-conforming uses
since parking as a principal use is not allowed in residential zones. The site is generally level,
sloping down slightly from east to west, and developed with surface parking and planters. Sheet
17 of the plans (Attachment 2) includes an existing tree inventory and proposed status with
development. Some of the larger trees are Monterey Pines, eucalyptus, and Holly Oaks.
The project site is located in the Old Town Historic District. All of the residential properties in
the same block to the south of the site are also in the Old Town Historic District and considered
to be Contributing Historic Properties.
Other nearby development includes a mixture of residential projects, parking lots, and office
buildings. The San Luis Medical complex and the Marsh Street parking structure are located to
the north. Another significant use on the adjacent property to the northeast of the site is the
Seventh Day Adventist Church at the corner of Osos and Pacific Streets (1301 Osos), historically
known as the First Baptist Church and built in 1907.
2008 Approved Zoning 2014 Approved Zoning
ARC2 - 3
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 4
The church is on the Master List of
Historic Resources and is described
as an “English Craftsman/Carpenter
Gothic” architectural building style.
It has a ranking of 3, which means
that it is eligible for placement on
the National Register of Historic
Places (see Figure 2). This site is not
in the Old Town Historic district,
but is the most historically
significant structure within the
project block.
2.3 Project Description
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development project that includes a total of 8,050 square
feet of office space and nine residential condominium units. The project consists of two separate
structures. The larger building is a podium style structure with both office space and six
residential units that is oriented to Osos Street and contains a total floor area of 35,445 square
feet (including ground floor parking, second level patio and roof decks). The smaller building
(6,819 square feet including garages and roof decks) contains three residential units and is
oriented to Morro Street.
The larger podium building contains all of the office space (see Figure 3 on the following page).
The building has been designed with 1,050 square feet of office floor space on the ground floor
in the northeast corner of the building near Osos Street, 3,810 square feet on the second level,
and 3,190 square feet on the third level. The offices have a roof deck on the interior of the
project at the third level. The podium building also contains five townhomes in the western
portion of the structure and a one-bedroom flat. Two stairwells and an elevator provide access to
a courtyard area on the second level that provides common space for the residential units and
entries to individual units beyond private terraces adjoining the courtyard.
The two-story townhomes range in size between 1,240 to 1,320 square feet. A one-story, 650
square-foot one-bedroom unit is included on the south side of the building which would be the
project’s designated affordable unit. To accommodate the proposed number of residential units,
a 25% density bonus was approved by the City Council. To qualify for the density bonus, a
minimum of 10% of the total number of project units needs to be a deed-restricted affordable
unit designated for very-low income households. The applicant has satisfied this requirement by
designating the one-bedroom unit as a deed-restricted affordable unit for very-low income
households.
Figure 2. Seventh Day Adventist Church
ARC2 - 4
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 5
The smaller building contains three residential units that range in size between 1,230 to 1,610
square feet. The units each have ground floor garages and two levels of living area above. The
units are accessed by a driveway off of Morro Street.
Figure 3. Level 2 Floor Plan
The podium structure has a central opening in the building that provides the access point to Osos
Street (see Figure 4 below). In addition to covered parking (total of 28 spaces), the first floor of
the office includes the project’s trash and recycling facilities, equipment rooms, a lobby,
elevator, stairwell, and residential storage spaces. Morro StreetOsos StreetFigure 4. Level Floor Plan Osos StreetMorro StreetARC2 - 5
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 6
Table 1. Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yards (Osos & Morro) 15 feet 15 feet
Max. Building Height 35 feet 35 feet
Building Coverage (footprint) 58% 60%
Parking Spaces 343 47.1
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans revised July 15, 2014
2. Zoning Regulations
3. 30% parking reduction requested
A total of 34 parking spaces are proposed for the project. A driveway off of Osos Street would
provide access to a majority of the project parking spaces (28 spaces) composed of:
1) 15 standard spaces;
2) 3 compact spaces; and
3) 10 tandem spaces
The other six parking spaces are provided in garages for the Townhome units which have access
via Morro Street.
Currently the site provides 19 parking spaces for the Mission Medical complex at 1235 Osos
Street. With project development, the parking provided for Mission Medical would be
eliminated and Mission Medical would instead pay parking in-lieu fees.
Sheet 17 of plans (Attachment 2) includes the locations of all existing trees on the site.
Generally the applicant’s proposal will retain the street trees on Osos Street and trees on adjacent
properties, but remove the rest of the on-site trees.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Plan Updates
Project plans have been revised since both the CHC and ARC reviewed the project at the end of
2013. The main modification to the project has been to create a podium style building for the
larger structure oriented to Osos Street. The earlier version of the plans previously reviewed by
the ARC had an auto court open to the sky between portions of the building set aside for
residential uses and offices
3.2 Policy Guidance
The Historic Preservation Program provides guidelines for ensuring architecturally compatible
development within historic districts, and adjacent to historically designated structures. As
mentioned, the church on the adjacent property at 1301 Osos Street is a Master List property
located just outside the historic district. All of the residential and office properties to the south of
the site are in the historic district and are Contributing properties, including the large, stucco-clad
ARC2 - 6
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 7
Rio Bravo apartments at the corner of Osos and Pismo Streets. Following are the adopted
criteria which are most relevant to project development at this site in the Old Town Historic
District:
3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts.New structures in
historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s
prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks
of the district's historic structures, as described in Figures 2 and 3. New structures are not
required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new
building is historic.
3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for
architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with
applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in
Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public
views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically
designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the
prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district.
5.2.1 Old Town Historic District (Architectural Character). In keeping with its peak period
of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District has many examples of High
Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during the that time period that reflected
prosperity, power and discriminating taste. his included several style variations, such as
Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along the top of the
hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest structures
with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first home to
the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the
century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman
Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the
houses in this district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by
local builders and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The
shared first story porches along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design
feature linking buildings.
3.3 Building Form & Massing
The project is similar in scale to the previously approved 2008-2009 version in terms of
including three levels of building area and an overall height of 35 feet. The project proposes the
same approximate setbacks as nearby structures and is consistent with property development
standards of the Zoning Regulations. The site’s location on the edge of the downtown core is
intended to be more intensely developed and the mix of land uses is supported by General Plan
policies. While many of the project elevations will have limited off-site visibility, the two street
elevations facing Osos and Morro Streets will be highly visible.
ARC2 - 7
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 8
Osos Street
The Osos Street building elevation has a flat roof and substantial amounts of glazing. It is lower
in height than the adjacent historic church to the west and somewhat taller than the rectilinear
and flat roof Rio Bravo apartments built in 1918 to the east. Figure 5 includes a comparison
between the plans reviewed last November and the current proposal (Sheet 3 of plans).
Staff’s Analysis: Looking at the two elevations side by side, a case could be made that the
original version with its darker base and neutral palette appears more recessive and is as
compatible as, or more compatible than, the revised version. The advantage of the revised
elevation is that it has more modulation in wall planes afforded by the second and third level
decks and the void created by the central courtyard above the podium. In addition, the elevation
includes ground floor fenestration provided by having some office space at the street level.
However, neither elevation complements the streetscape and both look overly severe and boxy.
The project massing is inconsistent with Historic Preservation Program Guideline 3.2.1 that calls
for new development to have a rhythm and massing consistent with surrounding development.
This might be improved by having more of the steps and voids of the building oriented toward
Figure 5. Osos Street elevation
ARC2 - 8
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 9
the church side.
Since the CHC’s last review of the project on June 23
rd and with staff’s recommendation, the
applicant has converted one of the storefronts into an entry door facing Osos Street to address
previous direction to have more human-scale elements along the street frontages. Yellow shed
awnings have also been added above storefronts. While staff feels like these changes are
appropriate, the fundamental massing concerns previously raised have not been addressed.
ARC Discussion Item:The ARC should determine if the rhythm, massing and articulation of
the Osos Street elevation is consistent with the context of its setting in a historic district.
Morro Street
The Morro Street elevation of the project has a
more residential character with a gable end roof
form and front door facing the street. The
building volume closest to the street is two-
story stepping up to three stories beyond.
Staff’s Analysis (CHC June 23
rd):This form
and massing strategy complements the nearby
structures on the same side of the street that are
Bungalow style. The main massing concern
raised in the June 23rd CHC staff report with the
three Morro townhomes was the awkward
appearance created by cantilevered upper floor
over garages and the thin columns supporting
them (see Figure 6) .
These townhomes also have roof decks which neighbors have raised as a concern and are inter-
related to the massing discussion. The walls and railings of the deck areas, especially with the
Figure 6 –Morro Street Elevations
ARC2 - 9
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 10
earlier version of the plans shown in Exhibit 6, extended above gable ends and added to the
height and bulk of the structure.
The project well exceeds its minimum open space requirements as a condominium project. While
staff is supportive of having sufficient usable outdoor use areas provided for project residents,
there may be opportunities to scale down the roof decks, especially the three nearest Morro
Street that are in close proximity to adjacent single-story buildings.
Staff’s Analysis (ARC August 4
th):The applicant responded to the concerns with the earlier
design shown in the elevations in Figure 6 on the previous page with the modified elevation
shown below in Figure 7. The main changes in response to previous and feedback and direction
were:
1) Use of a more neutral color palette (buff and white rather than red);
2) Creation of a wing wall to screen the cantilevered floor area above supports;
3) Use of more substantial structural columns; and
4) Addition of a glass door with yellow awning for the entry facing the street.
Figure 7. Revised Morro Street elevations for ARC Review on 8-4-14
Staff appreciates the applicant’s efforts to respond to comments, but feel that some of the
solutions actually add bulk to the first floor of the building, rather than address earlier massing
concerns. The following suggestions are offered:
1) Use the open railing design on the upper, right-hand side of the wing wall where the deck
is located facing the street to create a less, heavy appearing elevation.
2) Add a porch extension for the entry with a complementary gable roof;
3) Further refine the design of the roof decks to create a more seamless transition from gable
forms; and
4) Further reduce the size of the roof decks to take into consideration privacy and overlook
to adjacent neighbors.
ARC2 - 10
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 11
3.4 Architectural Style
The proposed project’s architectural style is Contemporary, with both gable end and flat roof
forms. This proposed architectural style is a departure from the previous Neo-Victorian style
approved at the site with the 2008-2009 version of the project. The prior project took its design
theme from the adjacent church and had steeply pitched roofs, rafter tails, trim pieces and
window styles with a Victorian style theme. The current Contemporary style reflects more of the
smaller office buildings in the vicinity in terms of its form and detailing.
The surrounding neighborhood is an eclectic blend of different styles and periods of
construction. The surrounding
Contributing bungalows to the
southeast were built in the early
1900s. The adjacent Rio Bravo
apartments were built in 1918 and
a Spanish lace stucco finish added
a later time. The Grace Church at
the corner of Pismo and Osos
Street is a Spanish Revival style.
Other office buildings in the
vicinity are representatives of Mid-
Century Modern. With this eclectic
context defining the best examples
of style to emulate is more
challenging.
Community Design Guidelines (CDG) Policy Guidance:
1.4 Goals for Design Quality and Character.
A. Keep San Luis Obispo architecturally distinctive; don’t let it become “anywhere
USA.”
4.Design with consideration of the site context in terms of the best nearby examples
of massing, scale, and land uses when the site is located in a notable area of the city
(for example, Downtown, Old Town).
6. Require design excellence for infill redevelopment sites, especially in the downtown
area.
3.B.1. Architectural style. No particular architectural style or design theme is required
in the City nor can San Luis Obispo be defined by any particular architectural style. A
wide range of architectural characteristics adds to the City’s overall image. While
variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new projects with the
existing built environment should be a priority. The goal is to preserve not only the
historic flavor of the community but, equally important, its scale and ambiance.
Figure 8. 2008-2009 version of project design
ARC2 - 11
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 12
Staff’s Analysis: With their review of an earlier version of project plans, neither the CHC nor
ARC specifically recommended against a Contemporary architectural style, but did have issues
with the massing and materials of project buildings. Consistent with CDG Section 1.4 cited
above, the CHC mentioned that the design should respond to some of the better quality examples
of architecture in the vicinity of the site. The CHC mentioned that earlier design was attractive,
but not in the context of this neighborhood setting.
Project architecture, even within the context of the project site, is not especially coordinated and
appears as a collection of different styles. The wall facing the church appears especially stark
and abrupt (Figure 9 below). The applicant has elected not to modify the elevation in response to
staff comments and CHC direction. A cohesive architectural style should be selected that is
consistent with the goal included in CDG 3.B.1 “to preserve not only the historic flavor of the
community but, equally important, its scale and ambiance.”
Figure 9. Osos Street Perspective
3.5 Colors & Materials
In addition to the smooth-finish stucco and fiber cement siding shown in current plans, previous
plans also included corrugated galvanized metal siding, and ribbed metal siding. The ARC
recommended that the project materials palette be simplified in terms of the number of different
materials proposed and that the corrugated galvanized metal siding be eliminated from use on
building walls.
Staff’s Analysis: Current plans respond to previous direction by eliminating metal siding. The
revised Osos Street building elevation shows Corten steel on the third level, but Sheet 1 of the
design response booklet updates this choice to a wood siding with the Prodema product name.
The applicant’s response makes the point that the revised colors, especially the predominant
ARC2 - 12
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 13
white color in the Osos Street elevation, were selected to pay homage to historic structures
adjacent to the site and better blend in with the neighborhood. However, as was mentioned in
the previous massing discussion in Section 3.3 of this report, the white color seems to accentuate,
rather than diminish the building’s scale.
3.6 Parking
Required & Provided Parking
The office component of the project at 8,050 square feet requires a total of 26.8 parking spaces
(8,050/300 = 26.8). The six two-bedroom units require two spaces each (12), the two three-
bedroom units requires 2.5 spaces (5), and the one-bedroom unit requires 1.5 spaces for a total of
18.5 parking spaces. The 9 residential units require 1.8 guest spaces (one per 5 units).
Therefore, the total project parking requirement is 47.1 spaces.
Table 2. Required Automobile Parking
Use Parking Calculation Spaces Required
Office 8,050/300 26.8
Six two-bedroom units 6 x 2.0 12.0
Two three-bedroom units 2 x 2.5 5.0
One one-bedroom unit 1 x 1.5 1.5
Guest parking - residential 1/5 units; 9/5 = 1.8 1.8
TOTAL 47.1
A total of 34 parking spaces are shown on plans for the project. A driveway off of Osos
Street would provide access to a majority of the project parking spaces (28 spaces) on the
ground floor of the podium building composed of:
1. 15 standard spaces;
2. 3 compact spaces; and
3. 10 tandem spaces
The other six parking spaces are provided in garages for the townhome units which have access
via Morro Street. Since the parking provided does not meet ordinance standards, the applicant is
requesting a 30% shared and mixed use parking reduction.
The office use would require a total of 4 bicycle spaces (3 long-term in lockers; 1 short-term in a
rack). The residential units require that each unit include bicycle lockers or interior space within
each dwelling or garage for the storage of at least two bicycle spaces per unit (18). The
residential development would require 1 short-term bicycle space in a rack. The total project
bicycle requirement would be for 21 long-term spaces and 2 short-term spaces,
Plans show that the project includes a total of 32 bicycle parking spaces (Sheet 12). The three
townhomes off Morro Street would include two interior spaces in garages (6). There are 8
bicycle lockers on the north side of the large podium building; three for the office use and 5 for
ARC2 - 13
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 14
the townhomes in that building. Each of these eight lockers accommodates 2 bicycles (16). There
are two bicycle racks to meet short-term demand each containing 5 spaces (10).
Staff’s Analysis
The 2008-2009 version of the project included underground parking accessed off of Morro Street
for a majority of the project’s parking requirement. The earlier version of the project did not
include any parking reduction requests, but was approved with tandem parking for the residential
units in the project.
With the ARC’s conceptual review of project plans on December 16, 2013, the project’s parking
was a focus of discussion. The fundamental issues with the parking proposal that the ARC
reviewed was that the applicant was requesting both a 30% parking reduction and a majority of
the parking spaces for both the office and residual uses in tandem. The general consensus with
this “double-dipping” proposal was that the parking was inadequate for the mix of uses and not
particularly functional. The main concern was that the tandem spaces were not freely available to
be shared by multiple users at the site which is the key tenet of allowing the shared and mixed
use parking reductions under the code.
Figure 9. Parking Layout Comparison
12-16-13
ARC plan
8-4-14
ARC plan
ARC2 - 14
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 15
In response to the concerns with the earlier version of the project, the applicant modified the
project plans to go the podium building which enables a more efficient parking layout. The
differences between the two versions of plans are included on Sheet 19 of current plans (see
Figure 9 on the previous page).
Residential Parking Complies with Standards:With the current proposal, each of the nine
residential units would have allocated spaces consistent with code requirements. Each of the
three townhomes off of Morro Street is self-contained in that they have two parking spaces in
their own garages. The five sets of tandem spaces in the first level of the podium building
provide complying for the five townhomes in that building. The one-bedroom unit in the podium
building would have the single space adjacent to the tandem spots.
Office & Guest Parking:The remaining parking in the podium building consists of 17 spaces,
two motorcycle spaces, and both short-term (racks) and long-term bicycle parking (lockers). The
code required parking for the office and guest parking would be a total of 28.6 spaces (26.8 +
1.8). With approval of a 10% shared parking reduction, the requirement for the office and guest
spaces would be reduced to 25.74 spaces. With 10 short-term bicycle spaces provided beyond
the base requirement of 2, the additional 8 spaces would qualify the project to reduce the
automobile requirement by one additional space (one auto space for each additional 5 bicycle
spaces provided, up to a 10% reduction). Therefore, this would reduce the automobile parking
requirement down to 24.74 spaces.
A shared use parking reduction (10%) may be applied for projects with common parking areas 1,
which is the case for this project, however, approval of a mixed use parking reduction (up to an
additional 20%) requires finding the times of maximum parking demand from various uses to not
coincide 2 (e.g. residences primarily use a shared parking lot in the evening, night, and early
morning while commercial uses primarily use a shared parking lot in the middle of the day). The
10% reduction is generally supported if the criterion for multiple uses is met, and the additional
20% is discretionary dependent on the characteristics and parking demands of the mix of uses
Typically, the 30% parking reduction for a mixed use project would be taken off the total of the
project parking requirement which in this case is 47.1 spaces. The 30% parking reduction would
result in a requirement of 33 spaces, which is one space less than the 34 spaces provided.
However, given how the spaces are laid out and assigned in this project, the analysis separates
out the residential and office/guest spaces.
1 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.B: Shared parking reduction. Where two or more uses share common parking areas,
the total number of parking spaces required may be reduced by up to 10%, with approval of an administrative use permit.
Where shared parking is located on more than one parcel, affected parties must record an agreement governing the shared
parking, to the satisfaction of the Director.
2 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.C: Mixed-use parking reduction. By approving an administrative use permit, the
Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects sharing parking by up to 20%, in addition to the shared parking
reduction, for a total maximum parking reduction of 30%, upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from
various uses will not coincide.
ARC2 - 15
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 16
The Planning Commission found that the criterion for the 10% shared parking reduction is met,
but that the criterion for the additional 20% reduction for offset times of demand could not be
made since there would be overlap between the peak times of the residential and office uses.
Instead, the Planning Commission recommended that the additional parking differential be made
up by approval of an automobile trip reduction program 3. There is no upper threshold in terms of
a percentage set in the code for the automobile trip reduction program reduction. Therefore, the
remaining differential of 8 parking spaces between the 25 spaces required and 17 provided can
be approved through this provision of the code.
The Planning Commission supported the modified parking proposal as providing a compact and
efficient parking proposal which is appropriate for the site’s location adjacent to the downtown
core and a half-block outside of the in-lieu fee parking district and from the Marsh Street Parking
garage. Parking provided in the project given the site’s location within a half-block of both the
Marsh Street Parking structure and the Downtown Parking District where on-site parking is not
necessarily required and in-lieu fees can be paid.
Conclusion:Per the Planning Commission’s directive, staff supports approval of some parking
reductions to accommodate the parking provided. However, staff finds that the applicant’s
submitted transportation demand management plan (Attachment 7) has not yet demonstrated
how fewer parking spaces for site uses will be successfully managed to meet demand and not
cause impacts to surrounding properties.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On August 19, 2008, the San Luis Obispo City Council approved a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the prior version of the project. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines
allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if
only “minor technical changes or additions” have occurred in the project description since the
initial study was originally prepared. In this case, the revised project description is updated
through the Addendum approved by the City Council on June 10, 2014 and documentation is
provided that no new significant environmental impacts are created by the modified project. The
ARC may review the Addendum and MND for the project through a link on the City’s website
embedded in the staff report prepared for Item PH-1 on the 6-10-14 Council agenda.
3 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.D: Automobile trip reduction. By approving an administrative use permit, the
Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects implementing non-auto travel, particularly for commuting, when
it can be demonstrated that reduction of on-site parking will be safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or
cause a decline in quality of life. The applicant shall provide reasonable justification for the reduction, including innovative
project design, transportation demand management (tdm), or incentives, which will reduce single-occupant vehicle travel to
and from the site. These may include, but are not limited to programs such as car-sharing, employer-paid transit passes,
cashouts (i.e. trip reduction incentive plans), or off-peak work hours.
ARC2 - 16
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 17
5.0 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There has been active participation by the public in the review of the project through both
testimony at various project hearings and written correspondences. Like the Addendum and
MND referenced in Section 4.0 on the previous page, the ARC may review previous
correspondences received for the project through a link on the City’s website embedded in the
staff report prepared for Item PH-1 on the 6-10-14 Council agenda. Attachment 8 contains a
letter from James Lopes on behalf of Save Our Downtown on the project.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the project, based on findings of
consistency of the design with the Community Design Guidelines and Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, and subject to conditions.
6.2. Deny the project based on inconsistency of the project design with the Community
Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Program because its massing and
architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town
Historic District.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution
Attachment 2: Vicinity Map & Reduced-size project plans
Attachment 3: 11-25-13 CHC follow-up letter, resolution & minutes
Attachment 4: 12-16-13 ARC Follow-up letter & minutes
Attachment 5: City Council Resolution No. 10531 approving rezoning and VTM 2928
Attachment 6: 6-23-14 CHC follow-up letter, resolution & minutes
Attachment 7: Applicant’s transportation demand management plan
Attachment 8: Letter from James Lopes on behalf of Save Our Downtown
Distributed to CHC: 11” x 17” colored project plans
ARC2 - 17
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL TO THE
PACIFIC COURTYARDS PROJECT CONTAINING 9 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS & 8,050 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND APPROVING A
10% SHARED PARKING REDUCTION AND AUTOMOBILE TRIP
REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1321 & 1327 OSOS STREET (ARC 96-13)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2013, for conceptual review of Planning
Application ARC 96-13, a mixed-use project with 9 dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office
floor area and continued the hearing with general direction to the applicant for project revisions;
and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review 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 August 4, 2014, for the purpose of considering revised plans for final
approval; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff at said hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. As designed and conditioned by this architectural review approval, the building materials,
style, character, and form of the new structure promotes the architectural character, style,
form, and materials of the existing historic district and complements the character of the
surrounding buildings and area consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
2. The project is consistent with standards contained in the City’s Community Design
Guidelines, which encourage projects that are pedestrian-oriented, and have proportions and
design details that complement surrounding structures.
3. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 A.,
Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which is "... to
minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be
satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." Moreover, the project satisfies the requirement
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 18
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 2
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
for a shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060
B. because there are multiple uses that share common parking areas.
4. The project conforms to the general plan policies, which encourage mixed-use projects that
provide needed residential units close to the downtown core. The proposed project complies
with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 D., Automobile Trip Reduction, in
that it satisfies the intent of that section ".... to reduce the parking requirement for projects
implementing non-auto travel, particularly for commuting, when it can be demonstrated that
reduction of on-site parking will be safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding area
or cause a decline in quality of life." The applicant through their submitted trip reduction
plan and on-going commitment to rely on alternative transportation for commuting practices
has demonstrated that their provided automobile, bicycle and motorcycle parking will meet
the parking needs of their business.
5. This approval is consistent with the Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) land use
planning strategies designed to reduce dependence on vehicle travel, and it can be expected
that some trips will be consolidated for existing and proposed uses because of the range of
different uses at the site.
6. The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures on August 19,
2008. On June 10, 2014, the City Council approved an Addendum to document the revised
project description and eliminate no longer relevant mitigation measures.
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval
to the mixed-use project (ARC 96-13) with 9 dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office floor area,
with incorporation of the following conditions:
Conditions:
1. The project is subject to all of the pertinent conditions, code requirements and mitigation
measures approved through City Council Resolution No. 10531 (2014 Series) along with the
review of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to reconfigure the land use and
zoning boundaries within the overall site area and Tentative Tract Map to create both office
and residential condominiums.
2. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and
code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should 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.
3. The color board for the project buildings presented at the meeting was supported by the
Architectural Review Commission. Any modifications to the approved palette shall be
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 19
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 3
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a
building permit. Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part
of working drawings.
4. Modify the Morro Street elevation of the project as follows:
a. Use the open railing design on the upper, right-hand side of the wing wall where the
deck is located facing the street to create a less, heavy appearing elevation.
b. Add a porch extension for the entry with a complementary gable roof;
c. Further refine the design of the roof decks to create a more seamless transition from
gable forms; and
d. Further reduce the size of the roof decks to take into consideration privacy and
overlook to adjacent neighbors.
5. All stucco and plastered surfaces shall have a smooth hand-finished appearance to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and not be a sprayed-on type of
application. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit.
6. Plans shall clearly show the details of all windows and storefronts.
7. Plans shall clearly show details on all railings, including their width, color, and finish.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit clearly show how lockable private storage of 200
cubic feet for each unit is provided.
9. A specific sign program for the office component of the project shall be to the review and
approval of the Community Development Director. The Community Development
Director may approve the sign program if it is consistent with applicable sections of the
sign regulations and is in keeping with the character and context of the building. The
Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the
project.
10. The locations of 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 shall be separately
submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall
be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the
City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning
Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to
be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that “Lenses of exterior
wall-mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the
Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare.”
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 20
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 4
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
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 proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be
placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen
them. A line-of-sight diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be
adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
12. Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosures shall be included in
working drawings for a building permit and shall be to the review and approval of the
Community Development and Utilities Departments. The ultimate design shall be
consistent with the Solid Waste Guidelines.
13. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on
plans.
14. To provide compensatory planting for tree removals, the applicant shall submit a
comprehensive tree planting mitigation program which includes both on-site and off-site
planting locations to the approval of the City Arborist and Community Development
Director.
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 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.
16. Decks and balconies within the project shall not be utilized for the storage needs of
individual units. However, outdoor patio furniture, potted plants and small barbecues may
be placed in these areas.
17. The applicant shall provide for the professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area
including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping in a first class condition.
18. Individual tenant spaces and the overall site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly
manner at all times. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 21
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 5
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
Fire
19. The applicant shall provide a means of building identification from the public road in which
each building is addressed.
20. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access.
21. An approved NFPA 13 system will be required for the commercial building (inclusive of
apartment), either a 13R or 13D system will be required for the residential component,
depending on final product, please designate a CBC occupancy (R2 or R3) on plans.
22. Fire Main and all associated control valves shall be installed per NFPA 24 Standards and
City Engineering standards. The Fire Department Connection shall be located within 40 feet
of Morro or Osos Street. Please show location of Backflow device and FDC on plans.
Housing
23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an affordability
agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo that the one 1-bedroom unit shall be deed-
restricted to very-low income households for a term of 55 years, which will be recorded
against the title of the property.
Transportation
24. The applicant shall submit a revised Transportation Demand Management Plan to the
approval of the Public Works and Community Development Directors that includes
supportable programs that will reduce vehicle trips to the site.
25. The applicant shall submit a revised plan showing how long and short-term bicycle parking
shall be provided on site in accordance with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle
parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of
the destination as possible and located at least as conveniently as the most convenient
automobile parking space. Dimensioned locations and details of the short and long-term
bicycle parking shall be provided on the project’s construction plans including rack design,
location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers’ standards.
A minimum four foot wide path of travel shall be provided to all bicycle parking spaces.
Additional bicycle parking (above what is required) may be proposed on the project
frontages if adequate pedestrian circulation is maintained and they result in no line of sight
issues. Specific to this project, the plan shall show: 1) how complying bicycles parking will
be provided in the Morro Street garages given space restrictions; 2) how bicycle lockers will
accommodate two spaces without having to remove a bicycle; 3) one of the lockers for the
office component set aside the affordable flat.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 22
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 6
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
Public Works
26. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the parking and driveway
standards. The plans shall show all space, bay, and aisle dimensions. Additional space
width may be required for spaces with obstructions or limitations with maneuverability.
27. The building plan submittal shall include an overall site plan to show how access and
maneuverability is provided through the access easement to the existing off-site parking
located at 958 Pismo.
28. The building plan submittal shall include complete details for the public right-of-way for
both the Osos Street and Morro Street frontages. The plans shall show all existing and
proposed improvements. The plans shall include the existing and proposed metered parking
spaces. The plan shall consider line of sight distances, any special parking proposals, and
shall maximize the number of metered parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department. The scope of work may include the removal, relocation, and
installation of parking meter posts and the corresponding pavement markings per City
Engineering Standards.
29. The proposed demolitions, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach construction on
Morro shall provide for an orderly transition to the existing frontage improvements located
at 1322 and 1336 Morro.
30. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground. No additional utility poles shall be
set in the public right-of-way and no wires shall be extended across the proposed project to
serve adjacent properties unless otherwise approved to the satisfaction of the City and the
serving utility companies.
Utilities
31. The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property’s existing and
proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of connection at the
City water and sewer mains. Each proposed unit shall have a separate water meter.
32. If the property’s existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused, submittal of a video
inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during the
Building Permit Review process. If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must be
abandoned per City standards.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 23
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 7
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
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 4th day of August, 2014.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission by:
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 24
Attachment 2
ARC2 - 25
Design Schematic for Architectural Review Commission- Final ReviewPACIFIC COURTYARDSA mixed use developmentAPN 002-442-013, 014 and 020San Luis Obispo, CA 93401Applicant: MISSION MEDICAL, LLC1880 Santa Barbara Avenue Suite 110San Luis Obispo, CA 93401ǣPrepared for: City OF SAN LUIS OBISPOCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, et al.ͳͷ
ʹͲͳͶPrevious Iterations6 March 20146 February 201417 October 201324 June 2013 ͳǤƬʹǤ͵Ǥ ȋȌͶǤ ȋȌͷǤȋʹͲͳ͵Ƭ ȌǤǯǤ ƬͺǤƬͻǤͳͲǤͳͳǤͲͳ ͳʹǤͲʹ ͳ͵ǤͲ͵ ͳͶǤͳͷǤ ͳǤ Ȃ
ͳǤ ȂʹƬ͵ ͳͺǤͳͻǤʹͲǤͳƬʹʹͳǤ͵ʹʹǤͶƬͷʹ͵ǤƬʹͶǤͺʹͷǤͻʹǤʹǤʹͺǤʹͻǤǡͳǡʹʹ͵ͲǤǡͳǡʹ͵͵ͳǤǡͳǡʹ͵ʹǤSheet Index:Paciϐic Courtyardsǡ Ǧ ϐ ǡǦͺǡͲͷͲ Ǧϐ ƬͻǤ Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)November 25, 2013ǡJune 23, 2014ǤDecember 19, 2013ǡArchitectural Review Commission (ARC) ǤCHCARC ϐ Ǥ CHCƬARC ǡ Planning CommissionƬCity Councilȋ Ȍǡ Ǥ ǡ DzdzDzdz ǯDzϐdzǤAttachment 2
ARC2 - 26
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 1PACIFIC COURTYARDSRezone &Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2928APN 002-442-013, 014 and 020San Luis Obispo, CA 93401Applicant:MISSION MEDICAL, LLC1880 Santa Barbara Avenue Suite 110San Luis Obispo, CA 93401ZONING: Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) and Office (O) PARCEL SIZE: .54 acres / 23,600 SF = (O) .22 acres; (R-3) .32 acresDENSITY:Allowed- 10.5 density units = 12 DU/acre in (O) + 18 DU/acre in (R-3) + 25% density bonus for affordable housing Proposed- 9.6 density units = 9 dwelling units @ (2) 3-bedroom unit x 1.5 density units +(6) 2-bedroom units x 1 density unit + (1) 1-bedroom x .6 density unit FLOOR AREA RATIO:Allowed- 1.5 FARProposed- .78 FAR = Gross building floor area 18,310 SF / project site area 23,600 SFBUILDING HEIGHT: Allowed- 35 feet Proposed- 35 feet =Office- 3 stories with ground-level parking, Residential- 2 stories over ground-level parkingBUILDING SETBACKS:Required- Street yard 15 feet, Side yard 5 feet (minimum)Proposed- Street yard 15 feet, Side yard 5 feet (and greater for upper levels) OPEN SPACE:Required- 3,600 SF minimums = (9) x 100 SF/unit for Private, (9) x 100 SF/unit for Common, and (9) x 40 SF/unit Recreational Proposed- 5,962 SF = 3,719 SF Private, 1,475 SF Common, 664 SF RecreationalPARKING:Required- 34 spaces plus 2 motorcycle and 4 bicycleProposed- 34 spaces plus 2 motorcycle and 32+ bicycleOSO
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
PACIFIC STREETMOR
R
O
S
T
R
E
E
T PISMO STREETLocation MapExisting Condition on Osos StreetPROJECT INFORMATIONAttachment 2
ARC2 - 27
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 2REVIEW COMMENTS & DESIGN RESPONSEIntroduction Paciϔic Courtyardsǡ Ǧ ȋ ϐ ȌǦͺǡͲͷͲ Ǧϐ ͻ Ǥ Ǥ ȋʹȌǤ Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)ʹͷǡʹͲͳ͵ Architectural Review Commission (ARC) ͳͻǡʹͲͳ͵Ǥ CHCARC ǡ ʹͲͳ͵ǡϐ ǡ ʹͲͳͶǤMassing, Articulation, and Roof Lines Provide additional horizontal and vertical articulation to create a building massing and roof design that is more compatible with surrounding structures. (With specific emphasis to address the Osos Street elevation) (CHC 1, 2, ARC 2) Osos Street Façade ǣ ϐǢ• ʹ͵Ǣ• ǦDzdz ϐ• Ǣϐ • Ǣ ͵• Ǣ ǡ • ǤMorro Street Facade ϐ ǣ • Ǣ ǡ• ǡ Ǣ • ǡ ǦǦǦ Ǣ • ǤMaterials The project materials palette shall be simplified in terms of the number of different materials proposed. Eliminate the corrugated galvanized metal siding on building walls. Use a different material for the walls of the new building immediately adjacent to the Seventh Day Adventist Church and visible from Osos Street (ARC 3, 4, 5) ǦǦ Ȃ• ǡ ǡ ǤϐǡϐǤOsos Street Materials ǡ ǣ ǡ • Ǣϐǡǡ • Ǣ • Ǣ ȋǤǤǡ• Ȍ Ǣ ̺ • Ǣ ͵ϐ • ϐ Ǣ ͵ϐϐ ̺ǡ• Ǣ ǯ• ǤMorro Street Residential Materials ϐǡϐ ϐ ǣ• Ǣǡǡ • ǤTrees Reconsider trees proposals to possibly save some of the trees in the project’s street yards; Evaluate retention of trees on Morro Street (CHC 4, ARC 7) Ǥ• ǡ ǦǤ ǡ ǡǡǡ ǤWindows Incorporate windows which are symmetrical and proportional to building walls. (ARC 6) ϐϐ ǡ Ǣ ǡ ǯ• Ǣ • ǤPedestrian Orientation/Human Scale Incorporate features into the project design to improve the pedestrian experience and human-scale on both Morro and Osos Sts. (CHC 3, ARC 8) Osos Street • ǡ ͳͷǦǤ Ǥϐ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ϐ ǡǦϐ ǡ ǤMorro Street • ǣǦ ǡʹϐ ǡ ǤOverall Project Amenities Ȃ• ǡǡǤ ǤParking Modify the parking design to better meet City standards and allow for safe and efficient project ingress and egress. (ARC 1) ϐ ǣ • ȋͶȌ Ǣ Ȁ• ϐ Ǣ ϐ• ǤAttachment 2
ARC2 - 28
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 3Original SubmittalȋʹͲͳ͵ȌCurrent Submittal ȋʹͲͳͶȌOriginal SubmittalȋʹͲͳ͵Ȍ Current Submittal ȋʹͲͳͶȌ ϐ ǦDzdzȗ ȗ ǡϐϐ ǡϐ Ǧ ȗ Ǧϐϐ ǤOSOS STREET DESIGNAttachment 2
ARC2 - 29
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 4(1) VIEW SOUTH DOWN OSOS STREETPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PARKINGMORRO STREET1050 SFOffice 1MotorcycleParkingElev.StairsLobbyStorageBike ParkingStairsTrashElev.EquipmentElec.TransformerPadCompact6 Parking Spaces(6 standard)Bike RackBike RackTrashEnclosureSecurity gate(1)(2)(4)(3)(5)RELATIONSHIP WITH SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH-The white stucco relates to the white painted siding of the Church.-The set back and change to horizontal siding on the third level lines up with the roof eave of the Church.-The vertical paired windows directly relates to the repetitious paired windows of the Church.OSOS STREET PERSPECTIVE (SOUTH)Attachment 2
ARC2 - 30
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 5(2) VIEW NORTH DOWN OSOS STREETPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PARKINGMORRO STREET1050 SFOffice 1MotorcycleParkingElev.StairsLobbyStorageBike ParkingStairsTrashElev.EquipmentElec.TransformerPadCompact6 Parking Spaces(6 standard)Bike RackBike RackTrashEnclosureSecurity gate(1)(2)(4)(3)(5)RELATIONSHIP WITH ARCHITECTURE ALONG OSOS STREET-The white stucco acts as a bond between the stucco apartment buildings to the south and the white wood siding of the church to the north.-The elevated box acts as a unique architectural feature that will add an aesthetic to the block and help with the shift in building scale from two story to the north, to three story to the south.-The balcony on the second level facing Osos street brings the scale of the facade down to a human scale and helps the building blend into it’s residental surroundings.OSOS STREET PERSPECTIVE (NORTH)Attachment 2
ARC2 - 31
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 6Original Submittal ȋʹͲͳ͵Ȍ Interim Submittal ȋʹͲͳͶȌ Interim Submittal ȋʹͲͳͶȌǯͳ͵͵ ͳ͵ʹʹͳ͵͵ ͳ͵ʹʹͳ͵͵ͳ͵ʹʹ Dzdz ϐǡǤDzdz ʹǯͺǯ ǡǤDzdz ϐǡǤǦ Ǧ MORRO STREET DESIGN (2013 & Interim)Attachment 2
ARC2 - 32
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 7MORRO STREET BIRD’S EYEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PARKINGMORRO STREET1050 SFOffice 1MotorcycleParkingElev.StairsLobbyStorageBike ParkingStairsTrashElev.EquipmentElec.TransformerPadCompact6 Parking Spaces(6 standard)Bike RackBike RackTrashEnclosureSecurity gate(1)(2)(4)(6)(3)(5)(6) VIEW ALONG MORRO STREETRELATIONSHIP WITH ARCHITECTURE ALONG MORRO STREET-The painted cementitious siding relates the adjacent homes with wood siding along Morro Street.-The regular window patters of the condo units relate to the neighboring homes and the blocked out window sections show the relationship with the comercial side.-The gabled roofs represent a residential feel that blends in with the context along Morro Street.Attachment 2
ARC2 - 33
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 8MORRO STREET PERSPECTIVE & COURTYARD(4) VIEW ALONG SIDE OF COURTYARD(3) VIEW DOWN MORRO STREETPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PARKINGMORRO STREET1050 SFOffice 1MotorcycleParkingElev.StairsLobbyStorageBike ParkingStairsTrashElev.EquipmentElec.TransformerPadCompact6 Parking Spaces(6 standard)Bike RackBike RackTrashEnclosureSecurity gate(1)(2)(4)(3)(5)RELATIONSHIP WITH ARCHITECTURE ALONG MORRO STREET-The painted cementitious siding relates the adjacent homes with wood siding along Morro Street.-The regular window patters of the condo units relate to the neighboring homes and the blocked out window sections show the relationship with the comercial side.-The gabled roofs represent a residential feel that blends in with the context along Morro Street.Attachment 2
ARC2 - 34
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 9OSOS STREET & MORRO STREET ELEVATIONSMORRO STREET ELEVATION 1/16”=1’-0”OSOS STREET ELEVATION 1/16”=1’(D) 2’x8’ HARDIE BOARD PANELS(E) PRE-CAST CONCRETE(F) STEEL CABLE RAILING(A) SMOOTH TROWELLED PLASTER(C) 2’X8’ PRODEMA WOOD PANELS(H) ALUMINUM FRAMEWINDOW (TYPICAL)(H) ALUMINUM FRAMEWINDOW (TYPICAL)(G) STEEL FRAMEWINDOW(B) 4” PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDINGDETAIL7DETAIL8DETAIL5DETAIL1DETAIL6(B) 4” PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDING(B) 4” PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDINGPAINTED STEEL LOUVERSOPEN TO GARAGEʹͳǡʹ͵ǡʹͶǡʹͷAttachment 2
ARC2 - 35
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 10NORTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATION 1/16”=1’-0”(D) 2’x8’ HARDIE BOARD PANELS(D) 2’x8’ HARDIE BOARD PANELS(E) PRE-CAST CONCRETE(F) STEEL CABLE RAILING(F) STEEL CABLE RAILING(B) 4” PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDING(A) SMOOTH TROWELLED PLASTER(A) SMOOTH TROWELLED PLASTER(C) 2’X8’ PRODEMA WOODPANELS(H) ALUMINUM FRAMEWINDOW (TYPICAL)(H) ALUMINUM FRAMEWINDOW (TYPICAL)PAINTED STEEL LOUVERSDETAIL1DETAIL2DETAIL9ʹͳǡʹʹǡʹAttachment 2
ARC2 - 36
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 11SOUTH ELEVATION 1/16”=1’-0”(E) PRE-CAST CONCRETEPAINTED METAL GARAGE DOOR(TYPICAL FOR 3 UNITS)PAINTED STEEL LOUVERS(TYPICAL)OPEN TO GARAGE(F) STEEL CABLE RAILING (B) 4” PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDING(A) SMOOTH TROWELLED PLASTER(A) SMOOTH TROWELLED PLASTER(C) 2’X8’ PRODEMA WOOD PANELS(H) ALUMINUM FRAMEWINDOW (TYPICAL)(H) ALUMINUM FRAMEWINDOW (TYPICAL)DETAIL4DETAIL3DETAIL5SOUTH ELEVATIONʹʹǡʹ͵Attachment 2
ARC2 - 37
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 12MORRO ST.UPUPUPUPUPSETBACK15'-0" 30'-0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PARKINGOSOS STREETMORRO STREET1A4A3A2A1AZAYAXA2123456781050 SFOffice 1MotorcycleElev. StairsLobbyResidentialStorageBike ParkingStairsTrashElev.EquipmentElec.TransformerPad10'-6"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"17'-0" 15'-0"25'-0"CompactDriveway28'-0"25'-8" 10'-0"10'-0"5'-0"20'-1"25'-0"8'-0"40'-4"25'-0"18'-8"8'-0"Bike Rack (5)Bike Rack (5)TrashEnclosureSecurity gateMotorcycleFire Closet5 Residential lockers (2 bikes each)3 Commercial lockers (2 bikes each)Bike Storage on wallA1 1" = 20'-0"1LEVEL 01 FLOOR PLAN*See Landscape drawings for driveways, walkways, and landscapeLEVEL 01 FLOOR PLANAttachment 2
ARC2 - 38
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 13PATIO840 SFTH 'E1'5'-0"Elev. StairStair840 SFTH D700 SFTownhome A840 SFTH 'E2'690 SFTownhome C670 SFTownhome A710 SFTownhome B2160 SFOffice 21670 SFOffice 3650 SF1 Bed Apt.26'-8"Trashchute670 SFTownhome A10'-0"19'-4"1'-0"16'-0"1'-0"16'-0"1'-0"17'-4"1'-0"16'-0"31'-0"6'-0"10'-0"10'-0"6'-0"Courtyard:See LandscapeDrawings17'-10"27'-5" 1'-0"35'-11"9'-2"27'-0" 1'-0" 27'-3"PrivateTerraceBalcony21'-0" 1" = 20'-0"LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLAN(p.5)LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLANAttachment 2
ARC2 - 39
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 14640 SFTownhome A610 SFTownhome A650 SFTownhome B610 SFTownhome C610 SFTownhome AStairStairElev.1990 SFOffice 41170 SFOffice 5TerraceOpen to BelowTrashchuteOffice Roof DeckBalconyBalcony730 SFTH 'E2'740 SFTH 'E1'490 SFTH D 1" = 20'-0"LEVEL 03 FLOOR PLANLEVEL 03 FLOOR PLANAttachment 2
ARC2 - 40
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 15OSOS ST.DNDNDNDNDNEgress CoreMechanical EnclosureRoof DeckRoof DeckRoof DeckRoof DeckRoof DeckRoof DeckRoof DeckRoof DeckMechanical EnclosureROOF PLANAttachment 2
ARC2 - 41
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 16Project SummaryResidential Count Floor Area Townhome A 3 1,280 sf 2-bedroom +2.5 Bath Townhome B 1 1,360 sf 2-bedroom +2.5 Bath Townhome C 1 1,300 sf 2-bedroom +2.5 Bath Townhome D 1 1,330 sf 2-bedroom + 2 Bath Townhome ‘E1’ 1 1,580 sf 3-bedroom +2 Bath Townhome ‘E2’ 1 1,570 sf 3-bedroom +2 Bath1 Bed Apt. 1 650 sf 1-bedroom +1 Bath Project Totals 9 11,630 sf Commercial Area Open Space1st Floor Offi ce 1 1,050 sf 2nd Floor Offi ce 2 2,160 sf 258 sf Offi ce 3 1,650 sf3rd Floor Offi ce 4 1,990 sf 400 sf Offi ce 5 1,200 sfTotal 8,050 sf 658 sfShared Parking standard compact total single 20 3 23 spacestandem 5 0 5 spacestotal 25 3 28 spacesNote: 2 Accessible parking spaces included in standard countTownhome D, E1, and E2 specifi c Parking standard compact totalsingle 6 0 6 spaces Automobile TOTAL parking 34 spacesMotorcycle 2 spacesBicycle Short-term 4 spaces Long-term 22 spaces Total 26 spacesTownhome D Townhome 'E1' Townhome 'E2'Townhome AOfficeOffice1 - 212.0'2 - 223.0'3 - 234.5'R - 246.0'Parking1 - 210.0'2 - 220.0'3 - 231.0'R - 241.5'P - 245.0'NOTES: 1. Average grade on site = 212.0'2. Maximum height = 35'-0" or 247.0" to top of roofMech. 1" = 20'-0"Site SectionSITE SECTIONAttachment 2
ARC2 - 42
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 17 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q RMORRO STREETOSOS STREETWOOD FENCINGGALV. WATER TROUGH PLANTERSGRAVELCONC. PAVERSCONCRETE SEATWALLGREEN SCREEN2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ȂGROUND FLOORAttachment 2
ARC2 - 43
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 18MORRO STREETOSOS STREETSITE FURNISHINGSLANDSCAPE PLANTERSLANDSCAPE PLANTERSLANDSCAPE PLANTERSWOOD BENCHESPLANT MATERIALROOF GARDENǣ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Ȃ 2ND & 3RD FLOORAttachment 2
ARC2 - 44
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 19Original Submittal ȋʹͲͳ͵ȌCurrent SubmittalȋʹͲͳͶȌPARKING PROVIDEDUSETYPE# OF SPACES c.2013# OF SPACES c.2014ResidentialGarage- Standard36Garage- Tandem8Garage- Compact2Shared ParkingStandard1115Tandem1010Compact3TOTAL:3434Motorcycle22Bicycle332+Total % Tandem*53%30%ȗ ǡ Ǥ ϐ ǡ ͳͷΨ ǤȋͳǤͳǤͲͲǤǤͳƬǤ͵Ȍ Note:Ͷ Ǥ PARKING COMPARISONAttachment 2
ARC2 - 45
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 20COLOR & MATERIALSSIDINGCOLOR PALLETEWINDOWS(D) 2’x8’ HARDIE BOARD PANELS(E) PRE-CAST CONCRETERED POWERSUMMER DAFFODILWHITE BEACHWHITE HEATLIGHT GRAY(F) STEEL CABLE RAILING(B) 4” PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDING(A) SMOOTH TROWELLED PLASTER(G) STEEL FRAME(H) ALUMINUM FRAME(C) PRODEMA WOOD PANELSCOLORS AND MATERIALSWHITE BEACHAttachment 2
ARC2 - 46
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 21DETAILS 1 & 2DETAILS(1) CORNER DETAIL(2) ENTRY DETAILPAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDING2’X4’ PAINTED HARDIE PANELS WITH EXPOSED FASTENERSCANVAS CANOPY ON 1”X1” STEEL FRAME2X6 VARNISHED WOOD RAILPAINTED STEEL DOWELS @ 3 3/4” O.C.EXT. PLASTERUNIT DESIGNATION SIGNAGE2’X4’ HARDIE PANELSWOOD ENTRY DOOR AND FIXED PANELAttachment 2
ARC2 - 47
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 22DETAIL 3DETAILS(3) BALCONY/WING WALL DETAIL 1/4”=1’-0”ALUMINUM WINDOWALUMINUM SILL4” PAINTED HARDIE LAP SIDING6”X3” VARNISHED WOOD GAURDRAILPAINTED STEEL DOWELS @ 3 3/4” O.C.PAINTED SHEET METAL EDGE FLASHINGTREX DECKINGCONCRETEAttachment 2
ARC2 - 48
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 23DETAILS 4 & 5DETAILS(4) EAVES/ WINDOW DETAIL(5) WOOD/CORNER BALCONY DETAILHARDIE TRIM4” HARDIE PLANKALUMINUM WINDOW2’X4’ PRODEMA (OR SIMILAR)PANELS2X6 WOOD RAIL ON STEEL DOWEL RAILINGPAINTED 16 GA. STEEL FASCIA2X6 VARNISHED WOOD RAILAttachment 2
ARC2 - 49
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 24DETAILS 6 & 7DETAILS(6) LOUVERS DETAIL(7) MORRO ST. FACADE4” PAINTED HARDIE PLANKS4” STEEL LOUVERSASPHALT TILE ROOF4” PAINTED HARDIE LAP SIDING6” BARGE BOARDSPAINTED STEEL DOWELSCANVAS CANOPYPAINTED SOLID CORE WOOD DOOR3RD FL. ROOF2ND FL. ROOFALUMINUM WINDOWSPAINTED EXT. PLASTERPRE-CAST CONCRETE BASEMORRO STREET ELEVATION 1/8”=1’-0”ROOF PLAN 1/8”=1’-0”Attachment 2
ARC2 - 50
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 25DETAIL 8DETAILS(8) COMMERCIAL ENTRY DETAIL1/4”X9” PAINTED STEEL PLATE AROUND WINDOW ASSEMBLYCANVAS (SUNBRELLA) AWNING ON 1X1 STEEL FRAMESCONCE LIGHT FIXTUREALUMINUM STOREFRONT ENTRY DOORSFIXED GLASS PANEL WITH SIGNAGE/ GRAPHICSSTAINLESS STEEL HANDLESPRECAST CONCRETE BASEAttachment 2
ARC2 - 51
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 26DETAIL 9DETAILS(9) ENTRY DETAIL2X6 VARNISHED WOOD RAILPAINTED STEEL DOWELS @ 3 3/4” O.C.PAINTED STEEL PLATEENTRY CANOPY PAINTED WOOD FASCIA IPE SOFFIT WITH DOWNLIGHTS8” SCONCE LIGHTSALUMINUM STOREFRONT ENTRY DOORSAttachment 2
ARC2 - 52
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 27UNIT PLANS ATownhouse A, unit plansscale: 1/8”=1’-0”Attachment 2
ARC2 - 53
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 28UNIT PLANS BTownhouse B, unit plansscale: 1/8”=1’-0”Attachment 2
ARC2 - 54
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 29Townhouse C, unit plansscale: 1/8”=1’-0”UNIT PLANS CAttachment 2
ARC2 - 55
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 30Townhouse D, ‘E1’, and ‘E2’, Second Levelscale: 1/8”=1’-0”UNIT PLANS D, E1, E2 - 2ND LEVELAttachment 2
ARC2 - 56
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 31Townhouse D, ‘E1’, and ‘E2’, Third Levelscale: 1/8”=1’-0”UNIT PLANS D, E1, E2 - 3RD LEVELAttachment 2
ARC2 - 57
PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE7/15/14SHEET 32Townhouse D, ‘E1’, and ‘E2’ Roof Planscale: 1/8”=1’-0”UNIT PLANS D, E1, E2 - ROOF LEVELAttachment 2
ARC2 - 58
ARC2 - 59
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 60
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 61
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 62
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 63
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 64
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 65
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 66
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 67
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 68
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 69
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 70
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 71
ARC2 - 72
ARC2 - 73
ARC2 - 74
ARC2 - 75
ARC2 - 76
ARC2 - 77
ARC2 - 78
ARC2 - 79
ARC2 - 80
Attachment 6
ARC2 - 81
Attachment 6
ARC2 - 82
Attachment 6
ARC2 - 83
Attachment 6
ARC2 - 84
Attachment 6
ARC2 - 85
Attachment 6
ARC2 - 86
Attachment 6
ARC2 - 87
Attachment 6
ARC2 - 88
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HPDQG0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ-XO\
3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGV0L[HG8VH2DVLV$VVRFLDWHV,QF
RI
Transportation Demand Management Plan
forforff
Pacific Courtyards Mixed-Use
11321 Osos Street & 1322 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
-XO\
I. PURPOSE OF A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 'HPDQG 0DQDJHPHQW LV D JHQHUDO WHUP IRU VWUDWHJLHV WKDW UHVXOW LQ PRUH HIILFLHQW XVH RI
WUDQVSRUWDWLRQUHVRXUFHV$7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HPDQG0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ ³7'03´ VHHNVWRWDLORUDFROOHFWLRQRI
PDQDJHPHQWVWUDWHJLHVIRUDVSHFLILFSURMHFWEXVLQHVVRUJDQL]DWLRQRUVWDNHKROGHUJURXS7KHJRDORIWKH7'03
LVWRLQFUHDVHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQHIILFLHQF\DQGLQWXUQUHGXFHVLQJOHRFFXSDQF\YHKLFOH ³629´ WULSVDQGYHKLFOH
PLOHVWUDYHOHG ³907´ 7KHUHDUHIRXU RYHUDUFKLQJFDWHJRULHVIRUPDQDJHPHQWVWUDWHJLHVVSHFLILFWRWKH
3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVSURMHFW
x ,PSURYHG7UDQVSRUW2SWLRQV
x ,QFHQWLYHV7R8VH$OWHUQDWLYH0RGHVDQG5HGXFH'ULYLQJ
x 3DUNLQJDQG/DQG8VH0DQDJHPHQW DQG
x 3ROLF\$QG,QVWLWXWLRQDO5HIRUPV
7KHVHFDWHJRULHVLQFOXGHVWUDWHJLHVWKDWFDQEHLPSOHPHQWHGDWPDQ\OHYHOVIURPWKHLQGLYLGXDOSHUVRQWRD
ODUJHURUJDQL]DWLRQDORUDJHQF\7KHSXUSRVHRID7'03LVWRGHWHUPLQHWKRVHVWUDWHJLHVZKLFKDUHDSSURSULDWH
IRUDVSHFLILFSURMHFWRUFLUFXPVWDQFHLQRUGHUWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHPDQDJHPHQWVWUDWHJLHVDUHHIIHFWLYH
II. Project Description
7KHVWUDWHJLHVRXWOLQHGLQWKH3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGV¶7'03KDYHEHHQVSHFLILFDOO\VHOHFWHGEDVHGRQWKHSURMHFW¶V
VL]HDQGXVHORFDWLRQDQGH[LVWLQJVXUURXQGLQJFRQGLWLRQV7KHIROORZLQJLVDEULHIRYHUYLHZRIWKHSURSRVHG
SURMHFW7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQZDVXVHGWRLQIRUPWKHVSHFLILFQDWXUHDQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHYDULRXVPDQDJHPHQW
VWUDWHJLHV
A. LOCATION
7KHSURSRVHG3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVSURMHFWLVORFDWHGPLGEORFNRI2VRV6WUHHWDQG0RUUR6WUHHWEHWZHHQ3LVPR
6WUHHW DQG 3DFLILF 6WUHHW 7KH SURMHFW LV DQ LQILOO GHYHORSPHQW ORFDWHG OHVV WKDQ WZR EORFNV VRXWK RI WKH
'RZQWRZQ&HQWUDO%XVLQHVV'LVWULFW DPDMRUDFWLYLW\FHQWHURIWKHFRPPXQLW\7KHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\LV]RQHG
2IILFH 2 DQG0HGLXP+LJK'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO 5 7KLVLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJ]RQLQJDQG
QHLJKERUGHYHORSPHQWV7KHVXUURXQGLQJDUHDLVQRWHGIRULWVHFOHFWLFPL[RIYDULRXVFRPPHUFLDORIILFHDQG
UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV $V DQ LQILOO GHYHORSPHQW WKH SURMHFW FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH &LW\¶V JRDO IRU FRPSDFW XUEDQ
GHYHORSPHQW
B. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVLVDDFUHPL[HGXVHGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKLQFOXGHVDWRWDORIVTXDUHIHHW 6) RIRIILFH
VSDFHDQGQLQH UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWV7KHSURMHFWLVUHODWLYHO\VPDOODQGZLOOOLNHO\WRDFFRPPRGDWHOHVVWKDQ
HPSOR\HHVDQGUHVLGHQWV
7KHSRGLXPVW\OHEXLOGLQJRULHQWHGWR2VRV6WUHHWLQFOXGHVRIILFHVSDFHRQWKHJURXQGQGDQGUGIORRUV7KH
RIILFHDUHDLVDJULGFRQGRPLQLXPFRPPRQLQWHUHVWSODQZKLFKDOORZVWKHRIILFHDUHDWREHGHPLVHG XSWRD
PD[LPXPRIHLJKW XQLWV DQGFRQILJXUHGWRIDFLOLWDWHWHQDQWUHTXLUHPHQWV6L[ UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVDUHORFDWHG
RQWKHQGIORRURIWKHSRGLXP)LYH RIWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVDUHWZRVWRU\EHGURRPXQLWVZLWKDSULYDWHSDWLR
(PSOR\HHGHQVLW\LVHVWLPDWHGE\DSSO\LQJVWDQGDUGEXLOGLQJFRGHRFFXSDQF\RI6)HPSOR\HH5HVLGHQWLDOGHQVLW\LV
HVWLPDWHGE\DSSO\LQJWKHDYHUDJHKRXVHKROGVL]HIRUWKH&LW\ SHUVRQV SHUWKH86&HQVXV%XUHDX
Attachment 7
ARC2 - 89
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HPDQG0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ-XO\
3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGV0L[HG8VH2DVLV$VVRFLDWHV,QF
RI
DQGURRIWRSSDWLR7KH\UDQJHLQVL]HIURPWR6)7KHUHPDLQLQJUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWLVDRQHVWRU\RQH
EHGURRPDSDUWPHQW 6) 7KHSRGLXPVW\OHEXLOGLQJSURYLGHVHOHYDWHGRXWGRRUFRPPRQDUHDVIRUERWKWKH
UHVLGHQWLDODQGRIILFHXVHVZLWKSDUNLQJSURYLGHGRQWKHJURXQGIORRU
$VHFRQGEXLOGLQJLVRULHQWHGWR0RUUR6WUHHWDQGFRQVLVWVRIWKUHH WRZQKRPHVW\OHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWV7KHVH
XQLWVUDQJHLQVL]HIURPWR6) RQH WZREHGURRP DQGWZR WKUHHEHGURRPXQLWV$WZRFDU
JDUDJHLVSURYLGHGRQWKHJURXQGIORRUIRUHDFKXQLWZLWKOLYLQJDUHDVRQWKHQGDQGUGIORRUV7KHVHXQLWVDOVR
KDYHURRIWRSSDWLRV
III. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND STRATEGIES
7KHSURMHFWZDVFDUHIXOO\GHVLJQHGWRLQWHJUDWHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQGHPDQGPDQDJHPHQWVWUDWHJLHVLQRUGHUWRWDNHIXOO
DGYDQWDJH RI DQG LQFUHDVH WKHparking and land use management VWUDWHJLHV DOUHDG\ HVWDEOLVKHG LQ WKH
VXUURXQGLQJ DUHD 7KH SURMHFW VHHNV WR GR LWV SDUW WR HQKDQFH WKH DOWHUQDWLYH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ FXOWXUH WKDW LV
HPHUJLQJLQWKLVDUHDRIWRZQ7KLVSDUDGLJPVKLIWDZD\IURPDFDUFHQWULFFXOWXUHLVWKHUHVXOWRIUHJLRQDOFLW\
SODQQLQJFKDQJHVLQGHYHORSPHQWDQGEXVLQHVVSUDFWLFHVDQGFKRLFHVPDGHE\LQGLYLGXDOV
7KHORFDWLRQRIWKHSURMHFWLQDQGRILWVHOILVDNH\FRPSRQHQWRIWKHODQGXVHPDQDJHPHQWVWUDWHJLHV2QHRI
WKH VWURQJHVW LQIOXHQFHV IRU LPSURYLQJ WKH XVH RI DOWHUQDWLYH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ LV SUR[LPLW\ WR WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ
UHVRXUFHV ³/RFDWLRQ HIILFLHQW GHYHORSPHQW´ VHHNV WR PD[LPL]H DFFHVVLELOLW\ DQG DIIRUGDELOLW\ E\ ORFDWLQJ
GHYHORSPHQWLQFHQWUDODUHDVZKHUHDPDOJDPDWLRQVRIWUDQVSRUWDWLRQRSWLRQVDUHHVWDEOLVKHG/RFDWLRQHIILFLHQF\
LV HVSHFLDOO\ HIIHFWLYH IRU VPDOOHU PL[HGXVH GHYHORSPHQWV WKDW KDYH D VPDOO DQG GLYHUVH SRSXODWLRQ HJ
UHVLGHQWVDQGPXOWLSOHEXVLQHVVHV 2QWKHLURZQVPDOOGHYHORSPHQWVWHQGWRODFNWKHFRQFHQWUDWLRQRISHRSOH
QHHGHGWRPDNHRWKHUVWUDWHJLHV HJFDUSRROLQJHPSOR\HULQFHQWLYHVRUIOH[LEOHZRUNVFKHGXOHV IHDVLEOH
3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVSURYLGHVUHVLGHQWVDQGRIILFHWHQDQWVDQGWKHLUHPSOR\HHVZLWKYDULRXVDPHQLWLHVWRHQFRXUDJH
DOWHUQDWLYH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ RSWLRQV DQG UHGXFH 629 WULSV 7KLV 7'03 SURYLGHV DQG GLVFXVVHV WKH WKUHH
VWUDWHJLHV WKDW ZLOO FUHDWH D SRVLWLYH DQG QRWLFHDEOH HIIHFW RQ WKH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ GHPDQG RI WKH SURMHFW DQG
VXUURXQGLQJ DUHD 7KLV PXOWLIDFHWWHG DSSURDFK ZLOO LPSOHPHQW YDULHG \HW FRPSOHPHQWDU\ VWUDWHJLHV WR
HIIHFWLYHO\UHGXFHWKHDPRXQWRI629WULSVRIWKHSURMHFW¶VUHVLGHQWVDQGHPSOR\HHV
1. Walkability
,WLVFRPPRQO\DFFHSWHGWKDWóPLOHLVDFRPIRUWDEOHZDONLQJGLVWDQFH3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVLVOHVVWKDQDóPLOH
IURPWKH&HQWUDO'RZQWRZQ'LVWULFWRI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR7KLVDUHDLVDQDFWLYHKXERIWKHFRPPXQLW\7KH&LW\
WKH&KDPEHURI&RPPHUFHWKH'RZQWRZQ$VVRFLDWLRQDQGORFDOFLWL]HQLQSXWKDYHH[SHQGHGDJUHDWGHDORI
HIIRUW WR PDNH WKH 'RZQWRZQ D TXDOLW\ ZDONLQJ HQYLURQPHQW 7KHSURMHFW FRQWULEXWHV WR WKDW WUHQG ZLWK
SHGHVWULDQ DFFHVV SRLQWV DORQJ WKUHH GLIIHUHQW VWUHHWV DOORZLQJ VKRUWFXWV DQG FRQQHFWLRQV IRU UHVLGHQWV
HPSOR\HHVDQGYLVLWRUVWR3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVWRWDNHDGYDQWDJHRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJZDONDEOHHQYLURQPHQW6HH
WKHDWWDFKHGH[KLELWKLJKOLJKWLQJYDULRXVDPHQLWLHVZLWKLQóPLOHRIWKHSURMHFW7KHFORVHSUR[LPLW\RIWKH
SURMHFWWRUHWDLOVHUYLFHVDQGHQWHUWDLQPHQWFUHDWHVDQDWXUDOLQFHQWLYHIRUUHVLGHQWVDQGHPSOR\HHVWRZDON RU
ELNH WRPDQ\RIWKHVHORFDWLRQVWKXVUHGXFLQJ629DQG9073DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVLVPHUHEORFNVDZD\IURP
ORFDOEXVURXWHVWRSVDVZHOODVWKH6/27UDQVLWDQG57$KXEVPDNLQJDFRPPXWHE\WUDQVLWDFRQYHQLHQW
RSWLRQ
2. Extensive Bicycle Parking
7KHSURMHFWSURYLGHVWKLUW\WZR ELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHV7KLVLVHLJKW WLPHVWKHDPRXQWRIELNHSDUNLQJ
UHTXLUHGE\WKH]RQLQJUHJXODWLRQVDQGQHDUO\HTXDOWRWKHQXPEHURIYHKLFOHVSDFHVSURYLGHG6HHWKHWDEOH
EHORZOLVWLQJWKHW\SHVRISDUNLQJSURYLGHG7KHWRZQKRPHVZLOOEHDSSRLQWHGZLWKDPLQLPXPRIWZR ELNH
KRRNVZLWKLQWKHJDUDJHV7KHRQ2VRV6WUHHWEXLOGLQJKDVEHHQGHVLJQHGWRDFFRPPRGDWHVHFXUHJURXQGIORRU
VWRUDJHIRUWKHUHVLGHQWLDO XQLWVIRUELNHDQGRWKHUVWRUDJH7KHSURMHFW GHVLJQDOVRLQFOXGHVELNHORFNHUV
FDSDEOH RI VWRULQJ WZR ELNHV HDFK SURYLGLQJ FRQYHQLHQW DQG VHFXUH ELNH VWRUDJH 7KH ORFNHU ZLOO EH
DYDLODEOHIRUUHVLGHQWLDODQGRIILFHHPSOR\HHXVH7ZR ELNHUDFNV ZLWKILYH VSDFHVHDFK ZLOOEHLQVWDOOHG
RQVLWHWRSURYLGHVKRUWWHUPSDUNLQJIRUJXHVWVDQGYLVLWRUV
Attachment 7
ARC2 - 90
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HPDQG0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ-XO\
3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGV0L[HG8VH2DVLV$VVRFLDWHV,QF
RI
7DEOH%LF\FOH3DUNLQJ
BIKE PARKING
TYPE
# OF SPACES
PROVIDED
Rack
Locker
Res. Garage
Res. StorageYDULDEOH
TOTAL32 +
,WKDVEHHQHVWDEOLVKHGWKDWSDUNLQJKHOSVFUHDWHYHKLFOHFRPPXWHUV SHRSOHZLOOGULYHWRORFDWLRQVZKHUHSDUNLQJ
LV DYDLODEOH 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ H[SHUWV KDYH GLVFRYHUHG WKDW WKH VDPH SULQFLSOH KROGV WUXH IRU F\FOLVW DQG ELNH
SDUNLQJ%LNHSDUNLQJKHOSVPDNHFRPPXWHUVRIWKHELNLQJYDULHW\8VLQJELNHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLVHQFRXUDJHGE\
WKH3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGGHYHORSPHQWIRUERWK³TXLFNWULSV´DQGFRPPXWLQJE\SURYLGLQJERWKORQJWHUPDQGVKRUW
WHUPELNHSDUNLQJ7KHSURMHFWKDVWKHGLVWLQFWDGYDQWDJHRIIURQWLQJWKH&LW\GHVLJQDWHG0RUUR6WUHHW%LNH
%RXOHYDUGZKLFKIXUWKHUHQFRXUDJHVELNLQJDVDQDOWHUQDWLYHWR629WULSVDQGUHGXFLQJ907
3. Reduced & Flexible Shared Parking
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQH[SHUWVDQGWKH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRKDYHUHFRJQL]HGWKDWORFDWLRQVZLWKVKDUHGDQGPL[HG
XVHVFDQDGHTXDWHO\SURYLGHSDUNLQJDWDUHGXFHGUDWHZKHQFRPSDUHGWRPHHWLQJWKHGHPDQGIRUDVLQJXODUXVH
7KH &LW\¶V =RQLQJ 5HJXODWLRQV KDYH FRGLILHG SDUNLQJ UHGXFWLRQ IRU TXDOLILHG SURMHFWV $V D PL[HGXVH
GHYHORSPHQW 3DFLILF &RXUW\DUGV¶ SDUNLQJ KDV GLYHUJHQW SHDN SDUNLQJ SHULRGV 7KLV PHDQV WKDW WKH WLPH RI
JUHDWHVWSDUNLQJGHPDQGIRUWKHRIILFHXVHVLVZKHQUHVLGHQWVDUHOLNHO\DZD\DQGYLFHYHUVD7KH&LW\DOORZVXS
WRDSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQIRUSURMHFWVZLWKVKDUHGFRPPRQSDUNLQJDUHDVDQGYDULHGSHDNSDUNLQJGHPDQG
SHULRGV6WXGLHVKDYHVKRZQWKDWUHGXFLQJSDUNLQJHQFRXUDJHVSHRSOHWRXVHDOWHUQDWLYHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQPHWKRGV
3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVLVLGHDOO\VXLWHGIRUWKLVUHGXFWLRQDVDFFHVVWRDOWHUQDWLYHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLVDYDLODEOH
7KHSURMHFWLVORFDWHGNLWW\FRUQHUWRWKH0DUVK6WUHHW3DUNLQJVWUXFWXUH:KLOHWKHSURMHFWLVQRWZLWKLQWKH
ERUGHUVRIWKH³'RZQWRZQ3DUNLQJ'LVWULFW´WKHORFDWLRQRIWKHSDUNLQJVWUXFWXUHGRHVSURYLGHDFRQYHQLHQW
DOWHUQDWLYHSDUNLQJORFDWLRQIRUYLVLWRUVWR3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGV6LQFHWKHSDUNLQJVWUXFWXUHVHUYLFHVWKH'RZQWRZQ
'LVWULFWYLVLWRUVXWLOL]LQJWKHVWUXFWXUHFDQSDUNRQFHDQGHDVLO\FRQVROLGDWHEXVLQHVVDW3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVZLWK
RWKHUEXVLQHVVLQ'RZQWRZQWKXVUHGXFLQJ907
7KURXJKWKLVPXOWLIDFHWHGHIIRUWWKH3DFLILF&RXUW\DUGVSURMHFWFDQPHHWWKH&LW\¶VJRDOVDQGREMHFWLYHVIRU
DSSURSULDWHDQGHIIHFWLYHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQGHPDQGPDQDJHPHQWZKLOHKHOSLQJFXOWLYDWHWKHFRPPXQLW\¶VVKLIWWRD
SDUDGLJPRIDOWHUQDWLYHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDVWKHQHZQRUP
$WWDFKPHQWV
x :DONDEOH$PHQLWLHV([KLELW-XO\
Attachment 7
ARC2 - 91
SLO City and County Services0 200’ 400’ 100’ 300’City and Regional Bus Transit CenterCity HallCounty LibraryCounty CourthouseSLO County Government CenterCourt Street MallRetail, Restaurants, Coffee ShopsTheater, Retail, Restaurants, Coffee ShopsSLO City Parking GarageMission de Tolosa and Mission PlazaBus Stop1/4 Mile from project locationPACIFIC COURTYARDS | Transportation Demand Management Plan | 14 July 2014 | WALKABLEAMENITIESPismo Street (Class III Bike Lane)Pacific StreetMarsh Street (Class II Bike Lane)1321 Osos Street &1322 Morro StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Higuera Street (Class III Bike Lane)Monterey Street (Class III Bike Lane)
Osos Street
Morro Street (Bike Blvd.)
Santa Rosa Street (Class II Bike Lane)
Chorro Street (Class III Bike Lane)Downtown CenterPROJECTFACILITY ADDRESSNEARBY AMENITIESCity bus stops are located two (2) blocks from project.City Transit Center and Regional Transit Center are 1/4 mile from project.Railroad station is less than 1/2 mile from project.City parkage garage is located 250’ from project.Surrounding area streets include sidewalks, cross walks, and bike lanes.AREA TRANSPORTATION Åto Morro Bayto Paso Robles ÆÅto 5 Cities &NipomoVICINITY MAPUS Post OfficeMedical OfficesSenior Center and Mitchell Park
Attachment 7
ARC2 - 92
SSave Our Downtown
Comments on Architectural Review Commission Public Hearing Item;
1327 Osos Street; August 4, 2014
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Commission Members:
Save Our Downtown is a group of citizens who wish to protect and promote the
historical character, livability and economic success of Downtown San Luis Obispo.
This block of Osos Street is a very important location near downtown, which is not being
respected by the proposed project’s design. Save Our Downtown asks that you deny
the project design, except for the three Morro Street residences which have been
redesigned and are acceptable, for the following reasons:
1. The site is within the Old Town Historic District.
2. The site is adjacent to a uniquely designed, 1907 historically important church.
3. All of the surrounding buildings are in context of their eras and create a sense of
historic neighborhood character.
4. The office building design places only one-third of the groundfloor frontage in
human-occupied space, with a boxy, Bauhaus style of design that is out of
character with the historic context.
5. The architect has suggested that the form of the project is similar to the
elements of the church; however, the form mimics the church form with similar
rhythms, edges and voids. . The form actually overwhelms the shorter walls and
fine details of the church.
6. We acknowledge that the Morro Street residential units have been redesigned;
we support them with one request: The frontage on Morro Street should have a
porch or recessed entry rather than an awning, and the ground should be
landscaped with a narrow walkway, not a concrete pad.
If you do not wish to deny it, we request that your Commission require the project size
be reduced to accommodate all of the required parking on-site. The Planning
Commission staff report for April 9, 2014, Attachment 6, last paragraph, states that
“Typically, the 30% parking reduction for a mixed use project would be taken off the
total of the project parking requirement which in this case is 47.1 spaces.” This is an
Attachment 8
ARC2 - 93
2
erroneous approach, because the six residential units have designated spaces, and
would not be shared with the offices. There is a deficiency of three residential spaces;
see our parking analysis, attached.
We recommend that your Commission reduce the size of the project so that it meets
the parking requirements in City ordinance, with a 10% reduction for shared common
parking for three residential unit and visitor spaces. This reduction will reduce the size
of the office structure and provide opportunity for less massing and height. Our analysis
concludes that 10 parking spaces would be deficient with this 10% reduction. At one
space per 300 square feet, the office floor area should be reduced by 3,000 square feet.
If your Commission is not interested in denying the project, we recommend that you
require a major redesign as follows:
1. Revise the design of the office and residential project to respect the Old Town
Historic District and the historic church, and use a style that is not contemporary.
The architecture of the project cannot be described as meeting any semblance of
urban design practice for historical context. The style is proposed with Bauhaus
style boxed components, at odds with the surrounding buildings. The
architecture should be contextually referenced and in a compatible and historic
style to this block of buildings.
2. The architect should conduct a photographic and technical context analysis of the
surrounding buildings on the blocks. No applicant evaluation of the project is
evident that seriously and skillfully analyzes the surrounding building designs to
be complementary to them and blend with them. The 2008-09 version of this
project was apparently designed by a different architect and shows the possibility
of meeting City ordinances.
Please respond to our comments with your thoughts. Thank you for your consideration,
s/ James Lopes
Chairperson
1336 Sweet Bay Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-602-1365
Attachment 8
ARC2 - 94
3
Save Our Downtown Revised Parking Analysis
ARC 1327 Osos Street August 4, 2014
Proposed Parking Diagram
Required Parking Residential Units:20.3
Proposed:
#1 – 3: 2 in each garage: 6
#4 – 8: 2 in tandem in podium garage: 10
#9: 1 in podium garage: 1
(Missing) Shared Regular: 1 in podium garage 1
(Missing) Shared Guest: 2 in podium garage 2
TOTAL: 20
Required Parking for Offices:
8,050 sq. ft. / 300 sq. ft. = 27
Proposed office parking: 17
SHORTAGE: - 10
Shortage including shared parking:- 13
Shared 10% “common area parking” reduction:3
(27 office spaces x 10%) _____________________________
NET SHORTAGE: - 10
The 20% mixed-use parking reduction should not apply. It is
speculative that demand for the one residential space and two guest
spaces will not coincide with office hours. The only reduction should
be for the 10% common area parking reduction of 3 office spaces. The
offices should be reduced by 3,000 sq. ft. (shortage of 10 spaces) to
comply with these standards.
Attachment 8
ARC2 - 95
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
July 21, 2014
ROLL CALL:
Present:Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy
Nemcik, Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle
McCovey-Good
Absent:None
Staff:Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant
Planner Walter Oetzell, Principal Transportation Manager Peggy
Mandeville, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
The minutes of July 7, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.City-Wide.GPI/ER 15-12; Review of design-related references in the General
Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements Update and aesthetics section of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR); City of San Luis Obispo – Community
Development Dept., applicant. (Brian Leveille)
Associate Planner Leveille presented the staff report, recommending discussion of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) impact evaluation for aesthetics and
providing comments for inclusion and response as part of the LUCE EIR.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eric Meyer, TF LUCE chair, stated that comments should be aimed at making changes
to the Community Design Guidelines.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 2
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Wynn stated that Mr. Meyer is correct in noting that the Land Use Element EIR
does not prevent Commission modifications to the Community Design Guidelines
although modifications must be approved by the City Council.
Commr. Curtis stated that he hopes City-adopted thresholds of significance are included
in the EIR because it makes the EIR more defensible. He stated that he has an overall
sense that the Draft EIR greatly understates the impacts on scenic and visual resources
by not describing them as Class 1 impacts, which creates a weakness making it easier
to legally challenge. He stated that it is the responsibility of the EIR to address this
cumulatively. He noted that he is also bothered by the lack of measurement of visual
impacts and gave the commercial development allowed on Los Osos Valley Road as an
example. He stated that if someone saw before and after photos, they would say there
has been a significant view impairment impact diminishing the quality of the view. He
noted that both the foreground and background of a view should be considered.
Commr. Andreen stated that she supports Commr. Curtis’s statement in general and
that it is appropriate for this Commission to express these concerns. She noted that
she is not comfortable with the Class 3 impact designation and would prefer more
elastic language that would give the City the tools to address potential loss of view
sheds along more than just the scenic roadways.
Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville asked the Commission to keep in mind that
there was environmental analysis on the General Plan and that the Draft EIR is just
about changes. She noted that most empty sites in the City already have plans for
development.
Associate Planner Leveille stated that if the ARC does not make a comment as a
commission via a motion, then individual Commissioners can make comments through
the process provided. He noted that the Draft EIR is programmatic and only a review of
broad policy objectives.
Senior Planner Ricci cautioned the Commission about making a leap from class 3 to
class 1 impacts. She noted that there would be changes to the Land Use Map only for
the areas studied, such as Calle Joaquin, as part of the EIR process.
Commr. Ehdaie noted that this is a programmatic EIR.
Mr. Meyer stated that the Specific Plans, not the EIR, is where the details will be
studied.
Commr. Root supported Commr. Curtis’s comments about measuring impacts and
Commr. Andreen’s comments about broadening of the scope. He proposed narrowing
the Commission’s suggestions to just those two issues.
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 3
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Ehdaie, seconded by Commr. Andreen, to approve the language
of the Draft EIR as presented with the recommendation that measurement tools and
analysis be developed that assess impacts on aesthetic resources, and that the EIR
conclusion that cumulative impacts to visual resources are insignificant (Class III) may
be understating overall aesthetic impacts to scenic resources.
AYES:Commrs. Ehdaie, Andreen, Curtis, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, Root, and
Wynn
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
2.163 Suburban Road.ARC 39-14; Review of two industrial buildings for a brewery
and for manufacturing and storage uses, each with a caretaker residence; M-SP
zone; Earthwood Lane Properties, LLC, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending continued
consideration of the application to a future date with direction on potential design
changes that would ensure adequate parking for likely future uses of the site, reduce
uniform and continuous wall planes, facilitation solid waste collection, and refine project
signage.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Scott Martin, architect with RRM Design Group, stated the intent is for only industrial
use but there may be other uses. He noted this project is on two parcels, that the
design is focused on the internal elevations and the street view, and there will be a
brewery and tasting room. He stated that he was hoping to come to agreement with
potential conditions at this meeting and he would rather not continue the project. Senior
Planner Ricci responded that staff was not prepared with a resolution so it will be
continued. Mr. Martin noted that there will be 24 on-site parking spaces including two
spaces in a caretaker’s garage, and that maneuverability for trash trucks complies with
code and has been approved by the trash company. Senior Planner Ricci asked if the
approval by the trash company was in writing. Pat Blote, RRM Design Group, stated it
was verified via email but that written approval could be provided.
Max Montgomery, property owner and future owner of the brewery, stated that the
tasting room will accommodate a maximum of 49 individuals. Mr. Blote added that this
brewery will be similar to the Tap It Brewery where the experience has been that the
parking spaces are vacated after regular business hours, leaving plenty of space for
brewery guests.
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 4
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Senior Planner Ricci stated that the design of the trash enclosure was unresolved and
that she was happy to hear of written approval by the garbage company. She stated
that the concern is with the potential difficulty in backing out of the parking spaces
closest to the enclosure. Mr. Martin responded that the actual structure is three feet
back from the swing of the gates when they are open. Mr. Blote stated that locating the
trash enclosure closer to the street is not compatible with the brewery and would also
inhibit tenants backing up and maneuvering.
Commr. Curtis stated he is happy with the design, especially when compared with the
surrounding buildings. He stated he has concerns with the adequacy of parking but
maybe that is more of an issue for the property owners because the design more than
meets the parking standards. He noted that the stucco-look appearance is off-putting
but, since buildings on adjacent lots can be built up to the walls, maybe this is not a big
issue.
Commr. Wynn stated that the example shown for the patterned blocks, a small church
in Arroyo Grande, won a design award. He noted that color patterning allows the
breakup of the monotony of the walls and stated he is in favor of accepting it as an
innovative use. He supported the location of the trash enclosure as presented. He
noted that while the project may be a little “under-parked,” the parking has been
maximized.
Commr. Root stated that he agrees with comments made by other Commissioners and
that he likes the material selections, especially the weathering steel and glass mulch.
He suggested that the trash enclosure doors be the same weathering steel, possibly
with an overhead beam for latching, and that powered doors be used.
Commr. Nemcik agreed that the projecting sign at the west end of Building 1 should be
lowered in height and noted that some of the other signage might be redundant.
Mr. Martin noted that the sign areas are just placeholders, depending on actual tenants.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that projecting signs are not normally allowed but staff feels
that they would be preferred, if coordinated, for this project.
Commr. Wynn stated that the one sign is too high but that blade signs are fine as long
as they are placed so cars and trash trucks cannot hit them.
Commr. McCovey-Good stated that her office faces Tap It Brewery where the parking
lot is tiny, about ten spaces, and there has been no problem with parking.
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 5
Commr. Ehdaie stated that this is a great project and her only concern is the wall that is
blank. She suggested windows or recesses in the wall for more articulation. She stated
that she approves the parking and trash enclosure, and agrees with Commr. Root.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that while there is no resolution of approval tonight,
generally there are not a lot of issues, and approval could possibly become a consent
item at the beginning of the next meeting.
Commr. Curtis stated that the main concern is the sign height for the one sign.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Curtis, to continue this project to a
date certain, August 4, 2014, and place it on the agenda as a consent item with
direction to clarify the project sign proposals and revise the trash enclosure design
(materials and hardware) to coordinate with project buildings.
AYES:Commrs. Wynn, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, Root, and
Andreen
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
3.3810 Broad Street.ARC-S 42-14; Review of update to existing monument signs
(enlarge, add panel); C-C zone; Marigold Center, LLC, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the draft
resolution approving the proposed shopping center identification signs, based on
findings, and subject to conditions of approval.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Ron Hill, Yesco Sign Company, noted that the three major tenants are contractually
guaranteed a certain square footage on the monument signs so the signs will be taller
to add the fourth major tenant while keeping the minimum square footage for the current
major tenants.
Commr. Root noted corrosion problems on the trusses of the current signs. Mr. Hill
responded that those will be painted if the Commission wants that.
James Lopes, SLO, Chair of Save Our Downtown, stated that a sign approaching the
size of a small billboard is not needed since everyone knows the center. He suggested
that the signs not be allowed to expand in size and that there are many monument signs
around the city that are smaller. He stated that this project is out of synch now and
questioned whether it should be allowed to be even more out of synch in the future.
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 6
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Senior Planner Ricci stated that Assistant Planner Oetzell worked with the applicant to
get more openness to the top of the sign and to add a framework around it. She noted
that LED lighting just for the letters is preferred to the present internally illuminated
cabinets.
Commr. Curtis stated that the overall design is fine, but noted that the pilasters are
thicker than the present ones and he prefers that slenderness. He asked if there was
any structural reason for the thickness.
Mr. Hill responded that this was added as a design piece to make a solid bottom and
that the sign could be made with two posts as it is now.
Commr. Andreen supported the design in consideration of the obligations to tenants.
Commr. Wynn stated that while he will vote in favor of this signage, there is a need to
spend less time on signage and that centers are named too much.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to adopt the draft
resolution approving the proposed shopping center identification signs.
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Nemcik, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Root, and
Wynn
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
4.590 Marsh Street.ARC-C 81-14; Conceptual architectural review of a revised
mixed-use project; C-D zone; Randy Alonzo, PB Companies, applicant. (Pam
Ricci)
Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, recommending that the item be
continued to a date uncertain with direction to staff and the applicant on items to be
addressed in plans submitted for final approval. She noted that five letters had been
received about this project, mostly from Save Our Downtown members, and a sixth
letter was received at the meeting and distributed this evening. Commr. Andreen stated
that Mayor Marx also wrote a letter expressing concern about historic context.
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 7
Randy Alonzo, PB Companies, stated that the project is being modified and changes
have already been made that would satisfy comments that will be expressed tonight.
He noted that the City needs housing, especially downtown, that will help retain talent
here since millennial techies have lots of opportunities in other areas. He stated that he
has been getting inquiries from millennials working for businesses like Rosetta and Mind
Body and that the project across the street sold out before construction began. He
stated that he is paying attention to comments and that schematic floor plans reflecting
comments about having the verticality in the center and terracing outward from that are
being designed. He stated that he wants to use green screens and rooftop terraces and
gardens.
Steve Rigor, architect, stated that having a generator to power the car lift in case of a
loss of power has not been explored, that the goal is to use the lifts for residents and
employees, and that there is a need to reduce the number of lifts due to expense. He
noted that providing onsite parking rather than paying in lieu fees to the City is a sales
advantage.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
James Lopes, SLO, Chair of Save Our Downtown, stated that although the site is not in
the historic district, it is adjacent to historic structures. He stated that the project needs
to be totally redone to meet Community Guidelines by reducing the height to less than
50 feet and by having a design that is historically related to adjacent structures such as
the Jack House. He referred the Commissioners to the letter he submitted.
Adam Hill, SLO County, stated there is a need to create more opportunities for people
to live downtown because there is a real housing shortage for younger workers and
probably more so for retired boomers who do not want to live in big houses but do want
to be in the mix of things. He commended the City for its ability to continue to evolve
and noted the importance of having the downtown filled with people of every age.
Dave Hannings, SLO, stated that it is annoying to study these projects and then come
to the meeting and hear that it will be changed. He noted that his neighborhood will be
torn up for at least ten years due to various construction projects. He stated that he is
happy with the idea of green walls but that the current design is ugly, horrible and
inappropriate and, unlike the initially approved project, has no dignity and no presence.
Joel Snyder, SLO, architect but here as a resident, stated that projects like this are
different and exciting, and what people moving here will be looking for. He noted that
people get used to the parking lifts with one use.
Scott Martin, RRM Group, supported the architects and encouraged comments. He
stated that the “wedding cake” description scares him.
There were no further comments from the public.
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 8
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Andreen stated she had a visceral reaction when she saw the drawing—dark,
like a hospital, and much, much bigger looking than the previous project approved in
2008. She added that the pedestrian level of the prior project was easier to relate to
because the rhythm was similar to other downtown buildings. She stated that she loves
modern buildings but not this one, and she thinks that some of the targeted techies will
see this project as a misfit. She noted that she understands the project is designed to
break up the view of the building but that there should be a more rhythmic, calmer
design next to Jack House and this edgy design would look attractive in another
location. She stated that she loves the roof garden and housing downtown but would
prefer a more horizontal emphasis on a more human scale that provides harmony but
not conformity.
Commr. Curtis stated that he shares some of the same concerns. He noted that the
ARC has seen the rethinking of a number of projects in the last few years including the
one across the street which is substantially smaller than the original approved proposal.
He stated that ultimately the City has to end up with a downtown that has compatibility
with a sensible progression from one project to another. He stated that this project has
the overall appearance of being too large, too bulky, lacking in coherence, and too
varied in design. He added that more regularity in appearance would make it more
compatible with the Marsh Street Commons building and other buildings on Nipomo
Street, and it is a little bit too high in relation to its context and setting and the need to
harmonize with the adjacent structures. He noted that the vertical elements sticking out
are jarring. He complimented the mix of residential units with the commercial at street
level and the idea of trying out the parking solution. He noted the need for some
acknowledgement of the corner at Marsh and Nipomo, maybe by creating a public area
there and carrying it up vertically with a notch out, and maybe with an outdoor dining
area which would give more variation and acknowledgement to the public and more
public sidewalk at the ground level.
Commr. Ehdaie stated that this is a great innovative and modern project with a unique
design that speaks to the techie people. She noted that the building is tall and does not
blend in but she likes the selection of materials and her only concern is the planters.
Commr. McCovey-Good agreed with the need to define a rhythm but stated she is fine
with the materials and scale. She noted the need to pay attention to the elevation in
relation to the Jack House.
Commr. Wynn agreed that there is high demand for downtown housing but noted it
does not all have to be all in one building and can be better distributed. He stated that
this building feels too big. He pointed out that downtown buildings all have a contrasting
band just above the first story and/or awnings at that height and that this identifier for
the downtown needs to be part of all buildings. He suggested Seattle as an example of
a city that maintains this while still having edgy design. He asked that the architects
explore the idea that an elevation change happens where the programmatic shift
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 9
happens to reflect on the outside what is happening on the inside. He noted that the
stair tower breaks this up. He stated that he wants to see something more horizontal
and he is especially concerned with the southwestern wall and other walls that appear
quite blank. He requested that the elevation presentation include one or two buildings
adjacent to the project in all directions to show context for the building. He stated that
the first floor should be all retail to encourage pedestrian traffic to continue beyond
Nipomo Street.
Commr. Nemcik agreed with Commr. Wynn about seeing elevations in context. She
stated that this building looks really massive and that the attempt to break up that mass
seems to have gotten out-of-hand. She noted that she likes the modern look, which
could definitely fit downtown, and the roof gardens and green screens.
Commr. Root stated that the issue is the target for compatibility. He noted that St.
Patrick’s Church in San Francisco, overlooking the Yerba Buena Gardens with modern
buildings all around, is a good example. He stated that rhythm on the exterior helps
with compatibility and that he is not concerned with massing. He noted that shading
studies will tell more about the appropriateness of the height. He stated that he
appreciates the innovative parking system, but noted that, at some point we have to
stop designing for cars, or at least for big cars.
Commr. Wynn stated that a shading study must be done no matter the height because
in the guidelines it says buildings cannot shade public spaces, including the Jack
House. He asked for clarification about how shading is measured.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie, to approve staff
recommendations for items to be addressed in plans submitted for final approval and
including the following additions: 1) Add to Item # 5: Submit a solar shading study to
assess whether the new building significantly impacts solar access to the Jack House
Gardens. 2) With plans submitted for final architectural review, include expanded
streetscape elevations along both Marsh and Nipomo Streets showing the relative scale
of nearby structures. 3) With plans submitted for final architectural review, provide
photographs of adjacent properties and expanded sectional views that show the site in
relationship to nearby properties.
AYES:Commrs. Wynn, Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and
Root
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Draft ARC Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 10
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5.Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
1) August 4, 2014: Pacific Courtyards, new contemporary house on San Luis
Drive at the very end of the street, new affordable housing project for
Housing Authority on Humbert, informational item about the Portola Fountain
at Marsh and Higuera
2) August 18, 2014 new hotel on east side of North Monterey next to Pappy
McGregors, McCarthy Tank and Steel moving a building
3) September 8, 2014 and 15
th, back to back meetings due to Labor Day.
4) September 8, 2014: Conceptual review of new building across from CVS on
corner of Broad and Marsh, Caudill Street modification on a small lot, east
side of Broad four residential units and six work/live.
5) September 15, 2014: Miner’s mixed use project on Santa Barbara called
Emily Street, residential project on Rockview.
6.Commission:Commr. Wynn will be absent from the August 18, 2014, meeting.
Commrs. Curtis and Nemcik will be absent from the September , 2014, meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary