HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. 279 Bridge St. (ARCH-0587-2020)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH A 24% DENSITY BONUS,
INCLUDING A MINOR USE PERMIT, CONSISTING OF 94 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
924 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. AN ADDENDUM TO THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN
PREPARED.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: 805-781-7524
Email: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0587-2020, FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021&
EID-0494-2021
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) and approving the Minor Use Permit, development plan and
associated affordable housing incentive request, based on findings and subject to
conditions of approval.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Zoning
General Plan
Site Area
Environmental
Status
Scott Smith, HASLO
M (Manufacturing)
Services & Manufacturing
2.73 acres
An Addendum to the previously
adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration (ER#0286-2014) has
been prepared (EID-0494-2021).
SUMMARY
The applicant, Housing Authority San Luis Obispo (HASLO), proposes a mixed-use
development consisting of three new three-story structures, which contain 94 low-income
affordable units, community rooms, and leasing/management offices, and one new
single-story commercial structure consisting of 924 square feet of commercia l/office
space. A Minor Use Permit is required for a mixed -use project within the M-zone subject
to specific findings as detailed in this report.
Meeting Date: 8/25/2021
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 60 Minutes
Page 9 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
The project proposes a podium style design for the residential structures that provides
parking and community rooms on the ground floor, with residential units on the second
and third floors. The proposed site improvements include several outdoor green spaces
with seating and play areas, with a community courtyard along Meadow Creek
(Attachment 2, Project Plans). The project site is located in close proximity to Meadow
Park and South Hill hiking trails, with an existing pedestrian and bicycle accessway from
the end of Bridge Street to Exposition Drive.
The project includes a request for a 24% Density Bonus to increase the density of the site
from 65.52 Density Units/Acre to 80.92 Density Units/Acre, by providing 100% of the units
dedicated for affordable housing to low-income households, where only 13% of the units
would normally be required to be dedicated for low-income households. The project
includes affordable housing incentive requests to reduce site development standards to
allow for balconies on the second and third floors on the building side facing an adjacent
property that is zoned low-density residential (§17.70.050.D.31), and a waiver from the
site development standard that requires window placement to be offset by 12-inches from
adjacent existing structures along the second and third floors (§17.70.050.D.32).
1.0 PLANNING COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review for consistency with the General Plan,
Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and applicable City
development standards. Planning Commission (PC) review is required for projects which
include more than 10 residential units (ARCH-0587-2020), and an associated Minor Use
1 17.70.050.D.3 Edge Conditions. Standards. Upper-Level Open Space Orientation and Setbacks.
Balconies and terraces are prohibited above the first floor on the building side facing an adjacent zone
receiving transition.
2 17.70.050.D.5 Edge Conditions. Standards. Windows. All windows along any facade facing a property
in a zone receiving transition shall, at the second story and above, be offset horizontally at least 12
inches (edge to edge) from any windows on buildings on an adjacent property in a zone receiving
transition, with the intent of preserving privacy and avoiding having windows immediately opposite each
other.
Figure 1: Rendering of project design from creek side courtyard (right), ariel view (left)
Page 10 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
Permit to allow a mixed-use development in the M-zone (USE-0412-2021). As noted
above, the proposed affordable housing incentive and waiver are also included for final
determination by the PC (AFFH-0413-2021). The project also includes an Addendum to
the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (EID-0494-2021).
2.0 BACKGROUND
On May 1, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a project on this
project site that consisted of three commercial shell buildings including the following:
Building A (8,636 square feet [sf]); Building B (9,957 sf); and Building C (4,704 sf including
a second-floor caretaker’s residence). The previous approval included tree removals and
onsite plantings as recommended by the City Arborist, and associated site improvements
(Attachment 3, ARC Report & Minutes 5.1.17).
On September 9, 2019, the ARC reviewed a modification to the approved project and
proposed uses for the site. The revised project consisted of three buildings including:
Building A (8,636 sf manufacturing shell); Building B (31,726 sf mixed -use building
including 7,200 sf of commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom
residential units above); and Building C (6,850 -sf mixed-use building including 3,421-sf
of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above). The ARC
recommended approval of the revised design to the Planning Commission for final action
(Attachment 4, ARC Report & Minutes 9.9.19).
On September 25, 2019, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed and approved the
revised project design with associated parking and site improve ments and a mixed-use
parking reduction (Attachment 5, PC Report & Minutes 9.25.19).
None of these approved projects were ultimately constructed, with the exception of the
bridge that provides access to the project site across Meadow Creek.
3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
On July 19, 2021, the ARC reviewed the project for consistency with the CDG. The ARC
determined that the project was consistent with applicable design guidelines and provided
four directional items to the applicant to address related to building and site design, and
recommended that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the
Community Design Guidelines (6-0-1) (Attachment 6, ARC Report and Minutes 7.20.20).
These items and the applicant’s response to the recommendations is discussed further
in Section 5.4 of this report.
Page 11 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
4.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Table 1 – Zoning Regulations - Project Statistics
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks
North
East
South
West
48-82
24
20
12
0
10
10
0
Creek Setback 34-40 20
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.88 1.5
Edge Conditions
Setbacks
FAR Reduction
Upper-Level Open Space
Rooftop Open Space
Window Orientation
Driveway Orientation
Trash and Recycling
Hours of Operation
Service and Loading
Areas
25-27
Compliant (0.88)
Concession Request**
No Rooftop Open Space
Waiver Request**
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
23
10% Reduction (1.35)
2nd & 3rd Floor Balconies
Prohibited
10-foot Setback
12-foot Offset
Screening Required
Located Internal to Site
7:00 AM to 8:00 PM
Screening Requirements
Maximum Height of
Structures
35 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage 31% 75%
Affordable Housing 100% Low-Income
Households
Exempt 17.138.020.B.7
Public Art In-Lieu fee On-site or In-Lieu fee
Monument Sign
Max Height
Max Area
3 feet
23 sq. ft.
6 feet
24 sq. ft.
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
102
10 EV Ready & 26 EV
Capable
120
7
87
10 EV Ready & 26 EV
Capable
95
5
*2019 Zoning Regulations - Development Standards
** PC will determine if the findings can be made to support the requested incentive and
waiver.
5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed improvements must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning
Regulations and Engineering Standards and be consistent with the applicable CDG. Staff
has evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant requirements and has found it to be
in substantial compliance, as discussed in this analysis.
Page 12 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
5.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The Housing and Land Use Elements encourage mixed -use projects where they can be
found to be compatible with existing and potential future development. The project is
consistent with Housing Element Policies 6.1 and 7.4 because the project supports the
development of more housing in accordance with the assigned Regional Housing Needs
Allocation and establishes a new neighborhood development, with pedestrian and bicycle
linkages that provide direct, convenient and saf e access to adjacent neighborhoods. The
Land Use Element encourages compatible mixed uses in commercial districts (LUE
Policy 3.8.5) and specifically discusses residential and commercial mixed use (LUE Policy
2.3.6)3. The project is consistent with LUE policies pertaining to affordable housing and
density bonuses4.
The Housing Element provides policies and programs that speak specifically to
supporting affordable housing projects that provide for density bonuses. Granting a
density bonus and allowing a reduction in site development standards to allow for
balconies on the second and third floors, and a waiver from the site development standard
that requires window placement to be offset by 12-inches are consistent with the Housing
Element programs and policies to provide additional housing for low-income households.
5.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
In accordance with Table 2-1 of the Zoning Regulations, mixed-use development projects
require a Minor Use Permit to be constructed within the M zone. Minor Use Permits
require specific findings regarding General Plan consistency, neighborhood compatibility,
findings for health, safety and welfare, and findings for site suitability regarding design,
traffic generation, and public services, which have been incorporated into the draft
resolution. The project design complies with lot coverage, setbacks, parking, and building
height requirements for the M zone (see Section 2.0 Project Statistics).
Mixed-Use Development: The Zoning Regulations §17.70.130 Mixed Use Projects
provide standards for the design of mixed-use projects to consider potential impacts on
adjacent properties and designed to be compatible with the adjacent and surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Mixed-use projects must be designed to achieve specific
objectives including design criteria, site layout, pedestrian access and performance
standards. The project has been designed with the physical separation between the
residential and nonresidential uses and associated activity areas by outdoor seating
areas and a drive aisle through the site, ensuring that the residential units are of a
residential character and provide privacy between the uses, while maintaining internal
3 Land Use Element Policy 2.3.6. The City shall encourage mixed use projects, where appropriate and
compatible with existing and planned development on the site and with adjacent and nearby properties.
The City shall support the location of mixed use projects and community and neighborhood commercial
centers near major activity nodes and transportation corridors / transit opportunities where appropriate.
4 Land Use Element Policy 2.4.2. The City shall approve a density bonus for projects that: (B) Include
affordable housing for seniors or lower income households consistent with the requirements of State
Law.
Page 13 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
compatibility between the different uses by integrating pedestrian connectivity with the
commercial areas.
The project minimizes potential impacts to and from adjacent properties by locating
commercial activities towards Bridge Street and residential uses towards the rear of the
property adjacent to existing residential uses. The vicinity is developed with commercial
service and residential uses that are conducive to a mixed -use project with existing
residential development to the east, south, and west. The project’s proposed common
area is located internal to the project and along Meadow Creek, which is oriented toward
the neighboring commercial properties, minimizing potential adverse impacts from non-
residential project noise.
Edge Conditions: The Zoning Regulations § 17.70.050 (Edge Conditions) is intended to
provide a buffer between low-density residential zones or open space areas and zones
that permit development of higher intensity. These regulations require specific
development standards along the property line that transitions from a lower intensity
zoning, such as the adjacent R-2 zoning to the east and south of the subject property.
The Edge Conditions regulations stipulate that balconies are prohibited above the first
floor on the building side facing the R-2 zone (§17.70.050.D.3). The Edge Conditions
standards also require that window placement on the proposed building be offset
horizontally by 12 inches from any windows located on buildings on the adjacent
properties in the R-2 zone (§17.70.050.D.5). The intention of these restrictions is to
preserve privacy for adjacent lower-intensity developments. The project is requesting an
affordable housing alternative incentive to allow for balconies on the second and third
floors on the building side facing adjacent properties that are zoned R-2. The project also
includes a waiver from the site development standard that requires window placement to
be offset by 12 inches from adjacent existing structures along the second and third floors.
The requested alternative incentive and development standard waiver are discussed in
more detail in Section 5.3 below.
Page 14 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
Parking: Zoning Regulations Section 17.140.040.K stipulates that housing developments
occupied exclusively by low-income households, as defined by the State, may provid e
one car and one bicycle space per dwelling unit, however, upon request of the developer
the parking ratio for senior housing may be provided at 0.5 spaces per bedroom. The
project includes 32 one-bedroom dwelling units for senior living, which would require only
16 parking spaces; the remaining 62 low-income units require only one space per dwelling
unit, resulting in a total of 78 parking spaces for all residential dwelling units. The
commercial space has been designed to provide parking at a ratio of on e space per 100
square feet, resulting in a parking requirement of 9 spaces. The total parking required for
the project is 87 parking spaces, where 102 parking spaces would be provided on-site.
Phasing: The project has been proposed to be developed in th ree phases: (1) Site
improvements, commercial structure, and a residential structure I (32 residential units),
(2) Senior housing structure II (32 units), and (3) the remaining site improvements and
residential structure III (30 units). This phased approach anticipates 20 months of
construction per phase, over a five-to-seven-year schedule, subject to financing as an
individual tax credit project. Staff recommends Condition No. 2 which limits the phasing
schedule to three years for the issuance of building permits, and additional renewals after
three years may be granted in conformance with §17.104.070.
5.3 Consistency with Affordable Housing Requirements
The City has recognized housing as an important issue. The City’s 20 21-2023 Financial
Plan identifies housing as a Major City Goal. The City’s Housing Element includes
numerous policies and programs that support incentives, such as density bonuses, to
provide housing for low, very low and extremely low-income households.
Figure 2: Section Cuts demonstrating compliance with Edge Conditions setbacks, the balconies
referenced are located on Section Cut 1, 2 and 4.
Page 15 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing Accountability Act and
Density Bonus Law provide protections for housing development projects which include
density bonuses. To implement the State’s Density Bonus Statutes (Gov. Code §§ 65915-
65918), the City’s Zoning Regulations provide three types of incentives for projects that
provide affordable housing: a Density Bonus (§17.140.040.A), an Alternative Parking
Requirement (§17.140.040.K), and Additional Incentives (§17.140.070.A) that may be
requested by an applicant.
Zoning Regulations Section17.140.070.A states that three incentives or concessions
shall be granted for housing developments that include at least 30% of the total units
dedicated for low-income households. The proposed project provides 100% of the total
units to be dedicated to low-income households. One of the alternative incentive
examples called out in Chapter 17.140 is reduction in site development standards.5
Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(B) and (d)(3) prevent an agency from denying the
density bonus or the incentive or concession unless the agency can make a finding based
on substantial evidence that the density units, the incentive or concession or reduction in
a development standard causes a “specific, adverse impact” upon the public health,
safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact6.
In addition to those standard incentives, an applicant may also request “the waiver or
reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the
construction” of a development providing affordable housing at the density permitted
under Density Bonus Law (Govt. Code § 65915 (e)(1)). As provided in Density Bonus
Statutes, the City must grant an applicant’s requested waiver of development standards,
unless doing so would result in a specific adverse impact upon health, safety, or the
physical environment or run contrary to state or federal law.
Alternative Incentive Request: Reduction to Site Development Standards: The applicant
is requesting an alternative incentive to reduce site development standards to allow for
balconies on the second and third floors on the building side facing an adjacent property
that is zoned medium density (R-2). As mentioned earlier, balconies are prohibited above
the first floor on the building side facing a property located within the R -1 or R-2 zones.
The proposed project is surrounded by R-2 zoning to the east and south of the site.
5 § 17.140.070 Alternative or Additional Incentives (B.1): A reduction in site development standards or
modification of Title 17 requirements or architectural design requirements that exceeds the minimum
building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5
(commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not
limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking
spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost re ductions to provide
for affordable housing costs.
6 Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1). Definition of ‘Specific, Adverse Impact’: Significant, quantifiable,
direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standar ds,
policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete
Page 16 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
The requested concession to allow balconies on the second and third floors will not create
a specific or adverse impact because the balconies are setback from the adjacent
property line by more than 20 feet , which provides adequate separation to preserve
privacy and avoid direct overlook.
Waiver of Site Development Standards: The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce
the site development standard that requires window placement to be offset by 12 inches
from adjacent existing structures on the building sides facing the R-2 zone. The request
for a waiver to the development standard is appropriate because the windows are
necessary for egress for occupancy of the dwelling units in compliance with the California
Building Code. Put differently, application of the development standard would physically
preclude the affordable units from being built as they would not comply with Building Code
requirements. Furthermore, the location and orientation of the proposed windows do not
result in specific adverse impact because all of the windows are located more than 30
feet from any existing structure located in the R-2 zone, which provides adequate
separation to preserve privacy and avoid direct overlook. Due to the amount and size of
the windows on the existing R-2 sites, it is infeasible to comply with the 12-inch offset and
concurrently comply with California Building Code for required egress.
5.4 Architectural Review Commission Directional Items
The ARC recommended four directional items to be reviewed and evaluated by the
Planning Commission prior to taking final action on the project. The applicant has made
the following changes in response to the directional items:
Figure 3: Revised rendering, demonstrating the new balcony railing, and the lower heights of
the screening features surrounding the interior courtyard.
Page 17 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
ARC Directional Item #1: Provide additional screening to the balconies on south and
east building elevations, screening thresholds o f the balconies shall be up to the
discretion of the developer.
Response: The applicant has agreed to modify the balconies to provide additional
screening by incorporating a railing system that is a more solid design rather than open
railing, see Figure 3. Staff has recommended Condition No. 5 which requires the balcony
rails to be replaced with a screened design that visually obscures views of storage on the
balconies and provides additional privacy between existing and new residential units.
ARC Directional Item #2: Reduce height of screening features surrounding the interior
playground courtyard to provide a balance of vehicle screening and pedestrian safety.
Response: The applicant has agreed to change the design of the screening features
surrounding the interior courtyard, see Figure 3. Staff has recommended Condition No. 6
which requires that the screening features are modified consist with the ARC’s direction.
ARC Directional Item #3: Consider that trees along the south perimeter be planted at a
greater maturity.
Response: The applicant has agreed to plant trees of a greater maturity along the
southern perimeter of the site. Staff has recommended Condition No. 11 which require s
trees planted along the southern perimeter of the project site to be of a greater maturity
to provide additional screening between the existing and new structures, minimum size
36-inch box.
ARC Directional Item #4: Incorporate addition of an accent color.
Response: The applicant has agreed to incorporate an accent color on the building
elevations and will present a new rendering of the design for consideration at the Planning
Commission Hearing. Staff has recommended Condition No. 3 to add an accent color to
the building elevations consistent with the ARC’s direction.
5.5 Consistency with the Sign Regulations
The Sign Regulations are intended to protect and enhance the character of the
community against visual blight and the proliferation of signs, which can seriously detract
from the pleasure of observing the natural scenic beauty of San Luis Obispo. Signs have
an important design component and must be architecturally compatible with the character
of surrounding development.
It is the intent of these regulations to regulate the time, place and manner under which
signs are permitted, and not the content of signage. Content shall not be used as a basis
for determining whether or not a proposed sign may be permitted.
The proposed monument sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Sign
Regulations, the sign is of similar size as other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning and provides for a superior design that does not result in visual clutter on the
property. No exception from the Sign Regulations is necessary or requested.
Page 18 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted on June 1, 2015,
for the development of the project site, which included construction of a bridge over the
creek and three manufacturing shell buildings. Since that time, construction of the bridge
has been completed. The adopted IS/MND identifies that the project would potentially
affect the following environmental factors unless mitigated: aesthetics, air quality,
biological resources, geology/soils, and noise.
The currently proposed project necessitated preparation of an Addendum to the adopted
IS/MND to address the project changes, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Section 15164 subsection (b) states that an addendum to an adopted negative
declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary
or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a
subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. This section of the State CEQA
Guidelines is designed to provide clear authority for an addendum as a way of making
minor changes or additions to an IS/MND. A summary of the potential impacts and
adopted mitigation measures required to ensure potential impacts are mitigated to a level
of insignificance are provided in Attachment 7, Addendum ER#0286-2014. The
addendum adds additional information to the environmental record for the project,
including changes to the project description and associated analysis. As documented and
supported by the analysis in the addendum: 1) these minor technical changes do not
materially change the findings and conclusions of the adopted IS/MND; 2) no substantial
changes are proposed or would occur that would require major revisions to the adopted
IS/MND; 3) no new significant environmental effects are identified and there would not be
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 4) the
project would not result in any significant effects that would be substantially more severe
than what was identified in the adopted IS/MND; and 5) the applicant will comply with all
identified adopted mitigation measures, which are incorporated into the Draft Resolution.
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including
Planning, Engineering, Transportation, Building, Natural Resources, Utilities, and Fire.
Staff has not identified any unusual site conditions or circumstances that would require
special conditions. Other comments have been incorporated into the draft resolutions as
conditions of approval.
Page 19 of 186
Item 4a
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021 – 279 Bridge Street
Planning Commission Report – August 25, 2021
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue project. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of
additional information or analysis required to make a decision.
2. Deny the project. An action denying the project should include findings that cite the
basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community
Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. Should the PC
want to pursue this alternative, Staff recommends that the specific findings under
Government Code § 65915(d)(1)(B) and (d)(3) are adequately addressed.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. ARC Report & Minutes 5.1.17
4. ARC Report & Minutes 9.9.19
5. PC Report & Minutes 9.25.19
6. ARC Report & Minutes 7.19.21
7. Addendum (ER#0286-2014)
Page 20 of 186
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A MINOR USE PERMIT AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 94
AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR LOW-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS AND 924 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE
WITHIN THE MANUFACTURING (M) ZONE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES
A DENSITY BONUS OF 24% INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCESSION AND WAIVER FROM THE
EDGE CONDITIONS STANDARDS FOR THE ORIENTATION OF
BALCONIES AND WINDOW PLACEMENT ON THE SECOND AND
THIRD FLOORS OF THE BUILDING SIDES FACING ADJACENT
PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE MEDIUM-DENSITY (R-2) ZONE AND
AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER#0286-2014), AS REPRESENTED IN
THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED AUGUST 25, 2021
(279 BRIDGE STREET, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, & AFFH-
0413-2021)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on June 1, 2015, adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the project, and approved a pre-fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek and an
associated creek setback exception; and continued the review of the three shell buildings
and associated site improvements and tree removals to a date uncertain with directional
items provided for the applicant and staff, pursuant to a proceeding institute d under
ARCH-0286-2014 & ER#0286-2014, Devin Gallagher, applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on May 1, 2017, found the project consistent with the
Community Design Guidelines and approved the project Resolution No. 1007 -17,
pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0255-2019, Devin Gallagher, applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on September 9, 2019, reviewed changes to the previously
approved project and recommended that the Planning Commission find the project
consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under ARCH-0255-2019, Devin Gallagher, applicant; and
Page 21 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on September 25, 2019, approving the mixed-use project and an associated
addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019, Devin Gallagher, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on July 19, 2021, recommending the Planning Commission
find the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines with identified
directional items, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0587-2020, AFFH-
0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021, Scott Smith, HASLO, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, August 25, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0587-2020,
USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021, Scott Smith, HASLO, applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly
considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to
the project (ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, & AFFH-0413-2021), based on the
following findings:
1. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.3.6 “Housing and
Businesses” and 3.8.5 (Mixed Uses) because the project provides residential
dwellings within a commercial district near neighborhood commercial centers,
major activity nodes and transit opportunities. Housing at this location is and can
be compatible with the proposed and existing commercial uses on -site and on
adjacent properties.
2. The project is consistent with Housing Element Policies 6.1 and 7.4 because the
project supports the development of more housing in accordance with the assigned
Regional Housing Needs Allocation and establishes a new neighborhood
development, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient
and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines.
Page 22 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 3
3. The project is consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.4.3
because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more
efficient use of public facilities and services and to improve the job/housing balance.
4. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Mixed -
Use Projects (Section 17.70.130), since the proposed building design complies
with objective design criteria and performance standards for mixed -use
development by providing internal compatibility between the different uses in terms
of noise, hours of operation, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, access, and use of
open space.
Minor Use Permit Findings
5. As conditioned, the establishment, maintenance, or op eration of the proposed
project will not, in the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of
the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City because the project has been
designed to address noise, glare, and pedestrian traffic that is compatible and
consistent with the mix of residential and commercial uses on site.
6. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Element for this location since the project proposes to construct a mixed -use
building that includes commercial service uses and residential uses that are
consistent with activities envisioned by the Services and Manufacturing Land Use
designation.
7. As conditioned, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning
Regulations as described within the property development standards for the
Manufacturing (M) zone and mixed-use development. The proposed uses are
compatible with the project site and with existing and potential uses in the vicinity
which include commercial services and residences.
8. As conditioned, the mixed-use project is compatible at this location because the
project is surrounded on three sides by existing residential dwellings, and located
away from the primary street frontage which serves primarily existing commercial
uses. The proposed residential and commercial activities are compatible with
existing and future land uses in the vicinity because the project has been designed
to orient commercial uses toward the street and residential private open space
areas are located internal to the site.
9. The site is physically suitable in terms of public utilities, traffic generation, and
public emergency vehicle access, because the proposed project is within an
existing developed neighborhood that provides adequate utilities, vehicle parking,
and site circulation. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size,
configuration, topography, and other applicable features, and has appropriate
access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and
type of traffic expected to be generated by the use.
Development Review Findings
Page 23 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 4
10. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for
commercial and multi-family housing design and infill development because the
architectural style is complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and is
designed consistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the neighborhood.
11. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines by providing a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest
and articulation to the building design that are compatible with the design and scale
of the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.3).
12. As conditioned, the project respects the privacy of adjacent residences through
appropriate building orientation and windows that minimize overlook and do not
impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of neighboring structures.
13. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will not negatively alter the
overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the
development is designed in a manner that does not deprive reasonable solar
access to adjacent properties. The project incorporates vertical and horizontal wall
plan offsets, which provide a high-quality and aesthetically pleasing architectural
design.
Density Bonus and Alternative Incentives Findings
14. The proposed project qualifies for an 80% density bonus by providing 100% of the
base density units as dedicated housing for low-income households. The project
will provide quality affordable housing consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.140
of the Zoning Regulations, the requested 24% density bonus and reduction to site
development standards are necessary to facilitate the production of affordable
housing units associated with a mixed-use development project. The requested
density bonus and reduction to site development standards are ne cessary to
facilitate the production of affordable housing units.
15. The requests for a density bonus and reduction to site development standards are
necessary to facilitate the production of affordable housing units, consistent with
the intent of Housing Element programs 2.17, 6.10, and 6.19, and the alternative
affordable housing incentives outlined in Section 17.140.070 of the Zoning
Regulations.
16. The requested waiver to the site development standard which requires window
placement to be offset by 12-inches from adjacent existing structures along the
second and third floor, is appropriate because the windows are necessary for
egress for occupancy of the dwelling units in compliance with the California
Building Code which does not result in any identified specific adverse impact to the
public health, safety, or physical environment consistent with State and Federal
Law.
Sign Regulations
Page 24 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 5
17. The proposed monument sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Sign
Regulations, the sign is of similar size as other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning and provides for a superior design that does not result in visual clutter
on the property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was
adopted by the Architectural Review Commission on June 1, 2015. The Planning
Commission hereby adopts the Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
of Environmental Review, finding that: 1) the minor technical changes addressed in the
Addendum do not materially change the findings and conclusions of the adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) no substantial changes are proposed or would occur
that would require major revisions to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; 3) no
new significant environmental effects are identified and there would not be a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 4) the project would not
result in any significant effects that would be substantially more severe than what was
identified in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 5) the applicant will comply
with all adopted mitigation measures.
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light post shall be eliminated and
replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans.
Monitoring Plan, AES 1: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development
Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require
modifications as necessary for consistency with City standards and to ensure that
light spillage into the creek corridor or across property lines will not occur, prior to
department sign off and issuance of permits.
Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside
required yard and creek setbacks.
Monitoring Plan, AES 2: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development
Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall ensure
that all lighting is outside required yard and creek setbacks, prior to department
sign off and issuance of permits.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project
proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area
disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must
be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the
regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos
Page 25 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 6
ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Miti gation Plan and
Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to
monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public
Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall
provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior
to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility
pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781 -5912
to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written
notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD,
2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable
removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to
monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development
and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the
applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These
measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor
shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify
practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include
holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development
and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a) Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity
for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering
frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and
cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h.
Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control
work.
c) All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or
other dust barriers as needed.
Page 26 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 7
d) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible,
following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e) Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non -invasive,
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the APCD.
g) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
i) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or
shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between
top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code
Section 23114.
j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water
should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping
when feasible.
l) All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building
plans.
m) The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute
period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work
may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall
be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading,
earthwork or demolition.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary,
to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public
Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Page 27 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 8
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project
proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California
Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD
Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting
requirements.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to
monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public
Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall
provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior
to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel
vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, t he
applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the
California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-
fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of
more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It
applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the
regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
i. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than
5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of
the regulation; and,
ii. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS)
to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on
that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for
greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet
of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the
regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction
identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-
Use Off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to
remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In
addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant
shall comply with these more restrictive requirem ents to minimize impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
Page 28 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 9
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the
site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off -site, together with
the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will nee d to be identified
for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary,
to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public
Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall
provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior
to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development
are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be
completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of
business permits when required by the APCD.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 6: Confirmation with compliance with APCD regulations shall
be provided with business permit applications as applicable. All mitigation
measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor
shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided
to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of
compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading
or building permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be
prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads
with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans
and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Community Development
staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application
package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the final
geotechnical engineering report and use of caisson foundations and provide site
inspections as necessary to ensure implementation.
Page 29 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 10
Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than
significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project
elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the
nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season
(February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be
required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If
no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.
If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest
sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around
active nests as determined by a qualified biologist , and in accordance with CDFW
standards and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as may be applicable. Nest sites shall be
avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young
of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a
qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would
reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans
and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural
Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall
confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird
surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation.
Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to
identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas
where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected
a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation
removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be
present, such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation
effort for non-listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than
significant impact.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans
and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural
Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall
confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction surveys and
provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation.
Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA)
regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation
from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing.
Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions
of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps.
Page 30 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 11
Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed
project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and
minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would
also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss
of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce
potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans
and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any Corps
permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s
Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit
application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CWA/Corps compliance.
Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602
of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form
of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the
CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should
an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and
conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed
Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the
proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids
and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of
riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional
compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City-required creek setback area
along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite
compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce
potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans
and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any CDFW
permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s
Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit
application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CDFW compliance.
Geology & Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be
undertaken, and a comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final
approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific
areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined
or can be reasonably estimated.
Page 31 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 12
The report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement
under the structure loads, retaining wall design parameters, slabs -on-grade,
expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls),
and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer.
Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall
review the geotechnical analysis as part of the Building Permit application package
prior to issuance of grading or construction permits.
Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from
residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise -
sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The
Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure
that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on
the site.
Monitoring Plan, NOI 1: The Architectural Review Commission will review the site
plan to ensure loading docks are located to attenuate generated noise effect on
adjacent residential land.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory
code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process,
which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning
Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following
conditions:
Planning Division
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall
be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning
Commission (ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-
2021). A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for
a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval
listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as
to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design,
colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by
the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. The project phasing schedule includes three phases: (1) Site improvements,
commercial structure, and residential structure I (32 residential units), (2) Senior
housing structure II (32 units), (3) the remaining site improvements and residential
structure III (30 units). This phased approach anticipates 20 months of construction
per phase. If the required building permits are not issued for the site development
within three years of this discretionary action, the approval shall expire. Requests for
renewals may be granted in conformance with §17.104.070.
Page 32 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 13
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all
proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be
consistent with the color and material board submitted with the Development Review
application; however, plans shall demonstrate compliance with the Architectural
Review Commission’s direction to incorporate an additional accent color on the
building elevations, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details or
equivalent shadow variation, and all other details including but not limited to awnings,
and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of materials for the window frames and
mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and
dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features.
Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design features that
reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood
character, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a revised railing system for the
balconies that provides a screened design that visually obscures views of storage on
the balconies and provides additional privacy between existing and new residential
units, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall demonstrate compliance with the
Architectural Review Commission’s direction to reduce the height of the screening
features surrounding the interior playground courtyard to provide a balance of vehicle
screening and pedestrian safety, subject to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
7. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current
parking calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal
of Planning and Building permits for tenant changes or improvements, and/or each
business license, to ensure the site does not become under-parked.
8. All surface parking spaces must be available for common use and not exclusively
assigned to any individual use, required residential parking may be reserved, but
commercial parking must be made available for guests or overflow from residences.
9. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required
short and long-term bicycle parking for all intended uses, plans submitted for
construction permits shall include bicycle lockers or interior space within each
residential unit or other area for the storage of at least one bicycle per residential unit.
Short-term bicycle racks such as “Peak Racks” shall be installed in close proximity
to, and visible from, the main entry into the buildings (inverted “U” rack designs shall
not be permitted). Sufficient detail shall be provided about the placement and design
of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering
Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public Works
and Community Development Directors.
Page 33 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 14
10. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating
compliance with maximum light intensity standards not to exceed a maintained value
of 10 foot-candles. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or
path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-
mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as
part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building
architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic
representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut -sheets on the submitted
building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed
downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation
standards contained in Chapter §17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations.
11. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the
building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other
mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be
placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets
and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line -of-sight diagram may be
required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies
to initial construction and later improvements.
12. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public right -
of-way consistent with §17.70.200 of the Zoning Regulations. The subject property
shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times , free of excessive
leaves, branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible
for the clean-up of any landscape material in the public right-of-way.
13. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan
with submittal of working drawings for a building permit. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and
trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific
locations on plans. The surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the
landscaping plan. The landscape plans shall provide trees planted along the southern
perimeter of the project site to be of a greater maturity to provide additional screening
between the existing and new structures, minimum size 36 -inch box, subject to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
14. Plans submitted for construction permits shall include elevation and detail drawings
of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development
standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.70.070 –Fences, Walls, and
Hedges).
Page 34 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 15
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. The design of proposed structures shall incorporate noise attenuating construction
techniques that reduces noise exposure to acceptable levels. Exposure in outdoor
activity areas must not exceed 60 dB and indoor exposure must not exceed 45 dB
consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Plans submitted for construction permits
must clearly indicate and describe noise attenuation measures, techniques, and
materials, and demonstrates their compliance with noise levels limits.
17. Prior to building occupancy, the owner of the property shall provide a Residential
Noise Notice in writing for residential occupants stating that the property is located
within a commercial zone in an urban-type environment and that noise levels may be
higher than a strictly residential area.
18. Any new proposed signage in addition to the monument sign shall be reviewed by
the Planning Division to ensure appropriateness for the site and compliance with the
Sign Regulations. Signage shall coordinate with building architecture and the type of
land use. The Director may refer additional signage to the ARC if it seems excessive
or out of character with the project.
Housing Programs – Community Development Department
19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City and the applicant shall enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement, to be recorded in the office of the county recorder.
The agreement shall specify mechanisms or procedures to assure the continued
affordability and availability of the low-income households, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development
20. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city
standard. Municipal Code (MC) 12.16.050.
21. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right - of-way width, location of
frontage improvements, front property line locat ion, and all easements. All existing
frontage improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference.
Page 35 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 16
22. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach
shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
23. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and
Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials.
Alternative paving materials are recommended for water quality and/or control
purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or
parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternative paving material
shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
24. The applicant/developer shall consider the use of a shared accessible path of travel
from the public right- of-way with the adjoining property located at 285 Bridge Street.
The existing sidewalk serving 285 Bridge appears to be established to a point near
the bridge crossing. A shared path could limit the amount of existing landscape
and/or trees to be removed and could potentially preserve the existing parking layout
and limit the area of site disturbance. A separate access easement or amendment of
the existing easement agreement may be required.
25. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing
underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed
alterations or upgrades. All new wire services shall be underground. All work in the
public right- of-way shall be shown and noted.
26. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection
shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage
Company. The respective refuse storage area and on -site conveyance shall consider
convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. The trash enclosure shall be
designed in accordance with the City Design Guidelines and City Engineering
Standard 1010.13 for water quality treatment.
27. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The
plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to
be accepted and conveyed along with the improved on -site drainage. This
development may alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site or
adjoining sites. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and
not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded
easements or existing waterways.
28. The building plan submittals shall include a complete drainage report. The report shall
show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design
Manual.
29. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, all new
structures and appurtenant utilities shall comply with all Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the City' s Floodplain Management
Regulations per MC Chapter 17.84.
Page 36 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 17
30. This property is located in an AO (2' depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base
flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-year storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The structure
and any exterior building service equipment including the sewer lift station must be
raised, floodproofed, or proved to be inherently flood resistant to an elevation that is
at least one foot above the BFE or 3' above the highest adjacent grade. Additional
freeboard to 2' above the BFE may result in additional structure protection and
savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged.
31. The property owner and/or future tenants shall manage any outdoor storage so that
materials and accessory structures do not have a significant impact on the floodzone
in accordance with the Drainage Design Manual and the Floodplain Management
Regulations.
32. The project shall comply with Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as
promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building plan
submittal shall include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Checklist as
available on the City' s website.
33. A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance
Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) shall be provided in a format
provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any
separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. An
Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the
building plan submittal for all post construction Stormwater Control Measures
(SCM’s).
34. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required
for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing,
grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Permits are
required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction
Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit
a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board
under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking
System (SMARTS).
35. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures
into the building plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in
accordance with Section 10 of the city's Waterways Management Plan. The building
plan submittal shall include reference to the Waste Discharger Identification (WDID)
number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference.
36. Work adjacent to or within a channel or creek may require the approvals of California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), The Army Corp of Engineer's, and/or the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of any required permits or a written
permit waiver or exemption for the same shall be provided to the City prior to
demolition, grading, and/ or building permit issuance.
Page 37 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 18
37. The building plan submittal, grading plans, and drainage report shall incorporate any
project specific permitting requirements from any higher governmental authority. The
applicant/developer shall comply with the County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) standards and permit requirements related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos.
APCD approval shall be secured prior to any ground disturbing activities.
38. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk
diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with
canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for
reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are
proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies
should generally be shown to scale for reference.
39. The existing willow and walnut trees located on the property shall be retained unless
otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist and the Community
Development Director. A tree removal proposal will require a report from a certified
arborist with a summary of why the tree(s) can't be saved. If approved for removal,
compensatory tree(s) shall be incorporated into the building plan submittal.
40. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection
measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The
City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or
grading within the dripline of trees. A city approved arborist shall complete safety
pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the
building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781- 7023 to review and establish any
required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal.
41. The proposed 6' privacy fencing loca ted along the southerly property line shall be
located at the top of bank or at a reasonable setback from the top of bank to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division, Public Works Department, and Natural
Resources Manager. The fence shall be extended to the easterly property line and
then northerly to connect with the proposed privacy fence located along the easterly
property line. If required by the City or other agencies with permit jurisdiction over the
swale and brambles, a section(s) of the fence may need to be constructed with open
fencing to support the migration of riparian wildlife.
Utilities Department
42. Building permit submittal shall address the comments below on the project’s
landscaping plans:
a. L1.1 - WUCOLS PF >0.7 are considered high water-use plants and cannot be
mixed with low or moderate water-use plants.
b. L1.3 - Unable to verify this calculation because the hydrozones are not labeled
on the landscape design. Suggest including a hydrozone map.
c. L1.1 - shows high water use plants. As mentioned on that sheet, high water use
plants cannot be in the same hydrozone as moderate or low water use plants.
Please alter plant selection or expand hydrozones and provide hydrozone map.
Page 38 of 186
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021, & EID-0494-2021
Page 19
43. Separate, adequately sized water meters shall be provided for commercia l,
residential, and landscape uses. Owner shall provide sub -meters to each dwelling
unit.
Indemnification
44. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents,
officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or
its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by
the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to
environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the
applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim
and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
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 25th day of August 2021.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 39 of 186
Page 40 of 186
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIOBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGentitlements PACKAGE, 05/17/21Situated in the industrial heart of San Luis Obispo, the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo’s Bridge Street Development will bring affordable contemporary living to the historic Bridge Street. Steel details and corrugated siding pay homage to the site’s important industrial history, while warm materials convey a sense of comfort to the future residents and families.Page 41 of 186
Page 42 of 186
PROJECT AND SITE INFO & DATA T1.0 - T1.1CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN T1.2AERIAL PERSPECTIVE T1.3PRELIM. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C1.0PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C2.0PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS C3.0PLANTING PLAN L1.0PLANT PALETTE L1.1PLANT IMAGES L1.2WATER CALCULATIONS L1.3FENCE AND LIGHTING PLAN L2.0LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2.1SITE PLAN A1.0SITE SECTIONS A1.1PHASE 1A FLOOR PLANS A2.0 - A2.1PHASE 1A ROOF PLAN A2.2PHASE 2 FLOOR PLANS A2.3 - A2.5PHASE 2 ROOF PLAN A2.6PHASE 3 FLOOR PLANS A2.7 - A2.8PHASE 3 ROOF PLAN A2.9PHASE 1A ELEVATIONS A3.0 - A3.1PHASE 1B ELEVATIONS A3.2PHASE 2 ELEVATIONS A3.3PHASE 3 ELEVATIONS A3.4 - A3.5MATERIAL BOARD A3.6ENLARGED PLANS A5.0 - A5.1ENLARGED MONUMENT SIGNAGE A5.2PROJECT IMAGES A6.0 - A6.4CONTACTSindexCLIENTSAN LUIS OBISPO NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION487 LEFF ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.543.4478CONTACT: SCOTT SMITHssmith@haslo.comARCHITECT TEN OVER STUDIO539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.541.1010CONTACT: AISLING BURKE aislingb@tenoverstudio.comPage 43 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21T1.0VICINITY MAPNBRIDGE STPROJECT LOCATION279 BRIDGE STHIGUERA STSOUTH STMADONNA RDBROOK STBEEBEE STEXPOSITION DRPARKER STCORRIDA STWOODBRIDGE STHWY 1BIANCHI LNBRANCH STSANDERCOCK STHARRIS STPRICE STCYPRESS STHIGH ST%/'*727$/3+$6($ 3+$6(% 3+$6( 3+$6( 6,7(727$/ 6,7(%8,/',1*$5($%2186 '(16,7<&$/& 81,77<3(678',2 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 727$/352326(' '(16,7<%2186/2:$))25'$%/($&5( '8 %21865(48(67(' '(16,7<352326(' %2186$//2:(' '(16,7<'(16,7<$//2:(' '(16,7<$//2:(' 81,7&2817 '8)$&725'(16,7<&$/&8/$7,216727$/'(16,7<$//2:('/276,=( &/,0$7($&7,21(QYLURQPHQWDOVWHZDUGVKLSFRXSOHGZLWKWKHQHHGIRUKRXVLQJKDVGULYHQWKHGHVLJQRIWKLVSURMHFWLQWKHEHJLQQLQJVWDJHVZKHUHHIILFLHQF\LVWUXO\GHWHUPLQHG7KHEXLOGLQJVKDYHEHHQSRVLWLRQHGWRLQFRUSRUDWHSDVVLYHVRODURSSRUWXQLWLHVLQDQHIIRUWWRDOOHYLDWHDQRYHUUHOLDQFHRQRSHUDWLRQDOPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWDQGWKHGHVLJQKDVIROORZHGWRLQFRUSRUDWHWKHVHDGYDQWDJHV7KHEXLOGLQJVKDYHXWLOL]HGORQJHUVRXWKIDFLQJIDFDGHVWRPD[LPL]H\HDUURXQGVRXWKHUQH[SRVXUH7KHSURMHFWZLOOLQFRUSRUDWHFRQVWUXFWLRQSUDFWLFHVIROORZLQJWKH3DVVLYH+RXVHVWDQGDUGRIDWLJKWEXLOGLQJHQYHORSHFRQWLQXRXVO\ZUDSSHGH[WHULRULQVXODWLRQDQGDPHFKDQLFDOIUHVKDLUH[FKDQJHYHQWLODWLRQV\VWHPFRXSOHGZLWKKHDWUHFRYHU\WRUHGXFHWKHRYHUDOOKHDWLQJDQGFRROLQJGHPDQGVRIWKHEXLOGLQJZKLOHVLPXOWDQHRXVO\LQFUHDVLQJRFFXSDQWFRPIRUW7KHGHVLJQRIWKHEXLOGLQJVZLOODOVRXWLOL]HIODWURRIVIRUWKHLQFRUSRUDWLRQRISKRWRYROWDLFSDQHOV279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN004-811-036FLOOD ZONEA0 - 2' ABOVE ADJACENT GRADEPREVIOUS ENTITLEMENTSARCH-0286-2014 / ARCH-4293-2016ARCH-0255-2019 / USE-0526-2019118919 SF 2.73 ACREMAX SITE COVERAGEALLOWABLE75%PROPOSED31% (36,715 SF)FAR (EDGE COND.)ALLOWABLE10% of 1.5, 1.35 (160,541SF)PROPOSED.88 (104,502 SF)DENSITYALLOWABLE65.52PROPOSED80.92AFFORDABLE UNITS PROPOSED94 UNITS (100% AFFORDABLE)AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES USED80% DENSITY BONUS (REQUESTED 24%)1 PARKING SPACE / UNIT1 BICYCLE / UNITAFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCESSIONSEDGE CONDITION: BALCONIES WHEN ADJACENT TO R-2EDGE CONDITION: WINDOW PLACEMENT ADJACENT TO R-2HEIGHT LIMITALLOWABLE35'-0" ABV ANGPHASE 1A PROPOSED35'-0"PHASE 1B PROPOSED12'-0"PHASE 2 PROPOSED35'-0"PHASE 3 PROPOSED35'-0"ADJACENT ZONESNORTHMEASTR-2 (SUBJECT TO EDGE CONDITIONS)SOUTHR-2 (SUBJECT TO EDGE CONDITIONS)WESTMALLOW. SETBACKSFRONT15'WEST SIDE0'EAST SIDEEDGE CONDITION: VARIES: 10'-0" @ 0-22' HEIGHT, 23'-0" @ 35' HEIGHTREAREDGE CONDITION: VARIES: 10'-0" @ 0-22' HEIGHT, 23'-0" @ 35' HEIGHTEDGE CONDITIONSSETBACKSCOMPLIANT - SEE SETBACK SECTION ABOVEFAR REDUCTIONCOMPLIANT - SEE FAR SECTION ABOVEUPPER LEVEL OPEN SPACE ORIENTATIONNON-COMPLIANT - SEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCESSIONS ABOVEROOFTOP OPEN SPACESN/AWINDOWSNON-COMPLIANT - SEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCESSIONS ABOVEDRIVEWAY ORIENTATIONCOMPLIANT - SEE SITE PLAN INDICATING PARKING SCREENINGLOT SIZEY; R-2 AT SOUTH AND EAST SIDESPROPOSED USEMIXED-USEALLOWED USE IN ZONEYENTITLEMENTS/USE PERMIT REQUIREDPLANNING COMMISSION ZONINGM / MANUFACTURINGLAND USE REQUIREMENTS EDGE CONDITIONSADDRESS7KHSURSRVHGLVDSKDVHGPL[HGXVHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKDWZLOOVHUYHLQGLYLGXDOVDQGIDPLOLHVDWRUEHORZRI$UHD0HGLDQ,QFRPH7KH SKDVHVDUHDVIROORZV 3KDVH$ 0XOWLIDPLO\KRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQW DVVRFLDWHGSDUNLQJ DSSUR[LPDWHO\XQLWV 3KDVH% &RPPHUFLDO6KHOO )XWXUHWHQDQWLPSURYHPHQW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VI 3KDVH 6HQLRUKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQW DVVRFLDWHGSDUNLQJ DSSUR[LPDWHO\XQLWV 3KDVH 0XOWLIDPLO\KRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQW DVVRFLDWHGSDUNLQJ DSSUR[LPDWHO\XQLWV 7KHGHYHORSPHQWSURSRVHVSRGLXPVW\OHEXLOGLQJVZLWKSDUNLQJEHORZWZRVWRULHVRIXQLWVIRUDWRWDORIWKUHHVWRULHVSHUUHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJ(DFKEXLOGLQJZLOOSURYLGHDJURXQGIORRUFRPPXQLW\URRPDQGOHDVLQJRIILFHRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\VI7KHSURMHFWLQFOXGHVDSSUR[LPDWHO\SDUNLQJVSDFHVWKDWZLOOVHUYHWKHWHQDQWDQGFRPPRQDUHDXVHVRIWKHSURMHFW7KHFRPPHULFDOVKHOOEXLOGLQJZLOOEHDVLQJOHVWRU\VWUXFWXUHIRUIXWXUHLQWHULRUWHQDQWLPSURYHPHQW6LWHLPSURYHPHQWVLQFOXGHYDULRXVRXWGRRUJUHHQVSDFHVZLWKVHDWLQJDQGSOD\DUHDVDSHGHVWULDQFRQQHFWLRQDORQJWKHFUHHNJUHHQVSDFHDQGDQDUHDLQGLFDWHGIRUDSRWHQWLDOILUHHPHUJHQF\DFFHVVURDGDWWKH6RXWK(DVWRIWKHVLWHWKDWFRQQHFWVWR:RRGEULGJH6WLIRQHLVUHTXLHG,QOLHXIHHVZLOOSURYLGHGWRPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHFL\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR
V3XEOLF$UW2UGLQDQFH3UHOLPLQDU\FDOFXODWLRQRIIHHZLOOEHSURYLGHGE\WKH+RXVLQJ$XWKRULW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR$EULGJHDFURVVWKHFUHHNFRQQHFWLQJWKHVLWHWR%ULGJH6WKDVDOUHDG\EHHQFRQVWUXFWHG7KLVEULGJHLVDOORZHGDVWKHVLQJOHSRLQWRIDFFHVVIRUWKHVLWHSHU&DOLIRUQLD)LUH&RGH$SSHQGL['6HFWLRQ'0XOWLSOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO'HYHORSPHQWV352-(&7'(6&5,37,21Page 44 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21T1.1PHASE 1A SIZE (SF) # OF UNITS450 SF 16700 SF 8900 SF 8BUILDING TOTAL 32 30.56PHASE 2 SIZE (SF) # OF UNITS450 SF 32BUILDING TOTAL 32 21.12PHASE 3 SIZE (SF) # OF UNITS450 SF 14700 SF 8900 SF 8BUILDING TOTAL 30 29.2412UNIT DENSITY1 BED / 1 BATH 50% 10.562 BED / 1 BATH 25% 8TOTAL # UNITS: 94AVERAGE UNIT SF: 569UNIT TYPE % DISTRIBUTION2 BED / 1 BATH 27% 83 BED / 1 BATH 27% 12UNIT TYPE % DISTRIBUTION UNIT DENSITY1 BED / 1 BATH 47% 9.241 BED / 1 BATH% DISTRIBUTION UNIT DENSITY100% 21.12UNIT TYPE3 BED / 1 BATH 25%UNIT TYPESAVERAGE UNIT SIZETOTAL UNIT SF: 53500%8,/',1* 3+$6($08/7,)$0,/<+286,1*2&&83$1&<5%6&216758&7,217<3(9$635,1./(5('635,1./(56<67(01)3$6725,(6352326('+(,*+7352326('
%8,/',1*$5($6)6)%8,/',1* 3+$6(%&200(5&,$/2&&83$1&<7%'&216758&7,217<3(9%635,1./(5('635,1./(56<67(01)3$6725,(6352326('+(,*+7352326('
%8,/',1*$5($6) 6)%8,/',1* 3+$6(6(1,25+286,1*2&&83$1&<5%6&216758&7,217<3(9$635,1./(5('635,1./(56<67(01)3$6725,(6352326('+(,*+7352326('
%8,/',1*$5($6)6)%8,/',1* 3+$6(08/7,)$0,/<+286,1*2&&83$1&<5%6&216758&7,217<3(9$635,1./(5('635,1./(56<67(01)3$6725,(6352326('+(,*+7352326('
%8,/',1*$5($6)6)%8,/',1*,1)2%,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(4
'=21,1*.81,7&2817 256) 3+$6($5(6,'(17,$/ 81,7 1$ 1$727$/ 3+$6(%&200(5&,$/7%' 6) 6) 727$/ 3+$6(6(1,25 81,7 1$ 1$727$/ 3+$6(5(6,'(17,$/ 81,7 1$ 1$727$/ 5(48,5('727$/ $''
/)2535.*5('8&7,21 3529,'('727$/ %,&<&/(3$5.,1*&$/&8/$7,2166+2577(50 /21*7(50727$/%,&<&/(3(5=21,1*.$))25'$%/(+286,1*3$5.,1*5(48,5(' 86( 81,7&2817 256) 3$5.,1*)$&725 63$&(65(48,5('3+$6($ 5(6,'(17,$/ 81,7 3+$6(% &200(5&,$/
6) 6) 3+$6( 5(6,'(17,$/ 81,7 3+$6( 5(6,'(17,$/ 81,7 5(4
'&20%,1('727$/ %,.(3$5.,1*5('8&7,21
%,.(6 5(4
'5('8&('727$/ $3352;3529,'('&203$&77$1'(0 $3352;3529,'('&203$&7 727$/3529,'('&203$&7 0$;$//2:$%/(25 $3352;3529,'('67$1'$5'7$1'(0 $3352;3529,'('67$1'$5' $3352;3529,'('727$/
&200(5&,$/6+(// 86(7%'3$5.,1*)$&725$6680('02675(675,&7,9(
6((%,.(3$5.,1*&$/&8/$7,216$'$63$&(6 86( 63$&(6 2581,76 $'$)$&725 $'$5(48,5('3+$6($$5(6,'(17,$/ 2)63&6 025(5(675,&7,9(%5(6,'(17,$/ #63&6 3+$6(% &200(5&,$/7%' #63&6 3+$6($5(6,'(17,$/ 2)63&6 025(5(675,&7,9(%5(6,'(17,$/ #63&6 3+$6($5(6,'(17,$/ 2)63&6 025(5(675,&7,9(%5(6,'(17,$/ #63&6 5(4
'727$/ 3529,'('727$/ 9$167'(93$5.,1* 86( 2)63$&(6 (9)$&725 (95(48,5('(95($'< 2)63$&(6 (9&$3$%/( 2)63$&(6 5(4
'727$/ (9$'$ 63&6 9$167'$0%3529,'('$'$727$/ 9$167'$0%3529,'('727$/ &/($1$,563$&(6 86( 2)63$&(6 )$&725 &/($1$,55(4
'3+$6(% &200(5&,$/7%' 63$&(6 3+$6($ 5(6,'(17,$/ 1$ 1$ 1$5(4
'727$/ 3529,'('727$/ 02725&<&/( 86( 2)63$&(6 3$5.,1*)$&725 02725&<&/(5(4
'3+$6($ % 0,;('86( #63&6 3+$6( 5(6,'(17,$/ #63&6 3+$6( 5(6,'(17,$/ #63&6 5(4
'727$/ 3529,'('727$/ 3$5.,1*&$/&8/$7,2162)81,76 7&$& 08/7,)$0,/< 2)81,76 7&$& %8,/',1*3+$6($ 08/7,)$0,/< 3+$6( 6(1,25 3+$6( 08/7,)$0,/< 727$/ %81,76%02%,/,7<81,763(53+$6(5(48,5('$&&(66,%/(81,766(1,25 81,76Page 45 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21T1.2CONTEXTUAL SITE PLANSCALE: N.T.S.CORRUGATED METAL SIDING AND ROLL-UP DOORS AT ADJACENT LIVE-WORK UNITSADJACENT LINEAR WAREHOUSE WITH INDUSTRIAL FINISHES AND WINDOW STYLESNEIGHBORING METAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING123Our site is primarily surrounded by similar industrial buildings. Two residences are to the east and have been provided with visual barriers and additional setbacks. The residences under construction to the south are a mix of 2 and 3 story units with rooftop decks. The live-work units under construction to the west are 3 stories. Adjacent to the live-work units is the linear Architectural Iron Works building. The general surrounding materials include corrugated metal, stucco, horizontal wood, and vertical standing seam in varying colors as indicated below.SUMMARY OF CONTEXTR-2R-4C-S-PDMR-4C-S-MUC-S-MUMMM-PDR-2C-S-MUC/OS-5C/OS-40-SPR-2-PDR-2-SPSOUTH stBRIDGE STHIGUERA STEXPOSITION DR21BRIDGE AND EGRESS BALCONIES WITH METAL SIDINGNEIGHBORING CONTEMPORARY RESIDENCES WITH SHED ROOFS AND METAL ACCENTS, 2-STORY RESIDENCE WITH ROOFTOP DECKNEIGHBORING CONTEMPORARY RESIDENCES WITH REPETITIVE ELEMENTS, PARKING BELOW, 2-STORY RESIDENCE ABOVE WITH ROOFTOP DECK4563456Page 46 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21T1.3aerial perspectivephase 1Aphase 2phase 3phase 1BPage 47 of 186
Page 48 of 186
N89°31'55"W 676.93'MS81°00'57"W 203.44'MS0°29'53"W 145.97'MS78°21'43"E 485.10'MN0°27'10"E 326.95'MDRAINAGE EASEMENT2313 OR 234EXISTING FENCEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING AC BERMEXISTING CURB TBR20EXISTING CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK(E) DRAINCONCRETE DRAINAGE CHANNELS77°08'13"W 221.07'MCREEK SETBACKCREEK SETBACKN89°31'55"W 59.98'M 15' PUBLICUTILITYEASEMENTTOP OF BANKDENSE VEGETATION CANOPYTOP OF BANKEXISTING CURB
T
B
R
AVERAGE VEGETATION LINEEXISTING PARK
I
N
G
T
B
R
EXISTING CU
R
B
T
O
R
E
M
AI
N
EXISTING WALK
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
NEXISTING WALK TO REMAINN0°32'36"E 134.15'M
S0°31'54"W 136.78'M
>>>>>>TOP OF BANK>>>>DRAINAGE EASEMENT2313 OR 234LOT A30 MB 8-11 CONSERVATION EASEMENTPER TRACT 2560(168)N89°31'55"W 676.93'MBASIS OF BEARINGS0°30'00"W 955.83'MX X X X X X X X X X X X X X
EXISTING CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALKCONCRETE DRAINAGE CHANNEL3%2.9%15%NOTE:(E) BRICKED PARKING AREAHAS BEEN REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED AS SHOWNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION DOC. FOR PHASE I.NEW UTILITY, ACCESS DRIVEWAY, PERMEABLE PAVEMENT,UTILITY AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEENCONSTRUCTED PER APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLANS ORAS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.163.00 EG171170169(164)(167)(171)(172)(165)(163)(164)(163)(163)(162)1(65)(163)(161)(171)(169)(168)(166)(165)(166)(167)(164)(165)3.5%LOT A30 MB 8-11A-C-(167)(165)>>>>>(165.10 EG)(164.93 EG)164.00 FG(P) PG&ETRANSFORMERSS LIFT STATIONLOCATION>>>>>>>>FLOWLINE (E) SWALEFLOWLINE16816910'164.10FS/TW162.50BOTTOMELEV163.50SPILLWAY163.84 EG164.97 EG162.71 EG165.60 EG162.41 EG166.90 FS17017115%167.17 TC166.67 FS162.82 FL SD(163.24 EG) ROCK FS167.12 TC166.62 FS5%166.50 FS0.87%167.00 TC166.50 FS166.13 TC165.63 FS166.76 FS5%165.30 FS166.66 FS166.05 FS/GB166.26 FS166.51 FS165.60 FL165.95FS/GB164.98 FS166.35 TC165.85 FS165.82 TC165.32 FS0.6%165.44 FS/GB0.59%166.01 FS3.3%1%GBGB165.32 FS166.30 TW164.76 TC164.26 FS3.1%165.17 FS166.36 TC165.86 FS166.70 FG166.91 TC166.34 FS6.84" CURB0.6%166.06 TG164.63 INV166.92 TC166.42 FS166.37 FS166.07 TG164.23 INV2.8%2%166.38FS/GB167.0 FS167.0 FS1.0%0.6%0.6%166.90 TC166.40 FS167.00 FS1.5%2.4%166.79 TC166.29 FS/GB166.90 FG166.40 TG164.63 INV166.80 FS166.90 TC166.40 FS166.27 FS/HP0.6%167.00 TC166.50 FS166.00 TG163.78 INV0.6%167.10 TC166.60 FS2%166.90 TC166.40 FS166.80 TC166.30 FS169.07 FL168.85 FL169.30 FG170.00 TW169.50 FG169.07 FL168.75 EG/FL169.50 TW169.20 FG166.90 FS166.40 FS169.00 TW167.10 FG169.05 FG1.1%166.24 FS166.12FL/GB165.85 TG163.35 INV0.6%166.30 FS166.19 FLHP0.6%0.6%166.56 TC166.06 FS167.0 FS0.6%167.0 FS167.0 FS0.6%166.40 FS/HP3.7%0.5%1%166.70 TC166.20 FS2%2.7%166.50 FS166.80 FS167.00 FS166.70 FS166.90 TC166.40 FS166.24 FG165.65 FS1.4%1%1.9%165.83 TC165.33 FS165.48 TC164.98 FS164.76 TC164.26 FSEND CURB165.60 TC164.98 FS0.6%164.54 TC164.04 TG163.00 INV164.00 TC163.50 FS165.83 TC165.33 FSPRKG164.94 TC164.27 FS8" CURB0.5%164.38 FS164.44 TC163.94 FS0.7%162.5 FL SD164.10 FS/TW164.40 FS164.10 FS/TW165.0 FS164.80 FS164.90 FS165.0 FS164.60 TG163.00 INV SD165.0 FS165.0 FS0" CURB0.7%165.22 FS166.00 FG165.22 FS1%164.74 FS164.96 TC164.46 FS165.0 FS164.46 FS166.10 TC165.60 FS5%5%GB167 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NORTHCONSTRUCTED PER GALLAGHER BRIDGE STPHASE I IMPROVEMENT PLANS0" CURB(165)(165)(165)(170)165(165)(170)(169)(168)A-B-B-C-D-D-BLDG 1167.00 FF(PHASE 1)167.00 FF(PHASE 2)BLDG 2167.00 FF(PHASE 2)BLDG 3165.00 FF(PHASE 3)167.00 FF(PHASE I)165.00 FF(PHASE 3)BLDG 4166.78 FF(PHASE 4)BLDG 2167.00 FF(PHASE 2)167.00 FF(PHASE 2)166.65 FS0.5%166.65 FS@TRASH ROLL UP166.68 TC166.26 FS5" CURB4.3%166.53 TC166.11 FS/GB5" CURB5%5%3.4%165.03 FS0.59%165.83 TC164.88 FS165.83 TC164.78 FSWLK165.28 FSTOP RAMP165.82 TC165.32 FS165.38 FS165.95 TC165.45 FS0.6%8%0.6% MIN166.70 TC166.20 FS167.10 TC166.60 FS1%0.6%166.90 TC166.40 FS165.50 EG167.00 TC166.50 FS166.40 FS166.16 FS166.00 EG166.90 TC166.40 FS166.95 TC166.45 FS167.05 TCPLTR166.55 FS166.60 TG165.00 INV166.16 FS167.00 TC166.50 FS166.90 TC166.40 FS166.27 FS166.66 TC166.16 FS166.77 TC166.27 FS166.78 TC166.28 FS0" CURB166.66 TC166.16 FS0" CURB0" CURB167.00 TC166.50 FS166.20 FS165.99 FS165.36 FS166.54 FS1.7%1.5%166.70 TC166.30 FS4.8" CURBTHRU CURBDRAIN166.70 FS166.70 FS166.70 FS0.6%166.90 TC166.40 FS166.57FS/HP166.57FS/HP167.05 TC(PLTR)166.50 FS166.60 TC166.20 FS4.8" CURB166.38 TC165.88 FS3.8%166.70 FS0.6%1.6%166.43 FS1.4%166.60 FS167.14 TCPLTR166.64 FS0.6%166.00 FG166.04 FS0" CURB165.76 TC165.26 FS165.88 FG166.11 FG4.3%164.39 FS164.38 FS165.20 TC164.70 FS164.90 TW/TC164.40 FS0" CURB0.6%165.06 FS/GB4%165.06 FS/GB2%164.96 TC164.46 FS166.80 FS166.76 TC166.26 FS166.80 TC166.30 FS166.90 TC166.40 FS166.80 TC166.30 FS166.85 TC166.50 FS164.46 FS164.39 FS0.6%164.96 TC164.52 FS5.24" CURB162.50 BOTTOM163.50 POND DEPTH163.50 OVEROOFLOWBIORETENTION BASIN164.93 TC164.43 FS166.30 FG166.0 FG167.05 TC(PLTR)166.55 FS/ TC0" CURB166.64 TC166.24 FS166.95 TC166.50 FS0.7%(163.8 EG)(165.3 EG)(167.3 EG)(168.9 EG)(165.9 EG)(165.7 EG)(165.4 EG)(166.3 EG)TOP OF BANKTOP OF BANKLIMITS OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTFOR BIOLOGICAL PRESERVATIONDOC 2016046737LIMITS OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTFOR BIOLOGICAL PRESERVATIONDOC 2016046737167.00 FF(PHASE I)166.90 FG166.70 FSAPERMEABLE PAVEMENT SECTIONINSTALL PERMEABLE PAVEMENT (PER MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS)OPEN GRADED (34" TO 1") AGGREGATEEXISTING NATIVE SOIL CONCRETE FLUSHCURB OR 6" CURBPER PLANAS REQUIRED5" DEPTH OF 3/8" AGGREGATEINSTALL 1" LAYER OF 1/4" X 10# CHIPSCALE: NTS6", 8", 12" OR 18"BASED ON SCM REQ'S-SEE CALCULATIONS(1) 4" DIA PEROOFORATED PVC RELIEFPIPE WITH 3/8" PEROOFORATIONS TO BEORIENTED DOWNWARD. INSTALL WEREINDICATED ON PLANS AND CONNECTTO ONSITE SD SYSTEM.8 OZ NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE WRAPAS REQUIRED BY SOILS ENG.C:\Users\Ground Up\0Cadd\0-Monsoon Jobs\279 Bridge St Affordable Housing\CAD\279 Bridge Street- Prelim Civil-rev concept.dwg, 279 Bridge St Prel GP (3), Jan 18, 2021 7:44pm, Ground Up4020020SCALE IN FEETPreliminary Earthwork:CUT = 4200 CYFILL= 0 CYEXPORT = 4200 CYBIORETENTION BASIN SCMB%105647%6+10016'5 /#+06#+070&+5674$'&0#6+8'51+.$'0%*615722146#&,#%'065+&'9#.-41#&5'37'0%'914-61%105647%6%74$5$'(14'':%#8#6+0)$+14'6'06+10#4'#(14#))4')#6'#0&$5/ 5%#4+(;57$)4#&'$'(14'+056#..+0)$+14'6'06+10#4'##))4')#6'#0&$5/ (#%+.+6;':%#8#6+1061#..19(1452'%+(+'&#))4')#6'$5/#0&/7.%*&'26*561#%*+'8'(+0+5*'&'.'8#6+10510%+8+.2.#05 +056#..70&'4&4#+09+6**1.'5(#%+0)&190+(+0&+%#6'&6121(70&'4&4#+0$'.196121(#))4')#6'.#;'470&'4&4#+05.12'/#;$'(.#6 2.#%'$5/+0.+(65%1/2#%6'#%*.+(61($5/9+6*.#0&5%#2'41..'414$;.+)*6.;9'66+0)+(9'66+0).'6&4;18'40+)*6$'(14'2.#06+0) &1016914-9+6*+0$+14'6'06+10#4'#&74+0)4#+01470&'49'6%10&+6+105 -''2*'#8;/#%*+0'4;1765+&'$+14'6'06+10#4'#.+/+65 5614/9#6'45*17.&$'&+4'%6'	#;(41/$+14'6'06+10706+.%105647%6+10+5%1/2.'6'#0&&4#+0#)'#4'#8')'6#6+10+556#$+.+<'&2#4-+0)MIN 24" -PER PLAN$1661/9+&6*&101675'(+.6'4(#$4+%$'69''0$5/#0&#))4')#6'(+0+5*'&'.'8#6+10
(' /+00#6+8'51+.$'0%*24'('44'&14#5&+4'%6'&$;%+8+.14)'16'%*0+%#.'0)+0''46121(9#..'.'8#6+10
5' #))4')#6'$1661/9+&6*61/#6%*$5/$1661/9+&6*0#6+8'5+&'5.12'61$'&'6'4/+0'&$;)'16'%*0+%#.%10&+6+105 /#:9+6*5*'.(5''016'3" MULCH LAYER/+0/+012" MIN.')'0&$+14'6'06+1051+./'&+#
$5/ #))4')#6'0#6+8'51+.#52*#.62#8'/'06%10%4'6'/+0/#:210&+0)5*'.(5''016'/7.%*%1/2156.#;'4
5''&'5+)0016' 5%#.' 065NOTES:1. SEE GALLAGHER BRIDGE STREET PHASE ONEIMPROVEMENT PLANS - APPROVED 9/6/2016 FORADDITIONAL INFO.2. SEE SHEET C3.0 FOR SITE SECTION DETAIL.3. SEE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS FOR SURACE INFO.C1.0PRELIMINARY GRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANPage 49 of 186
>>>>>>>>>>>X X X X X X X X X X X X X XG
161.26 INV160.76 FL(E)18" VCP SS MAIN @ 0.78% (APPROX)(E) 168.67 RIM SSMH160.90± INV4" SS LAT161.80 INVSS LAT160.60± INVSS MAIN>>>>>>>>(E)(1) 2" DOMESTIC WATERLINE AND (3) 4" WATERLINESIN JT TRENCH CONSTRUCTEDWITH PHASE IIMPROVEMENTS FORGALLAGHER BRIDGE STREET>>>(E)8" PVC PRIVATE FIRELINE(E)4" PRIVATE SS FORCE MAIN(E)JOINT WATER MAIN TRENCH(1) WATER SERVICEMANIFOLD WITH (2) 2"WATER METERS PERCITY STD 6210 & 6260(E)(1) 1" IRRIGATION WATERLINE W/ 34" METER AND 1 14"SERVICE CONSTRUCTED WITHPHASE I IMPROVEMENTS FOR(E)6" GRAVITY SS MAINCONSTRUCTED WITH PHASE IIMPROVEMENTS FORGALLAGHER BRIDGE STREET(E)4" SS FORCE MAINCONSTRUCTED WITH PHASE IIMPROVEMENTS FORGALLAGHER BRIDGE STREET(E)2" GAS MAIN(E) 12" DIP WATER MAIN(E) 18" VCP SS MAIN(E) 2" GAS MAIN(1) WATER SERVICEAND METER FOR BLDG A -SIZE TO BE DETERMINED163.5± INV FORCE MAIN(E) TEMP HYDRANTTO BE RELOCATEDRELOCATED FIREHYDRANT PERCITY STD AND SPEC'S(E)ELEC - JT TRENCH(E) WATER LINE "T"TO BE MODIFIEDAS REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NORTHCONSTRUCTED PER GALLAGHER BRIDGE STPHASE I IMPROVEMENT PLANSSEWER CLEANOUTPER CITY STD & SPEC'SSEWER LATERAL @ 2%PER CITY STD & SPEC'S(P) 6" SEWER74.1 L.F. @ 1.0%JOINT WATER TRENCHPER DETAIL 2.JOINT DRY UTILITYTRENCH PER DETAIL 1.159.70 INV159.20 FLWET WELL157.86 INV.149.86 BOTTOM159.44 INV OUT159.54 INV INFIRE HYDRANT PERCITY STD AND SPEC'SJOINT WATER TRENCHPER DETAIL 2.JOINT WATER TRENCHPER DETAIL 2.(P) 6" SEWER41.1 L.F. @ 1.0%SEWER CLEANOUTPER CITY STD & SPEC'SSEWER LATERAL @2% PER CITY STD &SPEC'SPHASE IPHASE IIPHASE IPHASE IIIJOINT DRY UTILITYTRENCH PER DETAIL 1.164.00INV162.00INVJOINT WATER TRENCHPER DETAIL 2.JOINT DRY UTILITYTRENCH PER DETAIL 1.(P) 6" SEWER104.6 L.F. @ 1.0%158.80 INV OUT158.90 INV IN11.0'(P) 6" SEWER115.4 L.F. @ 4.0%162.99 INV162.49 FL163.64 INV163.14 FL(P) 6" SEWER35.8 L.F. @ 1.0%(P) 6" SEWER15.0 L.F. @ 1.0%6.0'11.0'ELECTRICALCONTROLSVALVE VAULT163.5 INV.162.17 BOTTOM(P) 6" SEWER66.0 L.F. @ 1.0%161.58 INV161.08 FL4.2'BLDG 1167.00 FF(PHASE 1)BLDG 3165.00 FF(PHASE 3)167.00 FF(PHASE I)165.00 FF(PHASE 3)BLDG 4166.78 FF(PHASE 4)BLDG 2167.00 FF(PHASE 2)167.00 FF(PHASE 2)16.0'20.1'(P) 6" SEWER27.5 L.F. @ 1.0%(P) 6" SEWER24.1 L.F. @ 1.0%159.81 INV OUT159.91 INV IN(P) 6" SEWER27.4 L.F. @ 1.0%JOINT WATER TRENCHPER DETAIL 2.JOINT DRY UTILITYTRENCH PER DETAIL 1.11.0'160.32 INV OUT160.42 INV INSEWER LATERAL @ 2%PER CITY STD & SPEC'S(P) ELECTRICALTRANSFORMERNOTE: SEWER LIFT STATIONSHALL BE MINIMUM 1' ABOVE100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONC:\Users\Monsoon\Dropbox\Monsoon Consultants\2020.08.012_Bridge Street\02 cad\2020.08.012_Prelim Util.dwg, 279 Bridge St Prel UTIL, Jan 18, 2021 6:16pm, Monsoon4020020SCALE IN FEETNOTES:1. SEE GALLAGHER BRIDGE STREET PHASE ONEIMPROVEMENT PLANS - APPROVED 9/6/2016 FORADDITIONAL INFO.C2.0PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANSEWER LIFT STATION CALCULATIONS:BUILDING 134 - 1 BEDROOM UNITS = 5100 GPDBUILDING 214 - 1 BEDROOM UNITS = 2100 GPD8 - 2 BEDROOM UNITS = 1500 GPD8 - 3 BEDROOM UNITS = 2100 GPDSUBTOTAL 5700 GPDBUILDING 316 - 1 BEDROOM UNITS = 2400 GPD10 - 2 BEDROOM UNITS = 1875 GPD10 - 3 BEDROOM UNITS = 2625 GPDSUBTOTAL 6900 GPDAVERAGE DAILY FLOW 17,700 GPD6" MINCLR.(N) 4" DOMESTIC WATER LINE(N) 6" FIRE LINE(N) 1" IRRIGATION LINE(LOCATION AS NEEDED)36" MIN. COVEREXISTING/FINISHED GRADE2NOT TO SCALEJOINT WATER TRENCH DETAIL30"MIN.FINISHGRADE90% MINIMUMRELATIVECOMPACTION -BEDDING6"TYP.12"TELEPHONECONDUIT12"6"POWERCONDUIT1NOT TO SCALEJOINT DRY UTILITY TRENCH DETAILCABLECONDUITGAS157.86INV IN.149.86BOTTOM2 - VARIABLE FREQUENCYDRIVE PUMPS(90 GPM)JENSEN PRECAST 6'DIAMETER LIFTSTATION VAULT149.86BOTTOMJENSEN PRECASTVALVE VAULTCONNECT TO EXISTING 4"FORCE SEWER LINE±167.0FGFINISHED GRADE3NOT TO SCALESEWER LIFT STATION DETAIL(P)6" SEWER±163.5INV.Page 50 of 186
160170180190200(P) ACCESS DRIVE(PERMEABLE PAVER)BIORETENTION BASINADA PATHOF TRAVELPARKING, DRIVE AISLE, AND ACCESS(CONCRETE)PERMEABLE PAVER SECTIONPARKING, DRIVE AISLE, AND ACCESS(CONCRETE)RETAINING WALLPROPERTY LINE/FENCEBLDG ACCESS(PERMEABLE PAVER)BLDG ACCESS(PERMEABLE PAVER)BUILDINGCOLUMN/CAISSON TYP.BUILDINGCOLUMN/CAISSON TYP.EXISTING GROUNDEXISTING GROUNDHIGH - 165.7'LOW - 163.8'(E)AVG. GRADE - 164.75'HIGH - 167.3'LOW - 165.3'(E)AVG. GRADE - 166.31'160170180190200160170180190200BUILDINGCOLUMN/CAISSON TYP.PARKING(PERMEABLE PAVER)DRIVE AISLE(CONCRETE)PARKING(PERMEABLE PAVER)WALK(CONC.)0" CURBLAND.WALK(PERM.)(PAVER)PROPERTY LINE/FENCELAND.CREEK SETBACKCREEKWALKEXISTING GROUNDEXISTING GROUNDTOP OF BANKBRAMBLE SWALEPERMEABLE PAVER SECTIONPERMEABLE PAVER SECTIONHIGH - 165.7'LOW - 163.8'(E)AVG. GRADE - 164.75'HIGH - 166.3'LOW - 165.4'(E)AVG. GRADE - 165.85'160170180190200PARKING(PERMEABLE PAVER)RETAINING WALLDRIVE AISLE(CONCRETE)PERMEABLE PAVER SECTIONPROPERTY LINEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GROUNDPARKING, DRIVE AISLE, AND ACCESS(CONCRETE)HIGH - 167.3'LOW - 165.3'(E)AVG. GRADE - 166.31'160170180190200160170180190200PARKING(CONC.)DRIVE AISLE(CONC.)PARKING(PERMEABLE PAVER)TOP OF BANKBRAMBLE SWALEPARKING(PERMEABLE PAVER)WALK(CONC.)LAND.PLAY AREADRIVE AISLE(CONC.)LAND.CURBCREEKWALKCREEKWALKCREEK SETBACKCURBEXISTING GROUNDEXISTING GROUNDEXISTING GROUNDBUILDINGCOLUMN/CAISSON TYP.BUILDINGCOLUMN/CAISSON TYP.PERMEABLE PAVER SECTIONPERMEABLE PAVER SECTIONWALK(CONC.)HIGH - 167.3'LOW - 165.3'(E)AVG. GRADE - 166.31'HIGH - 168.9'LOW - 165.9'(E)AVG. GRADE - 167.40'16017018059' DRAINAGE EASEMENTEXISTING PARKING LOTBRICK PAVERSEXISTING CONSPAN BRIDGE - 28' SPANTOP OF BANKBRAMBLE SWALEPROPERTY LINE/FENCEPERMEABLE PAVERSCONCRETEPERMEABLE PAVERSADA PATHOF TRAVELA.C. PAVINGEXISTING A.C. PAVINGEXISTING A.C. PAVING160170180EXISTING FRENCH DRAINEXISTINGDRIVEWAY2010010SCALE IN FEETSECTION A-AWest to East SectionWest to East Section - cont.NOTES:1. GALLAGHER BRIDGE STREET PHASE ONEIMPROVEMENT PLANS - APPROVED 9/6/2016SCALE 1 "= 10' HORIZ AND VERTC3.0PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONSSECTION A-AWest to East SectionSECTION B-BNorth to South Sectioncont. - see below leftSECTION D-DNorth to South SectionSECTION C-CAccess Drive North South Sectioncont. - see below leftNorth South Section - cont.Page 51 of 186
Page 52 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21L1.1PLANT PALETTEplant paletteTREESQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTREMARKS7 Arbutus x `Marina` / Arbutus Standard 15 gal Size: 40`-50` tall and 20`-40` wideWUCOLS PF:.1 - .319 Cercis occidentalis / Western Redbud 15 gal Size: 15` tall and wideWUCOLS PF: < .15 Garrya elliptica `James Roof` / Coast Silk Tassel 15 gal Size: 6`-10` tall and 3`-10` wideWUCOLS PF = .1-.39 Lophostemon confertus / Brisbane Box 24"box Size: 30`-45 ` tall and 25` wide.WUCOLS PF: .1-.311 Platanus mexicana / Mexican Sycamore 24"box Size: 50` tall and 35`-40` wide.WUCOLS PF: .4 - .63 Quercus agrifolia / Coast Live Oak 24"box Size: 25`-85` tall and wide.WUCOLS PF: .1-.3SHRUBSQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZEREMARKS12 Achillea millefolium / Common Yarrow 1 gal Size: 1.5` - 3` tall and wideWUCOLS PF = < .188 Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Karl Foerster` / Feather Reed Grass 1 gal Size: 3`-5` tall and 1`-6"-2`-6" wideWUCOLS PF = .1 - .391 Carex divulsa / Berkeley Sedge 1 gal Size: 1`-2` tall and wideWUCOLS PF: .4-.616 Ceanothus x `Joyce Coulter` / Ceanothus Joyce Coulter 15 gal Size: 2`-3` tall and 10`-15` wideWUCOLS PF = >.144 Chondropetalum tectorum / Cape Rush 1 gal Size:2`-3` tall and wideWUCOLS PF: .7 - .9141 Juncus patens / California Gray Rush 5 gal Size: 1`-2` tall and wide.WUCOLS PF: .7 - .98 Mahonia aquifolium `Compacta` / Compact Oregon Grape 1 gal Size: 2`-3` tall and 3`-4` wiWUCOLS PF = <.1102 Muhlenbergia dubia / Pine Muhly 5 gal Size: 2`-3` tall and 3` wide.WUCOLS PF: .1 - .3161 Muhlenbergia rigens / Deer Grass 1 galSize: 4`-5` tall and 4`-6` wiWUCOLS PF: .1 - .343 Ribes sanguineum / Red Flowering Currant 1 gal Size: 3`-6` tall and 3` wideWUCOLS PF = .1-.379 Salvia spathacea / Hummingbird Sage 1 galSize: 1`-2` tall x 4`-5` wideWUCOLS PF: .1 - .315 Woodwardia fimbriata / Giant Chain Fern 1 gal Size: 4`-5` tall and 3` wideWUCOLS PF = .4-.6Page 53 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21L1.2plant imagesARBUTUS STANDARDYARROWPINE MUHLYFEATHER REED GRASS BERKELEY SEDGEDEER GRASSCEANOTHUS JOYCE COULTERRED FLOWERING CURRANTCAPE RUSHHUMMINGBIRD SAGEGRAY RUSHGIANT CHAIN FERNCOMPACT OREGON GRAPEBERTS RED CALIFORNIA FUSCHIAWESTERN REDBUD COAST SILK TASSEL BRISBANE BOX MEXICAN SYCAMORECOAST LIVE OAKPage 54 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21L1.3water calculationsPage 55 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21NOPARKINGNOPARKINGMMNOPARKINGEV CAPABLESTDEV CAPABLEVANEV CAPABLEVANEV READYSTD.EV CAPABLEVANEV CAPABLESTD.EV READYNOPARKINGEV READYVAN!!>>>>EV CAPABLEEV READYCOMPACTEV READYMMEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLECOMPACTEV CAPABLEEV READYEV READYEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEPHASE 2FAMILY (30)PHASE 3FAMILY (32)PHASE 1SENIOR (32)L1L1L1L1L1L1L1L1L1L1L1L1L1S81°00'57"W 203.44'MS0°29'53"W 145.97'MS78°21'43"E 485.10'MN0°27'10"E 326.95'MS77°08'13"W 221.07'MTOP OF BANKDENSE VEGETATION CANOPYTOP OF BANK112224433333524'-5"SETBACK12'-0"SETBACKDRAINAGE
EASEMENT
20'-0"SETBACKDRAINAGE
EASEMENT
L2 L25L2.0fence and lighting planSCALE: 1” = 40’-0”NKEYNOTES1. (E) TOP OF BANK LINE2. (E) PROPERTY LINE3. (E) ADJACENT BUILDINGS NOT IN SCOPE4. (E) BUILDING SETBACK LINE5. (N) RETAINING WALL, SEE CIVIL SHEETS FOR MORE DETAIL.6. (N) MONUMENT SIGN AT THE BRIDGE STREET MAIN ENTRANCEfence and lightinglegend(E) 6’-0” TALL WOOD FENCE(N) 7’-0” TALL IPE SCREENING GARAGE FENCE(N) 6’-0” TALL WOOD FENCE(E) CREEK SETBACKMATCH LINE AMATCH LINE B(N) LED PATH LIGHTING BOLLARD(N) LED SIGN LIGHT* SEE SHEET L2.1 FOR MORE DETAIL ON FENCING AND LIGHTING.L1L2tree legend(E) RIPARIAN TREES TO REMAIN(E) REDWOOD TREES TO REMAINL2 L25MATCH LINE AMATCH LINE BBRIDGE STREETMONUMENT PLANSCALE: 1” = 40’-0”Page 56 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21L2.1LANDSCAPE DETAILSFENCING, LIGHTING, AND OUTDOOR FURNISHINGNEW 7’-0” TALL IPE SCREENING GARAGE FENCETHOMAS STEEL - MONONA PICNIC TABLE - BOLTEDTHOMAS STEEL - MONONA FLAT BENCH - BOLTED THOMAS STEEL FINISHES - IPE & POWDER COAT BLACK STEELTHOMAS STEEL - MONONA SQUARE TABLE - BOLTEDEXISTING 6’-0” TALL WOOD FENCINGBK LIGHTING GLOW STAR BOLLARD - LED - DARK SKY COMPLIANTBK LIGHTING SIGN STAR STYLE “L” - LED - DARK SKY COMPLIANTNEW 6’-0” TALL WOOD FENCINGPage 57 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A1.0SITE PLANSCALE: 1” = 40’-0”NKEYNOTES1. (E) PROPERTY LINE2. (E) BUILDING SETBACK LINE3. (E) BUILDING NOT IN SCOPE4. (N) TRASH AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURE, SEE SHEET A2.105. (N) LONGTERM BIKE STORAGE WITHIN FUTURE COMMERCIAL SHELL6. (N) SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING, WITH A TOTAL OF (36) SPACE7. (N) TRANSFORMER8. LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE9. (N) STRUCTURAL SUPPORT, TYP.COMPACT
NOPARKING34 STALLS33 STALLSNOPARKINGMMFIRE TRUCKTURNAROUNDCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
COMPACT COMPACT
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
3STALLSCOMPACTNOPARKINGEV CAPABLESTDEV CAPABLEVANCOMPACTPHASE 3FAMILY (30)(14)450/(8)700/(8)900PHASE 1AFAMILY (32)(16)450/(8)700/(8)900PHASE 2SENIOR (32)(32) 450 SF UNITSEV CAPABLEVANEV READYSTD.EV CAPABLEVANEV CAPABLESTD.MMEV CAPABLECOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTEV READYAMBULATORY32 STALLSLIMITS OFPHASE 3 /PHASE 2PARKINGCKCCKCKCKCKKKKKKKKCKKCCCCFIRE TRUCFFIRFIREFIRE FIRE TRE TRE TRUTRUCTRUCRUCUCCCCCUUUUUUURRURRRRRRTTTTTTTT EEEEEERRRRRRIIRFIIFFFFFCUNDUNUNDUNDUNDNDDDDDDDDDDDNNNNNNUNNUTURNAROUTTUTURTURNTURNAURNARNARNAROAROUROUROUOUUUUUUUOOOOOOOROORRRRRRAARAAAAAANNNNNNRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUTTTTTTTUCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMMACTEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEVVAPABBLEEV READY3NOPARKINGEV READYVAN11113336366476226888PHASE 1BCOMMERCIAL928 SQ. FT.9993A1.14A1.12A1.11A1.1EV CAPABLE24'-0"!!!!!!NOPARKINGCOMPACTEV CAPABLECOMPACTEV CAPABLEVANEV CAPABLEEV READYEV READYCOMPACTEV READYCOMPACTEV CAPABLENOPARKINGEV CAPABLEVANMCOMPACT
MCOMPACTCOMPACTEV CAPABLECOMPACTEV CAPABLECOMPACTEV READYEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLECOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTEV CAPABLEEV READYEV READYEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLECOMPACTEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEM24'-5"SETBACK24'-5"SETBACK21'-5"SETBACK23'-11"12'-0"SETBACK19'-412"ABCDEFGAHDJFKLTOP OF BANKTOP OF BANK25'-1"SETBACK27'-8"SETBACK24'-0"SETBACK36'-3"SETBACK26'-9"SETBACK38'-10"
CREEK
SETBACK
34'-2"
CREEK
SETBACK
37'-10"
CREEK
SETBACK 7456,*1,),(5$%&'()*+-./67$//:,'7+
6,1*/('28%/(6,1*/('28%/('28%/('28%/('28%/('28%/('28%/(6,1*/(6,1*/(6,1*/(6,1*/(%$<:,'7+
PARKING AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS COMPLIANCEPage 58 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A1.1SITE SECTIONSSCALE: 1” = 20’-0”ADJ.RES.21'-0"VARIES11'-5"VARIES35'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT(N)ROOF 200.9' (+34'-7")PHASE 2PHASE 1 F.F.E. 167'THIRD F.F. 188.3' (+22')AVG. NAT. GRADE 166.31'SECOND F.F. 178' (+11'-8")35'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTTHIRD F.F. 188.3' (+20'-11")PHASE 2 F.F.E. 167'26'-8"SETBACKPHASE 3(E) ADJ. RES.BEYOND7'-10"SECOND F.F. 178' (+10'-7")ROOF 201.4' (+34')AVG. NAT. GRADE 167.4'LINE OF REQUIRED SETBACK27'-0"SETBACK11'-6"(N) ADJ.RES.35'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTPHASE 1AROOF 199.2' (+34'-5")PHASE 3 F.F.E. 165'THIRD F.F. 186.3' (+21'-7")SECOND F.F. 176' (+11'-3")AVG. NAT. GRADE 164.75'(E) ADJ. RES.24'-6"SETBACK5'-4"PHASE 235'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTROOF 200.9' (+34'-7")PHASE 1 F.F.E. 167'THIRD F.F. 188.3' (+22')AVG. NAT. GRADE 166.31'SECOND F.F. 178' (+11'-8")1. PHASE 3 SITE SECTION 2. PHASE 2 SITE SECTION 3. PHASE 1A SITE SECTION 4. PHASE 2 SITE SECTION Page 59 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.0FIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 1ACOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTNOPARKINGEV CAPABLESTDEV CAPABLEVANCOMPACTMMEV READYAMBULATORY6'6'6'6'
6'6'6'
6'
6'
6'
6'6'NOPARKINGEV READYVANEV READYEV CAPABLECOMPACTEV CAPABLEEV READYEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEMELEVCOMMUNITYROOM929 SQ. FT.LEASINGOFFICE278 SQ. FT.MECHMECHMECHSTAIR 2STAIR 178'-0"36'-6"BCDFJKL456912456912BCDFJKLAAEE337788GHGH82'-0"57'-812"196'-1"20'-912"24'-0"Page 60 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.1SECOND & third FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 1A1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.2-BED736 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED483 SQ. FT.2-BED736 SQ. FT.2-BED738 SQ. FT.1-BED485 SQ. FT.2-BED733 SQ. FT.3-BED918 SQ. FT.3-BED914 SQ. FT.3-BED960 SQ. FT.3-BED983 SQ. FT.LAUNDRY99 SQ. FT.STAIR 1ELEVSTAIR 2MECH.1-BED458 SQ. FT.57'-812"100'-612"37'-10"32'-812"25'-0"BCDF45691227'-412"31'-6"21'-0"20'-8"10'-4"27'-6"196'-1"34'-1012"21'-0"22'-112"78'-0"31'-6"20'-9"87'-812"41'-11"20'-1012"21'-0"31'-6"21'-0"20'-1012"115'-3"37'-10"9'-812"1'-1"456912BCDFAAEE337878JKLJKLGHGH35'-512"Page 61 of 186
Page 62 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.2roof PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 1aSLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSPOTENTIALSOLAR AREA+/- 8,245 SFSLOPE1/4:12BCDF456912456912BCDFAAEE337878JKLJKLGHGHPage 63 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.3FIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 2ELEVMECHLOBBYMMCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
COMPACT6'
6'EV CAPABLECOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'6'6'6'
6'6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'6'
6'
6'NOPARKINGCOMPACTCOMPACTEV CAPABLEVANEV CAPABLECOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTEV READYEV READYEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLECOMPACTEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE8911BJ76'-7"108'-1012"84'-238"53'-1112"48'-912"11ADE66STAIR 2STAIR 1MECH2JBHED1134510CF7G117'-1012"40'-10"21'-612"63'-7"18'-012"Page 64 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.4second FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 211'-812"19'-11"24'-5"21'-112"45'-6"110'-10"77'-2"105'-312"5'-612"21'-112"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-2"84'-212"21'-1"21'-0"21'-0"21'-112"63'-612"24'-0"6'-512"23'-612"54'-0"3'-1"20'-11"30'-0"117'-1012"23'-612"94'-4"10'-5"20'-8"21'-0"21'-0"21'-3"9'-612"COMMUNITY ROOM1015 SQ. FT.STOR.1-BED487 SQ. FT.1-BED493 SQ. FT.1-BED487 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED450 SQ. FT.LAUNDRY100 SQ. FT.ELEV1-BED487 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED481 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED450 SQ. FT.8911BJ11ADE66STAIR 22BEDSTAIR 11-BED477 SQ. FT.1134510CF7JHGPage 65 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.5third FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 21-BED487 SQ. FT.1-BED493 SQ. FT.1-BED487 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED450 SQ. FT.LAUNDRY120 SQ. FT.ELEV1-BED461 SQ. FT.1-BED487 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED520 SQ. FT.1-BED481 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED450 SQ. FT.STAIR 2STAIR 11-BED477 SQ. FT.8911BJ11'-512"19'-11"24'-5"21'-112"45'-6"110'-612"76'-1012"105'-0"5'-612"21'-112"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"20'-1012"84'-212"21'-1"21'-0"21'-0"21'-112"63'-612"24'-0"6'-512"23'-612"54'-0"3'-1"20'-11"30'-0"117'-1012"23'-612"94'-4"10'-5"20'-8"21'-0"21'-0"21'-3"11A9'-612"DE6612B13ED4510CF7JHGPage 66 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.6roof PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 2SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSSLOPE1/4:12DSPOTENTIALSOLAR AREA+/- 5,500 SF8911BJ11ADE662BED1134510CF7JHGSLOPE1/4:12Page 67 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.7FIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 3NOPARKINGCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
EV READYSTD.EV CAPABLEVANEV CAPABLESTD.EV READY6'6'
6'6'6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'6'6'6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'
6'EV CAPABLEEV READYCOMPACTEV READYMCOMPACT
MCOMPACTEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLECOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTEV CAPABLECOMMUNITYROOM614 SQ. FT.ELEVMECHSTAIR 1STAIR 2LEASINGOFFICE129 SQ. FT.1234781112ABCDHK189'-0"100'-0"1234781112ABCDEEJGGHKJELECMETERSMECH39'-112"14'-312"103'-0"5566991010FF11'-10"54'-112"24'-0"14'-612"22'-2"35'-0"26'-1012"Page 68 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.8SECOND & third FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 32-BED736 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.2-BED839 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.2-BED736 SQ. FT.2-BED730 SQ. FT.ELEV3-BED968 SQ. FT.3-BED923 SQ. FT.STAIR 1STAIR 21-BED482 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.3-BED922 SQ. FT.1-BED485 SQ. FT.3-BED969 SQ. FT.1-BED484 SQ. FT.LAUNDRY98 SQ. FT.1234781112ABCDHK31'-0"115'-0"46'-0"20'-1012"31'-6"20'-712"21'-112"192'-0"39'-112"20'-1012"21'-0"35'-0"34'-0"43'-0"11'-212"31'-0"21'-0"31'-9"10'-9"105'-812"35'-312"24'-1012"21'-0"21'-0"63'-1012"5'-0"22'-0"3'-0"4'-112"23'-1012"3'-0"3'-0"28'-0"103'-0"1234781112ABCDEEJGGHKJ5566991010FFPage 69 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A2.9roof PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”NPHASE 3SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSSLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12DSDSDSPOTENTIALSOLAR AREA+/- 6,733 SF1234781112ABCDHK1234781112ABCDEEJGGHKJ5566991010FFPage 70 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A3.096542178335'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTROOF 199.2' (+34'-5")PHASE 3 F.F.E. 165'THIRD F.F. 186.3' (+21'-7")SECOND F.F. 176' (+11'-3")AVG. NAT. GRADE 164.75'LKJFDBAGHCEnorth ELEVATIONPHASE 1A ELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”east ELEVATIONPage 71 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A3.196542178335'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTROOF 199.2' (+34'-5")PHASE 3 F.F.E. 165'THIRD F.F. 186.3' (+21'-7")SECOND F.F. 176' (+11'-3")AVG. NAT. GRADE 164.75'LKJFDBAGHCEsouth ELEVATIONPHASE 1A ELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”west ELEVATIONPage 72 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A3.213AA2BDCTOP OF BUILDING 181.5' (+15')35'-0" HEIGHT LIMITPHASE 1B F.F.E. 166.5'122ADBCSOUTH ELEVATIONBUILDING 1B ELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”WEST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATIONPage 73 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A3.3119861072134535'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTROOF 200.9' (+34'-7")PHASE 1 F.F.E. 167'THIRD F.F. 188.3' (+22')AVG. NAT. GRADE 166.31'SECOND F.F. 178' (+11'-8")JEDBACJEDBGFH2131198610745SOUTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONPHASE 2 ELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”WEST ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONPage 74 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A3.412346811125710935'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTTHIRD F.F. 188.3' (+20'-11")PHASE 2 F.F.E. 167'SECOND F.F. 178' (+10'-7")ROOF 201.4' (+34')AVG. NAT. GRADE 167.4'BAKHEDCGJFnorth elevationPHASE 3 ELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”east elevationPage 75 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A3.512346811125710935'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTTHIRD F.F. 188.3' (+20'-11")PHASE 2 F.F.E. 167'SECOND F.F. 178' (+10'-7")ROOF 201.4' (+34')AVG. NAT. GRADE 167.4'KHEDCBAGJFsouth ELEVATIONPHASE 3 ELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”west ELEVATIONPage 76 of 186
Page 77 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A3.6MATERIAL BOARDBRONZEAESTHETIC WHITE SANDSTONE SLATE BLUEVINYL WINDOWS AND DOORSMILGARDCORRUGATED METAL SIDINGMETAL ROOFING CALIFORNIACORRUGATED METAL SIDINGMETAL ROOFING CALIFORNIASTUCCO SIDING, 80/20 SAND FINISHSW 7035PEPPERCORNSTUCCO SIDING, 80/20 SAND FINISHSW 7674CHARCOAL GRAYRAILINGS, AWNINGS, TRIMMETAL ROOFING CALIFORNIAGRAPHITEWALL SCONCE LUMENS URBAN IPE, MACHICHE, OR SIM.WOOD SOFFITMATAVERDENOTE: ALL MATERIALS SUBJECT TO SUBSTITION FOR APPROVED EQUALSPage 78 of 186
Page 79 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A5.0ENLARGED UNIT PLANSSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”typical 1 bedroomUNIT SIZES: 450 - 520 SF typical 2 bedroomUNIT SIZES: 734 - 839 SF typical 3 bedroomUNIT SIZES: 907 - 969 SF 1-BED64)7BEDROOM
[
BATH
[
&/2LIVING
[
KITCHEN /DINING
[
DECK
[
2-BED64)7&/2BEDROOM 2
[
&/2LIVING
[
BATH
[
KITCHEN / DINING
[
BEDROOM 1
[
DECK
[
BATH
[
KITCHEN / DINING
[
LIVING
[
BEDROOM 1
[
BEDROOM 2
[
BEDROOM 3
[
&/2&/2&/2DECK
[
3-BED 64)7KEYNOTES1. IN-UNIT BIKE RACKS TO BE PROVIDED AT MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ONLYPage 80 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A5.1& enclosures plansite trash enclosure planSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”Ncommercial shellPHASE 1B61'-0"139'-412"21'-712"22'-612"5'-5"27'-1112"3'-2"24'-912"27'-1112"23ACD123ABDCOMMERCIALSHELL928 SQ. FT.TRASH ROOMTRANSFORMERENCLOSUREOPEN TO ABOVE14'-0"15'-5"5'-0"3'-0"7'-5"Page 81 of 186
Page 82 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A5.2ENLARGED MONUMENT SIGNAGESCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”KEYNOTES1. PAINTED STUCCO SW 7674 PEPPERCORN2. BLACK METAL LETTERS, COMPLIANT WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT SIZING REQUIREMENTS3. CORRUGATED METAL SIDING IN SLATE BLUE4. WOOD SIDING, IPE, MACHICHE OR SIM.* SIGNAGE DIMENSIONS TO COMPLY WITH CITY OF SLO REQUIREMENTS: MAX. AREA OF 24 SF AND MAX. HEIGHT OF 6’ FROM ANG. PROVIDED AREA: 22.8 SF* REFER TO A3.6 MATERIAL BOARD
Page 83 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A6.0PHASE 1 & 2 COURTYARDPage 84 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A6.1PHASE 2 FROM BRIDGEPage 85 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A6.2PHASE 1 & 2 FROM BRIDGEPage 86 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A6.3PHASE 3 COURTYARDPage 87 of 186
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.comBRIDGE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSINGSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 05/17/21A6.4PHASE 3 SOUTHEAST CORNERPage 88 of 186
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Continued design review of three shell buildings (including a caretaker quarters) totaling
approximately 23,397 square feet, with associated site improvements and identified tree removals,
with a determination that the project is consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-4242-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy DirectorDD
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
and finds the project consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, based
on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Devin Gallagher
Representative John Knight,
J.Knight Consulting
Submittal Date 09/19/2014
Complete Date 02/23/2015
Resubmittal Date 12/20/2016
Zoning M Manufacturing)
General Plan Services Manufacturing
Site Area 2.73 acres
Environmental
Status
A Mitigated Negative
Declaration was adopted by
the ARC on June 1,2015.
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to develop a Manufacturing zoned property with three shell buildings totaling
approximately 23,397 square feet. The proposed contemporary industrial designed buildings include
colors, materials, articulation, and detailing that are consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines. The project was previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
on June 1, 2015 (refer to Attachment 4, ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015).
At that time, the ARC adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and
approved a pre-fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek, including an associated creek setback
exception. In addition, the ARC provided three directional items specific to the site design and
Meeting Date: May 1, 2017
Item Number: 1
ARC1-1Page 89 of 186
ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street)
Page 2
location of loading docks and trash enclosures (refer to Section 3.0 Project Analysis) and continued
design review of the three proposed shell buildings to a date uncertain.
During review of the re-submitted plans, Staff met with interested parties and received
correspondence regarding the project (refer to Attachment 6, Public Correspondence). Therefore, this
report focuses on the applicant’s response to the ARC’s directional items and key public comments
and concerns.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to the review the proposed project, in terms of the project’s consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
Table 2.1 Site Information and Setting
Please refer to Attachment 4 (ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015) for
additional site and setting information.
2.2 Project Description. A summary of significant project features includes the following
Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans):
1. Three commercial shell buildings in the Manufacturing zone:
a. Building A: 8,736 square feet including mezzanine level
b. Building B: 9,957 square feet
c. Building C: 4,704 square feet including a 1,770-square foot second floor “caretaker’s
residence” with outdoor patio.
2. Tree removals (Chinese pistache, California pepper tree cluster and Italian stone pine) in the
location of proposed paving (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet A1
Architectural Site Plan). These removals and onsite tree plantings have been reviewed and
approved by the City Arborist.
3. Associated site improvements including a decorative concrete main access way, pavement,
porous pavers, parking, trash enclosures, 6,893-square foot outdoor yard between Buildings
A and B, a 2,934-square foot yard south of Building B, and site landscaping.
Site Size 2.73 acres
Present Use Development Vacant;newly constructed bridge across Meadow Creek
Land Use Designation Manufacturing M)
Access Bridge Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North:Light Industrial/Office M C S PD zoning)
South:Single family residences under construction Open
Space beyond R 2 PD C/OS zoning)
East:Existing single family residences R 2 SP zoning)
West:Live/work units under construction M PD zoning)
ARC1-2Page 90 of 186
ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street)
Page 3
4. Contemporary industrial design incorporating exposed metal beams, corrugated cor-ten
rusting) steel siding, corrugated galvanized roofing and siding, wood siding, zinc metal lap
siding, board-form concrete, wood decking, stucco, and anodized aluminum windows and
roll-up doors (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet A9, Materials Board).
Project statistics, including a comparison of the project previously reviewed by the ARC and the
proposed re-submitted project, are provided in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2 Project Statistics
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans, reviewed by ARC on June 1, 2015
2. Applicant’s re-submitted plans, dated March 30, 2017
3. City Zoning Regulations, March 2015
4. Measured from the edge of the yard
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project analysis below focuses on the applicant’s response to the ARC directional items and
responses to public comments and concerns regarding the project.
3.1 Response to Directional Items: The applicant submitted revised project plans and responses
to directional items identified by the ARC at the June 1, 2015 meeting. Plan excerpts are
provided below for reference; please refer to Attachment 3 for the complete project plan set.
Directional Item #1: Relocate Building A to be further from adjacent residential uses in order to
preserve views from the 215 Bridge Street project and providing additional buffering from the
proposed commercial building.
Item Previously Reviewed
Project1
Current Project2 Ordinance Standard3
Side Yard Setbacks
East R 2)
West M)
South R 2),Bldg.A
South R 2),Bldg.B
North creek)
12.3 feet
12 feet
12 feet
12 feet4
20 feet
16 feet,6 inches
12 feet
20 feet
12 feet4
20 feet
11.5 feet
0 feet
8 feet
20 feet frm top of bank
Max.Height
Building A
Building B
Building C
29 feet
29 feet
31 feet
27 feet,4 inches
25 feet,10 inches
31 feet
35 feet
Coverage 15%15%75%
Floor Area Ratio 0.19 0.19 1.5
Parking spaces 1 space per 376 square
feet 62 spaces)
1 space per 376 square
feet 63 spaces)
Requirement based on
tenants generally not
greater than 1 space
per 500 sf)
ARC1-3Page 91 of 186
ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street)
Page 4
Response: The proposed location of Building A has been shifted eight feet to the north,
increasing the building setback from the southern property line from 12 to 20 feet (refer to
Figures 1 and 2, below). A planted bioswale and a variety of trees including coast live oak,
California sycamore, and desert willow are proposed to be planted between Building A and the
western and southern property lines (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet L1).
Additional discussion regarding site design and neighborhood compatibility is provided in
Section 3.2 Public Comments, of this report.
Figure 1. Previously-reviewed Project Figure 2. Currently proposed project
Figure 3. Previously-reviewed Project Figure 4. Currently proposed project
Directional Item #2: Relocate loading docks and trash enclosures as far away as possible from
adjacent residential uses. Loading docks should be provided on the north side of the proposed
buildings or between clustered buildings to buffer noise from adjacent residential uses.
Response: The overhead doors and loading docks on the south side of Building B (see Figure 3)
have been relocated to the north side of the building, facing away from the adjacent residential
uses (see Figure 4). Trash enclosures have been relocated from the southern portion of the
property, as shown in Figure 3, to the center of the property, north of Building B (refer to Figure
4). The Building A loading dock and overhead door remain on the north side of the building, in
12’ setback 20’ setback
Creek setback (20’) Creek setback (20’)
Trash
Overhead doors
loading docks
Trash
Overhead
doors
ARC1-4Page 92 of 186
ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street)
Page 5
addition to overhead doors (but no identified loading dock) on the east side of the building. There
are overhead doors on the south side of Building C; however, the loading docks were removed
in a previous redesign presented to the ARC.
Directional Item #3: Revise the site plan to include one parking lot tree per every six parking
spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces per parking and driveway
standards.
Response: The site plan has been revised to include one parking lot tree per every six parking
spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces, resulting in the planting of
three additional trees (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet L1).
3.2 Public Comments: Public comments at the previous ARC hearing on this item included
concerns regarding the location, size, and height of proposed manufacturing shell buildings
relative to adjacent residential development, in addition to potential noise, lighting, flooding,
and traffic impacts. Review of the re-submitted plans included reaching out to interested parties
who previously provided comments on the proposed project, and similar issues were raised by
the public (see Attachment 6, Public Correspondence). The applicant’s response to these issues
is provided in Attachment 7, and additional responses to these concerns are presented below.
Neighborhood Compatibility, Caretaker’s Unit, Increased Setbacks, Size of Buildings. Proposed
Building C would be located approximately 16 feet, 6 inches to the west of the eastern property
line and an existing residence and garage located on the Exposition Drive cul-de-sac. At the
previous ARC hearing, the applicant presented a revised design for Building C, which shifted
the building to the south and west of its originally-proposed location and eliminated the loading
docks on the south side of the building. With these changes, the outdoor upper-story patio and
adjacent caretaker’s bedrooms and office would be located on the eastern side of the structure,
facing the adjacent residential neighborhood (Attachment 3, Sheet A3, Building C Floor Plan).
It is the applicant’s intention that the Building C caretaker would provide onsite security, and
would be a contact for the adjacent neighborhood (Attachment 7, Applicant Response Letter).
The height of the east-facing wall, including the raised building foundation, would be 21.5 feet
above grade, and roughly 2.5 feet above the height of the proximate residence and garage
Attachment 3, Sheet A7, Site Sections, Section AA). A new six-foot wood fence and
landscaping is proposed along the property line.
The applicant provided additional information including: visual simulations, which show the
project as seen from the Exposition Drive cul-de-sac; massing renderings to demonstrate the
appearance of Buildings A and C relative to proximate development; and a shadow analysis,
which shows the shadows created by the proposed project at various times during the year, with
the longest shadows cast to the east and northeast during the late afternoon hours (Attachment
8, Photo-simulations, Renderings, and Shadow Study).
One of the concepts identified by the adjacent neighbors is a 25-foot or greater setback along the
western, eastern, and southern property lines. In addition, Staff initially recommended the
following directional item: “Relocate the proposed buildings to be further from adjacent
residential uses in consideration of providing additional buffering between residential uses and
potential future uses that would be allowed at the subject location. The buildings should be
oriented closer to the creek and clustered to achieve more of a ‘village’ or ‘campus-like’ setting
ARC1-5Page 93 of 186
ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street)
Page 6
rather than spread throughout the site” (Attachment 4, ARC Agenda Report dated June 1, 2015).
This concept would provide opportunities for additional noise buffering by locating loading
docks and storage yards internal to the site and use of the buildings themselves to provide
additional noise attenuation. At the June 1, 2015 hearing, the ARC did not direct the applicant
to pursue this comprehensive site plan revision. As noted by the applicant, development
constraints include the minimum creek setback along the northern portion of the project site and
provision of adequate circulation and parking while maintaining the approximate size of the
proposed structures. Therefore, in response to ARC direction, the setback for Building A
increased from 12 to 20 feet as measured from the southern property line and roll-up doors and
loading docks facing adjacent residential properties have been eliminated from Buildings B and
C.
Noise and Lighting. The project does not currently include a noise wall along the property
boundary, and the adopted MND determined that potential noise impacts would be adequately
mitigated to less than significant by orienting loading facilities away from residential
development and use of the buildings themselves for noise attenuation (Attachment 9, MND,
Section 12. Noise). Potential impacts from individual uses will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance.
Regarding exterior lighting, while project lighting will be visible, the project is required to
comply with the City’s Night Sky Ordinance. All exterior lighting would be reviewed during the
building plan process and compliance confirmed in the field prior to occupancy.
Parking and Trail Use. The proposed project would include 63 onsite parking spaces, and no
parking space reductions are requested. No single use, or cumulative uses, would be allowed to
exceed 63 spaces, as calculated pursuant to Zoning Regulations Table 6, Parking Requirements
by Use. The project does not include a connection to the existing South Hills Open Space Trail
or Trailhead, and the site would be surrounded by fencing, which would prevent access to the
trail from the project site.
Flooding. The adopted MND included an assessment of potential hydrology and flood zone
impacts, as documented in the supportive evidence (Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic
Analysis; 2014) and as reviewed by the City Public Works Department (Attachment 9, MND,
Section 9 Hydrology and Water Quality). The Public Works Department also reviewed the re-
submitted plans. Based on these reviews and documentation, the project would not result in any
significant flooding impacts. In addition, the project is required to demonstrate management of
stormwater and flood waters such that the project would not result in peak flow runoff exiting
the property, in compliance with the Waterways Management Plan and associated Drainage
Design Manual.
Traffic. Based on the adopted MND for the project and review by the City Public Works
Department, the project would not generate trips that would exceed the capacity of the existing
street network (Attachment 9, MND, Section 16 Transportation/Traffic). The existing roadways
and intersections, including Bridge Street, South Street, and South Higuera, comply with City
roadway standards, which are designed to accommodate passenger vehicles and large trucks.
The trips generated by the proposed project would not warrant off-site road or intersection
improvements, as these trips would be adequately accommodated by the existing road network.
ARC1-6Page 94 of 186
ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street)
Page 7
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted for the project as a whole on June 1, 2015
see Attachment 9). Based on the minor changes to the project to address ARC directional items, and
inclusion of previously adopted mitigation measures into the recommended conditions of approval,
Staff recommends that the ARC find that the environmental effects of the modified project have been
adequately addressed in the previously adopted MND.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the Conditions of Approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
This alternative is not recommended, because further architectural review could be
accommodated in the review process.
6.2 Continue the project to a date uncertain, with specific directional items provided.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Re-submitted Project Plans
4. ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015
5. Previously-reviewed Plans
6. Public Correspondence
7. Applicant Response Letter
8. Photo-simulations, Renderings, and Shadow Study
9. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ER # 0286-2014
Included in Commissioner’s Packet: Re-Submitted Project Plans (11x17)
Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board
ARC1-7Page 95 of 186
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, May 1, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
May 1, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Brian Rolph, Allen Root, Greg Starzyk, Richard Beller,
Vice-Chair Angela Soll, and Chair Greg Wynn.
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Shawna
Scott. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in
the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 279 Bridge Street. ARCH-4293-2016: Continued design review of three shell
buildings (including a caretaker quarters) totaling approximately 23,397 square feet,
with associated site improvements and identified tree removals, with a determination
that the project is consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration; M zone; Devin Gallagher, applicant.
Associate Planner Shawna Scott presented an in-depth staff report.
Project Architect Jim Duffy, Ten Over Studio, provided a brief presentation and
responded to Commission inquiries.
Public Comments:
Jimmy Olson, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the project design.
Page 96 of 186
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of May 1, 2017 Page 2
Gayle Rosenberg, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding negative
environmental impacts.
Ray Brown, Alaska, requested clarification regarding site differentials.
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR SOLL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
ROLPH, CARRIED BY A 7-0 CONSENSUS to adopt the resolution which approves
the project including requested tree removals, and finds the project consistent with the
previously Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following modification:
Condition #8:
Trees within the buffer zone along the east property boundary shall be appropriate
for screening year-round….”
2. 1035 Madonna Road. ANNX-1502-2015: Final review of the Draft Design
Guidelines for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project: Final EIR is being prepared
for project under CEQA; Specific Plan area 2; Coastal Community Builders, applicant.
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the staff report, highli ghting applicant
responses to previous direction from the Commission, and responded to Commission
inquiries.
The Commission recessed at 6:20 p.m. and reconvened at 6:25 p.m. with all
Commissioners present.
Applicant Representative Marshal Ochylski presented a brief project update.
Architect Project Manager Randy Russom, RRM Design Group, provided an overview
of the project, including revisions to-date and an overall project history.
Public Comments:
Kevin Hauber, Mortgage House, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Gary Grossman, Owner, offered information regarding the general project vision and
intent to provide work-force housing.
Ron Yukelson, Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, spoke in favor of the project and
recommended approval of the draft design guidelines.
Brett Cross, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with the design guidelines and requested
clarification.
Page 97 of 186
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of May 1, 2017 Page 3
Theodora Jones, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with the project design guidelines.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project and
expressed concerns with the design guidelines.
Laurie Tamura stated her involvement with the project’s design team and spoke in
favor of the project.
Kaila Anderson, Economic Vitality Corporation, provided information regarding local
housing needs.
Marshall Ochylski referenced Rob Davidson’s written correspondence.
End of Public Comment --
Commission discussion followed regarding concerns with inconsistencies between
content and graphics, lack of connectivity between neighborhoods, and lot efficiency.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
STARZYK, CARRIED BY A 7-0 CONSENSUS to continue the item to a date
uncertain.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Deputy Director Davidson provided and agenda forecast.
There was a brief, general discussion regarding the City’s process for following up with current
project compliance with approval conditions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 07/17/2017
Page 98 of 186
Meeting Date:September 9,2019
Item Number:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant is requesting design review of a proposed mixed use project consisting of three
buildings including:Building A 8,636 square foot sf]manufacturing shell with mezzanine);Building
B 31,726 sf mixed use building including 7,200 sf of commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft
style,two bedroom residential units above);and Building C 6,850 sf mixed use building including
3,421 sf of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above)with associated
parking and site improvements Attachment 1,Project Plans).The project includes a request for a
mixed use parking reduction of six percent.
Previous Entitlement Background.On May 1,2017,the Architectural Review Commission ARC)
approved a project on this project site that consisted of three commercial shell buildings including the
following:Building A 8,636 square feet including mezzanine level)no change proposed from previous
entitlement);Building B 9,957 square feet);and Building C 4,704 square feet including a second floor
caretaker’s residence with outdoor patio).The previous approval included tree removals and onsite
plantings as recommended by the City Arborist,and associated site improvements Attachment 2,
Previous ARC Report and Resolution).Since that time,the applicant has substantially modified the
project and proposed uses for the site,which require design review by the ARC with a
recommendation to be provided to the Planning Commission PC])and consideration of a PC Use
Permit to establish the proposed mixed use project and mixed use parking reduction.
General Location:The 2.73 acre project site is
located south of Bridge Street,and is accessed via
an existing bridge over Meadow Creek.
Present Use:Vacant
Zoning:Manufacturing M)
General Plan:Services Manufacturing
Surrounding Uses and Zoning:
East:Existing single family residences,R 2 SP
West:Live/work units,M PD
North:Light Industrial/Office,M C S PD
South:Single family residences Open Space
beyond,R 2 PD C/OS zoning
FROM:Shawna Scott,Senior Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS:279 Bridge Street FILE NUMBERS:ARCH 0255 2019/USE 0526 2019
APPLICANT:Bridge Squared,LLC REPRESENTATIVE:Aisling Fearon
For more information contact:Shawna Scott at 781 7176 or sscott@slocity.org
Figure 1:Subject Property
Page 99 of 186
ARCH 0255 2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 2
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture:Industrial Contemporary
Design details:Entry feature leading to rear parking area behind/under Building B,ground level
commercial with two story residential units with roof top decks above Building B),roof top solar
panels,large windows,decks,balconies,and exterior stairs,flat and sloping roof elements,and
landscaped buffer along the eastern,western,and southern property lines
Materials:Metal wall panels,corrugated siding,smooth painted stucco,wood decking
Colors:Matte dark bronze,grays,rust,red/maroon
3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1)review the proposed mixed use project in terms of its consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines CDG)and applicable City Standards and 2)provide comments and
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
4.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required
Setbacks Side Edge Condition 12 feet Building A)
30 feet Building B)
20 feet Building C)
None required M zone)
23 feet Edge Condition)
19 feet Edge Condition)
Setbacks Rear 20 feet Building A)
24 feet Building B)
16 feet Edge Condition)
23 feet Edge Condition)
Setbacks Roof deck 35+feet Building B)33 feet Edge Condition)
Maximum Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage footprint)14%75%
Required Parking Spaces 70*70*
Environmental Status Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration ER#0286 2014)
Includes requested 6%mixed use parking reduction to be considered by Planning Commission
Figure 2:Building B portion)Figure 3:Building C mixed use)
Page 100 of 186
ARCH 0255 2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 3
5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS1
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
Chapter 2 General Design Principals
2.1.B.Consider the
context
The project site is located on a parcel zoned M,with single family residences
to the south and east,live/work units to the west,and commercial,
industrial,and office uses in the proximity along Bridge Street.The ARC
should discuss how the project fits in with the best examples o f appropriate
site design and architecture in the vicinity of the site.
Chapter 3,Section 3.1 Commercial Project Design Guidelines
3.1.B.2.Neighborhood
compatibility
3.1.C.1.Site planning,
consider neighboring
development
As noted above,the project site is located in an area that demonstrates a
variety of land uses,and is proximate to structures with varying
architectural styles.In addition,the development would be approximately
200 feet setback from Bridge Street,and surrounded by existing
development.The proposed project setbacks from adjacent residential
development meets or exceeds standard setbacks.The ARC should discuss
the project’s proportionality and size,building setbacks and massing,and
application of colors and materials relative to the surrounding
neighborhood.
3.1.C.2.g.Site planning,
multiple buildings
This guideline states that multiple buildings in a single project should be
designed to create a visual and functional relationship with one another”,
which creates opportunities for plazas and pedestrian areas while
preventing long rows of buildings.The guideline notes that where clustering
is impractical,a visual link should be established between buildings.The
project incorporates landscaping,pavers,and an entry feature/elevated
walkway Building B),which provide visual links between the buildings.
Chapter 3,Section 3.3 Industrial Project Design Guidelines
3.3.A.3.General design
objectives,building
setbacks
The proposed project site plan for the Buildings B and C show setbacks
ranging from 20 to 30 feet from neighboring residential uses,consistent
with the Zoning Regulations for the edge conditions adjacent zoning is R 2
to the south and east).The ARC should discuss if the proposed project
setbacks are proportionate to the scale of the structure such that the
buildings would not visually impose on neighboring uses.
3.3.A.5.General design
objectives,main elements
This guideline notes that preferred site design show multiple buildings on
the same site clustered to create a campus like setting that takes advantage
of shared open space and pedestrian amenities.”As noted above
3.2.C.2.g.Site planning,multiple buildings),while clustering of the
buildings may be impractical due to the shape of the parcel and recognition
of the standard creek setback for Meadow Creek,the project includes
1 Community Design Guidelines:https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Page 101 of 186
ARCH 0255 2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 4
landscaped areas,a pedestrian path constructed with permeable pavers
near the creek,an outdoor patio,and decks.
3.3.B.2.Architectural
design,mass and scale of
structures
The proposed design demonstrates use of articulated facades by
incorporating balconies and decks.A variety of siding materials metal,
corrugated metal,and stucco)is proposed to provide texture,relief,and
visual interest.The ARC should discuss if additional articulation is needed,
such as offsets.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project,which may include specific conditions of approval to
be considered by the Planning Commission.
6.2 Continue the project.An action continuing the application should include direction to the
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.3 Recommend denial the project.An action denying the application should include findings
that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan,CDG,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
7.1 Project Plans
7.2 Previous ARC Report and Resolution May 1,2017
7.3 Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 102 of 186
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, September 9, 2019
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
September 9, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Micah Smith, Christie Withers, and Chair Allen Root
Absent: Commissioners Michael DeMartini, Mandi Pickens, and Vice-Chair Amy Nemcik
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of
August 28, 2019.
ACTION: By consensus, this item was deferred to the next regular meeting of the
Architectural Review Commission, to be held on September 16, 2019.
Page 103 of 186
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 9, 2019 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Project Address: 564 Higuera; Case #: ARCH-0150-2019; Zone: C-D; Design review of
a four-story mixed-use project consisting of 36 residential dwellings and 68 square feet
of commercial space, including a request for a 22 percent density bonus in exchange for
providing affordable units within the project. The project is categorically exempt from
environmental review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Scott Martin of RRM Design Group, and applicant, Damian Mavis,
reviewed the project in relationship to the City’s Major City Goals, addressed the project’s unit
size and quantity differences from the currently entitled design, and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
James Lopes
James Papp
Victoria Wood
Jim Duffy
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 3-1-3 (COMMISSIONER WITHERS DISSENTING) to forward the
project to the Planning Commission with the following recommended conditions:
1.Remove water tower
2.Use corrugated metal as accent only
3.Reduce projecting gable with corrugated metal on rear elevation
4.Reduce corrugated metal on right elevation
5.Consider reducing the depth of the upper balconies on rear elevation
6.Consider reducing light well and pitch of upper story rooms, reduce height of closet, reduce
metal stair tower by approximately four feet
7.Planning Commission should verify that colors shown on elevations are consistent with the
actual samples
Note: A second motion was made due to a clerical error. It was determined that the original
motion carried and stands as the record.
RECESS
The ARC recessed at 6:20 p.m. and reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with all ARC Members present.
Page 104 of 186
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 9, 2019 Page 3
3.Project Address: 279 Bridge; Case #: ARCH-0255-2019; Zone: M; Design review of a
mixed-use project consisting of three buildings approximately 8,636, 31,726, and 6,850
square feet each, including: Building A (5,719-square foot [sf] shell with a 2,917 sf
mezzanine); Building B (7,200 sf commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft-style,
two-bedroom residential units above); and Building C (3,421-sf commercial shell on the
ground level with two residential units above) with associated parking and site
improvements. Project includes a request for a mixed-use parking reduction of six
percent, and an Addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER
0286-2014).
Senior Planner Shawna Scott presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Jim Duffy and Aisling Fearon of Ten Over Studios, and applicant
Devon Gallagher reviewed the changes from the previously entitled project design, the addition
of housing units, and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Marti Kessler
James Papp
Jim Nielson
John Semon
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITHERS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 3-1-3 (COMMISSIONER BELLER DISSENTING) to approve the
project and forward it to the Planning Commission with the following recommended direction:
1.Revised plans to show additional variability and articulation on Building B
2.Consider additional screening for rear parking
Note: A second motion was made due to a clerical error. It was determined that the original
motion carried and stands as the record.
RECESS
The ARC recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 7:35 p.m. with all ARC Members present.
Page 105 of 186
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 9, 2019 Page 4
4.Project Address: 545 Higuera; Case #: ARCH-1713-2018; Zone: C-D; Design review of
a four-story mixed-use project consisting of approximately 5,209 square feet of
commercial use on the ground floor and 56 residential units above, including provision
of 10 percent low-income affordable units, an associated 19 percent density bonus, and a
request for a standard incentive to apply affordable housing parking standards identified
in Zoning Regulations Section 17.140.040.K. Project includes: a request for a mechanical
parking lift; parking, landscaping, and site improvements; and a categorical exemption
from environmental review (CEQA).
Senior Planner Shawna Scott presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Joel Snider of Ten Over Studio, and applicant Taylor Judkins,
presented highlights of the project and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
James Lopes
Jean Martin
James Papp
Jim Andre
Eugene Jud
Victoria Wood
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 4-0-3 to continue the project to a date uncertain, with the following
direction:
1.Revise plans to: incorporate a step back at the third floor (not fourth); step-back bookends
facing Higuera and Marsh; slide upper floor in and constrict upper units closer together
refer to Community Design Guidelines 4.2.B).
2.Revise colors by using a darker color on upper (fourth) floor to provide contrast and help
it visually recede more and using a lighter color on the spandrel covers (lines between
floors).
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
Page 106 of 186
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 9, 2019 Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 10/07/2019
Page 107 of 186
Page 108 of 186
Meeting Date: September 25, 2019
Item Number: 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a proposed mixed-use project consisting of three buildings including: Building
A (8,636-square foot [sf] manufacturing shell with mezzanine); Building B (31,726 sf mixed-use
building including 7,200 sf of commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom
residential units above); and Building C (6,850-sf mixed-use building including 3,421-sf of commercial
shell on the ground level with two residential units above) with associated parking and site improvements
The project includes a request for a mixed-use parking reduction of six percent, and an Addendum to the
previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER#0286-2014).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street BY: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
PhoneNumber: (805) 781-7176
E-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBERS: ARCH-0255-2019/USE-0526-2019
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the project based on
findings and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Devin Gallagher
Representative Aisling Fearon,Ten Over Studio
General Plan Services Manufacturing
Zoning Manufacturing M)
Site Area 2.73 acres
Environmental
Status
Addendum to the previously
adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration ER#0286 2014)
SUMMARY
The 2.73-acre project site is located at the terminus of Bridge Street, within an area that supports a variety
of uses including manufacturing, commercial, offices, live/work, multi-family residential, and single-
family residential. The site is zoned Manufacturing (M), and surrounding zones include Manufacturing
M) to the north and west, and Residential (R-2) to the south and east. Lands further to the south,
including the South Hills, are zoned Conservation/Open Space (C/OS). The site is accessed from Bridge
2
Packet Page 4Page 109 of 186
ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 2
Street, via an existing bridge that crosses the riparian corridor along the northern boundary of the
proposed development area. The site is nearly level, and is within the AO floodzone.1
Previous Entitlement History
On May 1, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a project on this project site
that consisted of three commercial/light manufacturing shell buildings including the following: Building
A (8,636 square feet including mezzanine level) (no change proposed from previous entitlement);
Building B (9,957 square feet); and Building C (4,704 square feet including a second floor caretaker’s
residence with outdoor patio). The project approval included approval of a Master Use List to minimize
potential neighborhood incompatibilities, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
previous approval included tree removals and onsite plantings as recommended by the City Arborist,
and associated site improvements (Attachment 3, ARC staff reports and resolution). Since that time, the
applicant has substantially modified the project and proposed uses for the site, which required design
review by the ARC (with a recommendation provided to the Planning Commission) and requires
consideration of a Use Permit to establish the proposed mixed-use project and mixed-use parking
reduction.
Proposed Project
The proposed mixed-use project consists of three buildings and associated site improvements (refer to
Attachment 2, Project Plans) including:
Building A, an approximately 27-foot tall 8,636-square foot manufacturing shell with mezzanine
Building B, an approximately 35-foot tall, 31,726-square foot building consisting of three, three
story-structures connected by an elevated walkway on the second floor. 7,200 square feet of
commercial shell and covered parking on the ground level, with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom
residential units above. The project includes roof decks for private outdoor use, and structural
projections (up to 45 feet) include stair towers and solar panels.
Building C, an approximately 30-foot tall, 6,850-square foot mixed-use building including 3,421-
sf of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above.
Site improvements include surface parking, short and long-term bicycle parking, landscaping,
walkways, bioretention basins, permeable pavement.
Project includes a request for a six percent mixed parking reduction, resulting in a total of 70
vehicle parking spaces.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and applicable City development standards and guidelines. Planning Commission review is
required for consideration of a mixed-use project in the Manufacturing (M) zone. As the project requires
Planning Commission review, consideration of the proposed six percent mixed-use parking reduction is also
within the Planning Commission’s purview, in addition to the proposed Addendum to the previously
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1 AO Floodzone: Potential of flooding up to two feet during a 100-year storm
Packet Page 5Page 110 of 186
ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 3
2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW OF CURRENT PROJECT
The ARC reviewed the proposed project on September 9, 2019 for consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines (CDG) and voted 3:1:3 to recommend the approval of the architectural design with
the following modifications: 1) revise plans to show additional variability and articulation on Building
B and 2) consider additional screening for the rear parking (Attachment 3, ARC staff report). Following
the ARC meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans to address the ARC’s recommendations for the
Planning Commission’s consideration (Attachment 2, Project Plans) (refer to Section 3.3 Architectural
Review Commission Directional Items).
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations, and be consistent
with applicable Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The Planning Commission’s role is to review
the project for consistency with applicable standards, as discussed in this analysis.
3.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element’s (LUE) described uses for the Services and Manufacturing land
use designation include residential uses as part of mixed-use projects.2 The LUE states that the City shall:
promote infill development that contributes positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas
Policy 2.2.7 Neighborhood Enhancement) and shall encourage mixed-use projects where appropriate
and compatible with existing and planned development; and shall support the location of mixed use
projects near major activity nodes and transportation corridors where appropriate (Policy 2.3.6 Housing
and Business). There is an existing transit stop approximately 0.4 mile from the project site on South
Higuera Street, and the site is proximate to Exposition and Meadow Parks, the South Hills Natural Area,
and bicycle routes on surrounding roads. The mixed-use project includes uses that provide a transition
between the residential neighborhood and uses to the west and north, and the industrial and commercial
uses to the south and east.
As noted above, the project site is within a floodplain. Consistent with LUE Policies 6.6.6 and 6.7.1
Creeks, Wetlands, and Flooding Policies, Development Requirements; Creeks and Flooding Programs,
Previously Developed Areas), the project design complies with the minimum creek setback standard (20
feet) and minimizes drainage concentrations and impervious coverage by including the use of
bioretention basins, permeable paving, and landscaping. A Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic
Analysis (KVC, 2014) was prepared for the site, and the consulting engineer (Keith V. Crowe, PE, PLS)
prepared the preliminary grading and drainage plan for the project. This document and plans were
reviewed by City engineers to determine compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management
Regulations (which allow for the “dry” floodproofing of commercial buildings) and the Drainage Design
Manual. As proposed, the project is consistent with these regulations and standards, and further review
of final grading, drainage, and stormwater management plans will be required upon the applicant’s
submittal of applications for grading and building permits. Compliance with existing regulations and
standards would ensure consistency with Safety Element Policy S (Flood Hazard Avoidance and
Reduction).
2 LUE Table 1. General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards within the LUCE Planning Sub-area
Packet Page 6Page 111 of 186
ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 4
The Noise Element of the General Plan sets noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses, such
as the residential uses adjacent to the project site.3 Consistent with Noise Element Policy 1.8 (Preferred
Noise Mitigation Approaches), the project site plan shows the proposed light manufacturing shell located
near the western property boundary and locates outdoor uses and doors facing the interior of the project
site. The proposed project is buffered from the Iron Works industrial use by live/work units on the
adjacent parcel to the west. Regarding future uses within the identified light manufacturing and
commercial shells, the project is subject to the Master Use list approved with the previous entitlement
and limitations on use as required by the Zoning Regulations (refer to discussion below). In addition, as
proposed, the applicant would be required to comply with the Zoning Regulations, which limits hours
of operation for non-residential uses within mixed-use projects (7:00 AM to 8:00 PM).
3.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The proposed project complies with lot coverage, density, and building height standards identified for
the M zone. As the site is located adjacent to an R-2 zone, Zoning Regulations 17.70.050 (Edge
Conditions) applies to the project. The proposed project does not include any balconies or terraces facing
the properties within the R-2 zone, and meets minimum required setbacks based on building height and
the proposed rooftop decks (refer to Project Statistics, below).
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed (Minimum) Allowed/Required
Setbacks – Side / Edge Condition 12 feet (Building A)
23 feet (Building B)
20 feet (Building C)
None required (M zone)
23 feet (Edge Condition)
19 feet (Edge Condition)
Setbacks – Rear 20 feet (Building A)
24 feet (Building B)
16 feet (Edge Condition)
23 feet (Edge Condition)
Setbacks – Roof-deck 33 feet (Building B) 33 feet (Edge Condition)
Maximum Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 14% 75%
Required Parking Spaces 70* 70*
Includes requested 6% mixed-use parking reduction to be considered by Planning Commission
The project is consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-Use Development) site
layout and design standards because: the location of residential units would minimize noise exposure
from existing industrial uses in the general area; proposed shell Building A would be located in the
southwest corner of the project site; all non-residential uses within the site are restricted by limitations
on use for mixed-use projects;4 and the project incorporates pedestrian walkways and connections within
3 Maximum exposure to stationary noise sources: 50 dB hourly (7AM-10PM), 45 dB hourly (10PM-7AM)
4 ZR Section 17.70.130.D.4 The following uses and activities shall not be allowed within any mixed-use development: a.
Major vehicle/equipment repair (e.g., body or mechanical work, including boats and recreational vehicles, vehicle detailing
and painting, upholstery, or any similar use); b. Storage of flammable liquids or hazardous materials beyond that normally
associated with a residential use; c. Manufacturing or industrial activities, including but not limited to welding, machining,
or any open flame work; or d. Any other activity or use, as determined by the review authority, to be incompatible with
residential activities and/or to have the possibility of affecting the health or safety of mixed-use development residents due
Packet Page 7Page 112 of 186
ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 5
the site. As noted above, the project complies with required Edge Condition standards, which would
reduce potential impacts on proximate residential uses. Solid fencing and a landscape buffer are
proposed along the western, southern, and eastern perimeter to address potential light/glare impacts and
visibility, and the building designs are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which
demonstrates a primarily commercial/industrial character along Bridge Street.
3.3 Architectural Review Commission Directional Items
The ARC voted 3:1:3 (three Commissioners absent) to recommend approval of the architectural design
with the following two modifications to be addressed in the final design of the project:
ARC Directional Item #1: Revise plans to show additional variability and articulation on Building B.
Response: The proposed design for Building B reviewed by the ARC consisted of two structures
approximately 8,326 (B.1) and 23,400 (B.2) square feet each, connected by a second floor walkway
refer to Figure 1, below). The applicant’s revised plans show three structures, approximately 8,326
B.1), 11,700 (B.2), and 11,700 (B.3) square feet each, connected by a second floor walkway (refer to
Figure 2, below). The revised design breaks up the long wall face of previous structure B.2 by dividing
this structure into two (B.2 and B.3) with a ten-foot separation, and incorporates a landscaped pedestrian
walkway between structures B.2 and B.3. The revised design provides additional articulation including
an arch feature over the ten-foot wide walkway between B.2 and B.3, and approximately four-foot
setbacks in the north-facing rooftop planters.
Figure 1. Building B North Elevation Reviewed by the ARC
Figure 2. Revised Building B North Elevation
to the potential for the use to create dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts,
or would be hazardous because of materials, processes, products, or wastes.
Packet Page 8Page 113 of 186
ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 6
ARC Directional Item #2: Consider additional screening for the rear parking area.
Response: The applicant proposes to address this item by providing additional landscaping along the
southern property boundary. The landscape plans reviewed by the ARC showed eight trees between the
rear Building B access and parking area. The applicant’s proposed revised landscape plan shows an
additional seven trees, including three California sycamores between the surface parking area and the
adjacent lot to the south. The revised plan continues to show six-foot solid wood fencing along the
western, southern, and eastern perimeter.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted on June 1, 2015 for the
proposed project, which included construction of a bridge over the creek and three manufacturing shell
buildings. Since that time, construction of the bridge has been completed. The adopted IS/MND
identifies that the project would potentially affect the following environmental factors unless mitigated:
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, and noise.
The currently proposed project is located within the same footprint as the project assessed in the adopted
IS/MND; however changes including proposed uses and the larger size of Building B (and to a lesser
extent, the larger size of Building C) necessitated preparation of an Addendum to the adopted IS/MND
to address the project changes, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (refer to Attachment 4).
Section 15164 subsection (b) states that an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be
prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described
in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
This section of the State CEQA Guidelines is designed to provide clear authority for an addendum as a
way of making minor changes or additions to an IS/MND. A summary of the potential impacts and
adopted mitigation measures required to ensure potential impacts are mitigated to a level of
insignificance is provided below:
Aesthetics: Similar to the originally approved project, exterior lighting has the potential to result in glare
as seen from parking lot and building light poles affecting adjacent residences. Required mitigation
includes replacement of freestanding light posts with bollard lighting that is outside required setbacks
Mitigation Measures AES 1 and AES 2).
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Similar to the originally approved project, construction
activities have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards and affect
adjacent sensitive residential uses. Required mitigation includes compliance with San Luis Obispo Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) air emission reduction measures, Air Resources Board regulations
related to naturally occurring and material containing asbestos, and APCD permit requirements
Mitigation Measures AQ 1, AQ 2, AQ 3, AQ 4, and AQ 5). Operation of the project as currently
proposed would not exceed APCD thresholds for operational emissions, and future uses are subject to
screening-level health risk assessments when determined to be necessary by the APCD, based on the
specific use (Mitigation Measure AQ 6). Based on the limitations on use for mixed-use projects, it is
unlikely any future uses would require a health risk assessment; however, this measure remains to ensure
potential impacts would be less than significant.
Packet Page 9Page 114 of 186
ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019
279 Bridge Street
Page 7
Biological Resources: The proposed project would be located within a similar footprint as the originally
approved project, and would result in similar impacts including effects due to shallow groundwater
conditions, impacts to nesting birds and wildlife, and impacts to other waters. Required mitigation
includes: the use of caisson foundation design, to be engineered pursuant to a final geotechnical
engineering report, and compliance with Clean Water Act permits (Mitigation Measures BIO 1, BIO 2,
BIO 3, BIO 4, and BIO 5). The bridge component analyzed in the adopted MND has been constructed;
therefore, mitigation related to the bridge is not applicable to the current project.
Geology/Soils: Similar to the originally-proposed project, shallow groundwater present within the site
necessitates a caisson foundation system, and required mitigation includes provision of a geotechnical
engineering investigation and comprehensive design level report (Mitigation Measure GEO 1).
Noise: The originally-approved project consisted of manufacturing uses and a caretaker’s unit; the
adopted MND identifies a potential noise impact resulting from the use of loading docks (affecting
adjacent residential uses). Required mitigation includes orienting loading facilities away from adjacent
residential development (Mitigation Measure NOI 1). The current project is restricted by the limitations
on use and noise standards specific to mixed-use projects, which would further reduce potential
operational noise impacts.
The addendum (Attachment 4) adds additional information to the environmental record for the project,
including changes to the project description and associated analysis. As documented and supported by
the analysis in the addendum: 1) these minor technical changes do not materially change the findings
and conclusions of the adopted IS/MND; 2) no substantial changes are proposed or would occur that
would require major revisions to the adopted IS/MND; 3) no new significant environmental effects are
identified and there would not be a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; 4) the project would not result in any significant effects that would be substantially more severe
than what was identified in the adopted IS/MND; and 5) the applicant will comply with all identified
adopted mitigation measures, which are incorporated into the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1).
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
All City Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments that are incorporated
into the staff report and recommended resolution as conditions of approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
6.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis
for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design
Guidelines, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Current ARC report and attached previous ARC report and resolution
4. Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Packet Page 10Page 115 of 186
City ofSanLuisObispo, Council Agenda, CityHall, 990Palm Street, SanLuis
Obispo
Minutes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Wulkan
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Robert Jorgensen, Steve Kahn, John McKenzie, Nicholas Quincey,
Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chair Hemalata Dandekar and Chair Mike Wulkan
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Principal Planner Tyler Corey,
Assistant City Attorney Charles Bell, and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian.
Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Wulkan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATION
City Manager Derek Johnson and City Attorney Christine Dietrick provided a presentation
concerning the purview and expectations of the Planning Commission. Council Member
Christianson provided the Council perspective concerning the relationship of the various advisory
bodies and Council’s expectations for the Commission.
1.CONSENT AGENDA – CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE, CARRIED 7-0-0 to approve the minutes of July 24, 2019.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
End of public comment—
Page 116 of 186
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 25, 2019
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Review of a proposed mixed-use project consisting of three buildings including: Building
A (8,636-square foot [sf] manufacturing shell with mezzanine); Building B (31,726 sf
mixed-use building including 7,200 sf of commercial shell on the ground level with 16
loft-style, two-bedroom residential units above); and Building C (6,850 -sf mixed-use
building including 3,421-sf of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential
units above) with associated parking and site improvements The project includes a
request for a mixed-use parking reduction of six percent, and an Addendum to the
previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER#0286-2014); Project Address:
279 Bridge. Case #: ARCH-0255-2019; Zone: M; Bridge Squared, LLC, applicant. Project
Address: 279 Bridge. Case #: ARCH-0255-2019; Zone: M; Bridge Squared, LLC, applicant.
Senior Planner Shawna Scott presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Aisling Fearon with Ten Over Studio, summarized responses made
resultant to the Architectural Review Commission concerns as now presented in the project,
reviewed project fit to the neighborhood and City Goals, and responded to commissioner
questions.
Chair Wulkan opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
Marti Kessler
Garret McElveny
End of Public Comment--
Applicant representative, Aisling Fearon, responded to questions raised during public
comment as well as further commissioner questions.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENSON, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, CARRIED 6-1-0 (MCKENZIE DISSENTING) to adopt a
resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING
A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF THREE BUILDINGS OF 8,636, 31,726, AND
6,850 SQUARE FEET EACH, INCLUDING A SIX PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION,
AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER
25, 2019 (279 BRIDGE STREET, ARCH-0255-2019 AND USE-0526-2019),” and to include
the following modifications and/or conditions:
Allow up to 12-foot lighting in the parking area if shielded from adjacent properties and conforming
to the night sky ordinance
Roof top lighting must conform to the night sky ordinance
Page 117 of 186
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 25, 2019
Page 3 of 3
Requirement for mechanical ventilation in residential units
Mitigation Measure BIO 2
o Strike the final sentence of paragraph one
o Add a requirement for a weekly biologist inspection during construction and training
of construction personnel on best practices concerning nesting birds
Reference Master Use list as an exhibit to the resolution with zoning code regulations
limitations for mixed-use project applied and specifically prohibiting the following uses:
o Auto parts sales and installation
o Veterinary clinic hospital and boarding
3.Review of the proposed annexation of approximately 39 acres of property along Fiero
Lane and Clarion Court; this action includes consideration of an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration tiered from the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for
the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans
SCH#2000051062); Project Address: 850 Fiero. Case #: ANNX-1166-2015, Zone:
Easement; Fiero Lane Water Company, applicant.
Due to a public notification error, this item was continued to the October 9, 2019 Planning
Commission meeting.
4.Project Address: 564 Higuera. Case #: ARCH-0150-2019; Zone: C-D; Creekside Lofts,
LP, owner/applicant.
This item was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to respond to
Architectural Review Commission direction, and for staff to prepare evaluation of any design
modifications.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.Agenda Forecast – Principal Planner Tyler Corey provided an update of upcoming projects,
introduced the idea of holding a Planning Commission retreat, and responded to commissioner
questions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 10/09/2019
Page 118 of 186
Meeting Date: July 19, 2021
Item Number: 1
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of three new three-story structures, which contain 94 low-income
affordable units, community rooms, and leasing/management offices, and one new one-story
commercial structures consisting of 924 square feet of commercial/office space. The project proposes
a podium style design for the residential structures that provides parking and community rooms on
the ground floor, with residential units on the second and third floors. The proposed site
improvements include several outdoor green spaces with seating and play areas, with a community
courtyard along the Meadow Creek (Attachment 1, Project Plans). The project site is located in close
proximity to Meadow Park and South Hill hiking trails, with an existing pedestrian and bike accessway
from the end of Bridge Street to Exposition Drive.
The project includes a request for a 24% Density Bonus to increase the density of the site from 65.52
Density Units/Acre to 80.92 Density Units/Acre, by providing 100% of the units dedicated for
affordable housing to low-income households. The project includes two affordable housing incentives
requests, which are subject to Planning Commission Review: 1) an alternative incentive, to reduce site
development standards to allow for balconies on the second and third floors on the building side facing
an adjacent property that is zoned low-density (§17.70.050.D.31) 2) an alternative incentive, to reduce
site development standards to allow window placement of the residential units without the 12-inch
horizontal offset (§17.70.050.D.32).
The project has been proposed to be developed in three phases: (1) Site improvements, commercial
structure, and residential structure 1 - 32 residential units, (2) Senior housing structure 2 – 32 units,
(3) the remaining site improvements and residential structure 3 - 30 units. This phased approach
anticipates 20 months of construction per phase, over a five-to-seven-year schedule, subject to
financing as an individual tax credit project. The phasing schedule will be reviewed in more detail by
the Planning Commission proceeding the ARC’s recommendation, and subject to conditions.
1 17.70.050.D.3 Edge Conditions. Standards. Upper-Level Open Space Orientation and Setbacks. Balconies and terraces are
prohibited above the first floor on the building side facing an adjacent zone receiving transition.
2 17.70.050.D.5 Edge Conditions. Standards. Windows. All windows along any facade facing a property in a zone receiving
transition shall, at the second story and above, be offset horizontally at least 12 inches (edge to edge) from any windows
on buildings on an adjacent property in a zone rec eiving transition, with the intent of preserving privacy and avoiding
having windows immediately opposite each other.
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021,
& AFFH-0413-2021
APPLICANT: Scott Smith, HASLO
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Page 119 of 186
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, & AFFH-0413-2021
279 Bridge Street
Page 2
General Location: The 2.73-acre project site is
located south of Bridge Street and is accessed
via an existing bridge over Meadow Creek. The
property is flat with a gentle slope from east to
west, with an average cross slope of less than
2%.
Present Use: Vacant parcel
Zoning: Manufacturing (M)
General Plan: Services & Manufacturing
Surrounding Uses:
East: Existing single-family residences, R-2-SP
West: Live/work units, M-PD
North: Light Industrial/Office, M & C-S-PD
South: Single-family residences & Open Space
beyond, R-2-PD & C/OS
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary design
Design details: Gable roof system, large eave overhangs, ground floor structured parking with wood
screening, upper-level balconies, ground floor courtyards, and landscaping throughout.
Materials: Sand finish stucco, corrugated metal siding & roofing, and metal railing.
Colors: Primary off-white stucco, dark grey and beige accent colors, and black windows & door trim.
3.0 PREVIOUS ENTITLEMENT REVIEW
On May 1, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a project on this project site
that consisted of three commercial shell buildings including the following: Building A (8,636 square
feet [sf]); Building B (9,957 sf); and Building C (4,704 sf including a second-floor caretaker’s residence).
The previous approval included tree removals and onsite plantings as recommended by the City
Arborist, and associated site improvements (Attachment 2, ARC Report & Minutes 5.1.17).
On September 9, 2019, the ARC reviewed a modification to the approved project and proposed uses
for the site. The revised project consisted of three buildings including: Building A (8,636 sf
manufacturing shell); Building B (31,726 sf mixed-use building including 7,200 sf of commercial shell
on the ground level with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom residential units above); and Building C (6,850-sf
mixed-use building including 3,421-sf of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential
units above), the ARC recommended the approval of the revised design to the Planning Commission
for final action (Attachment 3, ARC Report & Minutes 9.9.19).
On September 25, 2019, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed and approved the revised project
design with associated parking and site improvements and a mixed-use parking reduction (Attachment
4, PC Report & Minutes 9.25.19).
Figure 1: Subject Property
Page 120 of 186
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, & AFFH-0413-2021
279 Bridge Street
Page 3
4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines (CDG) and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments and
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and CDG. Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with CDG
Chapters 2 (General Design Principles), Chapter 3.1 (Commercial Project Design), Chapter 3.3
(Industrial Project Design), Chapter 5.4 (Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design), Chapter 6 (Site
Planning and Other Details). Relevant aspects of the project’s consistency with these guidelines are
summarized in the table below, particularly where further discussion of consistency is warranted.
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
Chapter 2 – General Design Principles
§2.1.B: Consider the Context
The project site is located on a parcel zoned M, with single-family
residences to the south and east, live/work units to the west, and
commercial, industrial, and office uses in the proximity along Bridge
Street. The ARC should discuss how the project fits in with the best
examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of
the site.
Chapter 3 – Section 3.1 (Commercial Project Design Guidelines)
§3.1.B.2: Neighborhood
compatibility
As noted above, the project site is located in an area that demonstrates
a variety of land uses and is proximate to structures with varying
Figure 2: Rendering of project design from creek side courtyard.
Page 121 of 186
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, & AFFH-0413-2021
279 Bridge Street
Page 4
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
§3.1.C.1: Site planning, consider
neighboring development
architectural styles. In addition, the development would be
approximately 200 feet setback from Bridge Street and surrounded by
existing development. The proposed project setbacks from adjacent
residential development meets or exceeds standard setbacks. The ARC
should discuss the project’s proportionality and size, building setbacks
and massing, and application of colors and materials relative to the
surrounding neighborhood.
Chapter 3 – Section 3.3 (Industrial Project Design Guidelines)
§3.3.A.3: General design
objectives, building setbacks
The proposed project site plan for Buildings B and C show setbacks 24
feet from neighboring residential uses, consistent with the Zoning
Regulations for the Edge Conditions (adjacent zoning is R-2 to the south
and east). The ARC should discuss if the proposed project setbacks are
proportionate to the scale of the structure such that the buildings
would not visually impose on neighboring uses.
Chapter 5 – Section 5.4 (Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design)
§ 5.4.A Site Planning
The CDG states that placement of new units should consider the existing
character of the surrounding residential area. New development should
respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate
building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not
overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of
adjacent units. The ARC should discuss whether design changes are
necessary to improve considerations of preserving privacy of the
adjacent existing low-density residential units.
§ 5.4.C.2 Scale
The CDG states that structures with greater height may impose on
surrounding uses. Large projects should be broken up into groups of
structures, and large single structures should be avoided. The ARC
should discuss the project’s scale and mass and discuss whether design
changes are necessary to reduce the perceived scale of the project
within the neighborhood.
Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.050 – Edge Conditions
§ 17.70.050.D.3 Upper Level
Open Space Orientation and
Windows
The Edge Conditions Section of the Zoning Regulations prohibits
balconies and terraces above the first floor on the building side facing
the lower density residential zoning and requires window placement to
be offset by 12-inches from adjacent existing structures. However, the
applicant is requesting a concession to allow second and third floor
balconies and windows oriented toward properties within the R-2 zone
(see Project Plans Sheet A1.1). The ARC should discuss whether the
proposed balconies and window placement along the East and South
property lines present any conflicts with the CDG regarding the privacy
of adjacent residential uses with consideration of existing topography.
The ARC should provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission
on whether the balconies should be eliminated or not.
Page 122 of 186
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, & AFFH-0413-2021
279 Bridge Street
Page 5
6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required
Setbacks
North
East
South
West
48-82
24
20
12
0
10
10
0
Creek Setback 34-40 20
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.88 1.5
Edge Conditions
Setbacks
FAR Reduction
Upper-Level Open Space
Rooftop Open Space
Window Orientation
Driveway Orientation
Trash and Recycling
Hours of Operation
Service and Loading Areas
25-27
Compliant (0.88)
Concession Request
No Rooftop Open Space
Concession Request
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
23
10% Reduction (1.35)
3rd Floor Balconies Prohibited
10-foot Setback
12-foot Offset
Screening Required
Located Internal to Site
7:00 AM to 8:00 PM
Screening Requirements
Maximum Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage 31% 75%
Affordable Housing 100% Low-Income Households Exempt 17.138.020.B.7
Public Art In-Lieu fee On-site or In-Lieu fee
Monument Sign
Max Height
Max Area
3 feet
23 sq. ft.
6 feet
24 sq. ft.
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
102
10 EV Ready & 26 EV Capable
120
7
87
10 EV Ready & 26 EV Capable
95
5
Environmental Status Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 5)
7.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Recommend approval of the project based on consistency with the CDG. An action
recommending approval of the application will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for
final action. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address consist ency
with the Community Design Guidelines.
7.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
7.3 Recommend denial the project. An action denying the application should include findings
that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, CDG,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
Page 123 of 186
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, & AFFH-0413-2021
279 Bridge Street
Page 6
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
8.1 Project Plans
8.2 ARC Report & Minutes 5.1.17
8.3 ARC Report & Minutes 9.9.19
8.4 PC Report & Minutes 9.25.19
8.5 Addendum (ER#0286-2014)
Page 124 of 186
DRAFT
DRAFT Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, July 19, 2021
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, July
19, 2021 at 5:02 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
by Chair Christie Withers.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Michael DeMartini (arrived at 5:09 p.m.), Mandi Pickens, Brian
Pineda, Allen Root, Micah Smith, and Chair Christie Withers
Absent: Vice Chair Ashley Mayou
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of June 21, 2021.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioner DeMartini and Vice Chair Mayou absent), to
approve the Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of June 21, 2021.
Page 125 of 186
DRAFT
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 19, 2021 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner DeMartini arrived at 5:09 p.m., the beginning of the staff presentation for this item.
2. Development review of a mixed-use project consisting of 94 residential units and 924 square
feet of commercial space, with a 24% density bonus. The project includes a request for an
affordable housing concession regarding the Edge Conditions standards for open space
orientation and window placement for properties that are along transition zones. An Addendum
to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared (ER#0286-2014).
Project address: 279 Bridge Street; Case#: ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, & AFFH-
0413-2021; Zone: M-zone; Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, owner/applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Scott Smith, CEO HASLO, and Jim Duffy, Ten Over Studios,
provided an overview of the project objectives and provided comments in response to
Commissioner questions.
Public Comments:
Justice and Bill Towers
Amy Sanchez
Devin Gallagher
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PICKENS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 6-0-1 (Vice Chair Mayou absent), to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission and confirm consistency with Community Design Guidelines, with the following
recommendations:
• Provide additional screening to the balconies on south and east building elevations,
screening thresholds of the balconies shall be up to the discretion of the developer; and
• Reduce height of screening features surrounding the interior playground courtyard to
provide a balance of vehicle screening and pedestrian safety; and
• Consider that trees along the south perimeter be planted at a greater maturity; and
• Incorporate addition of an accent color.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
3. Staff Updates
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
Page 126 of 186
DRAFT
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 19, 2021 Page 3
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission will be held on Monday, August 16, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2021
Page 127 of 186
Page 128 of 186
Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Bridge Street Affordable Housing Project (ER#0286-2014)
1. Project Title:
Bridge Street Affordable Housing Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
805-781-7524
4. Project Location:
279 Bridge Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
5. Project Applicant and Representative Name and Address:
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
Scott Smith, Executative Director
487 Leff Street
San Luis Obipso, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Services & Manufacturing
7. Zoning:
Manufacturing (M)
8. Description of the Project:
The previously approved Bridge Street Mixed-Use project consisted of three buildings
including: Building A (8,636-square foot [sf] manufacturing shell with mezzanine);
Page 129 of 186
Building B (31,726 sf mixed-use building including 7,200 sf of commercial shell on the
ground level with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom residential units above); and Building C
(6,850-sf mixed-use building including 3,421-sf of commercial shell on the ground level
with two residential units above) with associated parking and site improvements (ARCH-
0255-2019/USE-0526-2019).
The proposed Bridge Street Mixed-Use project consists of 94 residential units dedicated
to affordable housing, and 924 square feet of commercial space. The project proposes
podium style buildings with parking below two stories of residential units for a total of three
stories; Building 1A (37,230-sf, 32 units), Building 1B (924-sf), Building 2 (30,204-sf, 32
units), and Building 3 (36,135-sf, 30 units). The project includes a request for a 24%
density bonus with an affordable housing concession regarding the Edge Conditions
standards for the orientation of open space areas and window placement for properties
that are adjacent to low density zoning (ARCH-0587-2020/USE-0412-2021/AFFH-0413-
2021).
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
Design Review - Major
Minor Use Permit
Affordable Housing Incentive Request
10. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
The project site is a 2.73-acre flag lot with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge
Street. The northern “flag” portion of the site is developed with a drive aisle and ten
parking spaces that serve an existing building on an adjacent property. The property is
an existing legal parcel with access provided by a bridge over Meadow Creek. The project
site is bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor, existing commercial
and industrial uses to the north (M and C -S-PD), live/work units to the west (M-PD), and
residential development to the south and east (R-2-PD and R-2-S). The South Hills Open
Space area is located further to the south.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement.):
Air Pollution Control District
12. Previous Environmental Review
On June 1, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the previous project, which included approval of construction of the
existing access bridge over Meadow Creek, three manufacturing shell buildings (including
caretaker’s quarters), tree removals, and site improvements. Aside from the bridge over
Meadow Creek and tree removals, the project was not constructed. A copy of the adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached (Attachment 1). On September 25, 2019, the
Page 130 of 186
Planning Commission adopted an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
which evaluated a modified project that was not constructed. A copy of the adopted
Addendum is attached (Attachment 2).
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an
addendum to an IS/MND when “minor technical changes or additions” have occurred in
the project description since the IS/MND was adopted. In addition, the lead agency is
required to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, which requires subsequent EIRs when proposed changes
would require major revisions to the previous EIR “due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects.”
The evaluation below discusses the issue areas covered by the previously approved
IS/MND and concludes that in each case no new environmental effects are created and
that there is no increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Environmental impacts associated with development of the project site were evaluated in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ER #0286-2014. The previous project evaluated in the
adopted MND included the construction of three shell buildings, construction of a bridge over
Meadow Creek, construction of parking and site improvements, and tree removals. As a
component of the previous project entitlement, a Use List for the site was established. The
currently proposed project is consistent with the adopted Use List.
The proposed project addressed in this Addendum consists of three residential buildings
(104,493 sqaure feet) and one commercial building (924 square feet) and associated parking
and site improvements. The tree removals that were identified in the previous entitlement have
been removed from the site (Chinese pistache, California pepper tree cluster and Italian stone
pine), no additional trees are proposed for removal. The primary changes to the project
description since the MND was adopted consist of the proposed use of the proposed b uildings
from manufacturing to mixed-use (commercial and residential) and the proposed size and
architectural design of the structrues.
Potential Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant
The previously-adopted MND found that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential
impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, and noise will be less than
significant. A summary of the potential impacts and adopted mitigation measures is provided
below, including an assessment of the potential impacts resulting from the currently proposed
project. As discussed below, implementation of the project would not result in any new impacts
or impacts with increased severity than what was identified in the adopted MND.
Page 131 of 186
Aesthetics
The adopted MND identified a potential impact due to the potential for glare from the parking lot
and building light poles affecting adjacent residences. Adopted mitigation includes replacing
freestanding light posts with bollard lighting, to be located ou tside of required setbacks. This
mitigation would apply to the current project. In addition, the current project is subject to Zoning
Regulations Section 17.70.050 (Edge Conditions), which requires that any driveways and drive
aisles facing an adjacent zone must be fully screened from the adjacent (R-2) use. The proposed
project incorporates solid fencing and perimeter landscaping to be consistent with this regulation.
All other aesthetic impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than signif icant,
similar to the previous project, because the project site is not located within a scenic vista, visible
from a local or state scenic highway or roadway, and development of the site would be consistent
with the underlying zoning and Community Design Guidelines, which address visual
compatibility. Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, the project would not
increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with
mitigation.
Agricultural Resources
No impacts to agricultural resources were identified in the adopted IS/MND. Based on the
location of the project, underlying zoning, and lack of Farmland, no impact would occur.
Air Quality
The adopted IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts re lated to the construction and
operational phases of the project, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. At the time, the project
was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and mitigation
measures recommended by the APCD were incorporated into the adopted Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the previously
proposed project, and would include potential asbestos exposure, the creation of fugitive dust,
and the generation of diesel emissions within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.All adopted
mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project (Mitigation Measure AQ -1-6);
compliance with these measures and existing air quality regulations would mitig ate potential
impacts to less than significant. Based on APCD screening criteria (Table 1-1 of the APCD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook), the proposed 94 residential units and 924 square feet of
commercial use would not result in any significant operational impacts. Therefore, the project
would not create any new impacts, the project would not increase the severity of any impact,
and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation.
Biological Resources
The adopted IS/MND identified potential impacts primarily related to the bridge over Meadow
Creek, which has been constructed. The IS/MND also identifies mitigation measures to mitigate
potential impacts to nesting birds and wildlife during construction of the project, i ncluding pre-
construction surveys, and requirements for monitoring (BIO-1-5). These mitigation measures
would apply to the current project, and would reduce impacts to less than significant. In addition,
Page 132 of 186
standard erosion and sedimentation control measures are required to protect water quality and
habitat along the Meadow Creek corridor, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code and Waterways
Management Plan. Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, the project would
not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with
mitigation.
Cultural Resources
The adopted IS/MND identified that the property does not contain any known prehistoric or
historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained resource maps. An Archeological
Resource Inventory of the site was prepared which did not identify any historic resources on the
site or within the immediate vicinity. The City’s Archeological Preservation Guidelines include a
requirement that in the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are
encountered, work shall cease until the Community Development Department can ensure that
the project can continue within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo
and the State of California, and any materials discovered during construction activities are
appropriately handled. Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, the project
would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Geology and Soils
The adopted MND included the findings of a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report and
Foundation Alternative Memo, which concluded that the project is structurally feasible. Mitigation
is identified to require a final geotechnical engineering investigation and comprehensive design -
level report, which is required to address site preparation and grading, total and differenti al
settlement under the structure loads, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity
(including seismic loads on retaining walls). This mitigation measure applies to the current
project. In addition, as noted above, standard erosion and sedim entation measures are required
during construction, which would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion and sedimentation.
Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, the project would not increase the
severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Construction-related and operation-related greenhouse gas emisisons would be similar to the
previously proposed project, and would not generate emissions that would result in a significant
impact. In addition, all adopted mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project
(Mitigation Measure AQ-1-6), which would reduce potential emissions. The project consists of a
primarly residential project, with 924 square feet of commercial use, located proximate to existing
parkland, pedestrian paths, transit, and bicycle lanes.. Furthermore, the California Building Code
(CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of
materials used in the construction of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC
includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the
most recent version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
These standards focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated
thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice
Page 133 of 186
versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non -residential lighting
requirements. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary
electricity provider for the City. In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining Central
Coast Community Energy (3CE, formerly Monterey Bay Community Power) and, beginning in
January 2020, 3CE became the City’s primary electricity provider. 3CE is striving to provide
100% carbon-free electricity to the city by 2030. The City has adopted local amendments to
encourage all-electric new buildings. At its meeting on September 3, 2019, the City Council
adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program. Unlike other cities that are banning natural gas
entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program encourages clean, efficient, and cost -
effective all-electric new buildings through incentives, local amendments to the California Energy
Code, and implementation of the Carbon Offset Program. New projects wishing to use natural
gas will be required to build more efficient and higher performing buildings and offset natural gas
use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in -lieu fee that will be used for
the same purpose. Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, would not increase
the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire
The adopted IS/MND identified that the proposed project would not result in the routine transport,
use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant
hazard to the public or to the environment. Compliance with existing regulations, including Title
49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated
with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed project
or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. The proposed
project would not increase the area of disturbance or include any elements that require the use
or storage of hazardous materials beyond standard, legal use. The project s ite is not on a parcel
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 (DTSC 2021). The project site is not located within any airport land use plan area as it
is at the foot of the South Hills and outsi de any flight pattern. The project site is surrounded by
existing urban uses and will have no impact on the placement of people or structures next to
wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, the
proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any
impact, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Meadow Creek crosses through the northern portion of the project site. The majority of the site
is within the boundaries of the area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100 -year storm
with inundation depths of up to 2-feet (AO 2’ depth Zone). Both the northernmost extent and
southeast corner of the site are somewhat higher elevation and are within the XB Zone, which
is subject to a 0.2% annual chance of flooding. The project has been designed with elevated
structures, retention basins, and permeable structures to ensure that development will not
impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. Compliance with City standards will be sufficient to
ensure that the proposed project does not endanger structures on this and other adjoining sites.
Page 134 of 186
Similar to the previously project, the proposed project is required to comply with the City’s
Drainage Design Manual of the Waterway Management Plan, Post Construction Requirements
for stormwater, and Floodplain Management Regulations (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.78).
Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, the proposed project wou ld not create
any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less
than significant.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project remains consistent with the General Plan, as the site is designated for
mixed-use development, the proposed use of the property would not change, and the project
would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the prop osed project would
not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would
remain less than significant.
Mineral Resources
No mineral resources are present onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any
new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur.
Noise
The adopted IS/MND identified an impact related to use of manufacturing shell building loading
docks, and required mitigation states that loading facilities are to be oriented away from
residential uses on adjacent properties. The current project has changed manufacturing
buildings B and C to mixed -use buildings with commercial uses oriented toward Bridge Street
and residential uses above parking areas. This use mix is anticipated to result in less potential
operational noise than potential manufacturing uses, and any potential loading facilities are
required to be oriented away from residential uses, in compliance with the adopted measure
(NOI-1). Based on the changes to the proposed use of the site, and compliance with the Zoning
Regulations and Noise Ordinance, no new or greater noise impacts would occur. Therefore, the
project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and
impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation.
Population and Housing
Development under the proposed project would add up to 94 new housing units to the City, and
would not displace any existing housing. Similar to the previous project, the proposed project
would be consistent with the General Plan and would not induce substantial population growth .
The project would not extend roads or other infrastructure beyond those necessary to
accommodate the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts,
would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur.
Public Services
Page 135 of 186
The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department.
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would
marginally increase the demand for fire protection services compared to existing conditions. The
project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is currently
served by the City for fire protection. The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo
Police Department for police protection services. The development of the site would not result
in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to
be constructed. The project site is located in the existing services area of the City’s schools,
parks, and other public facilities. The project would introduce new students to San Luis Coastal
Unified School District (SLCUSD). Consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill 50, the project
would be required to pay a school impact fee (Government Code Section 65970) to SLCUSD.
SB 50 fees would be directed towards the maintenance of adequate school service levels,
including increases in capacity. Future delveopment under the proposed project would include
construction of new residential uses, which would be served by existing public services and
would not require the construction of any new or physically altered governmental facilities .
Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the
severity of any impact, and impacts would be less than significant.
Recreation
The project would increase the demand on public parkland and neighborhood parks from an
increased residential population. While the project may result in an overall increase in residents
within the city, the project would be consistent with the General Plan and projected population
growth for the city of San Luis Obispo. The project would be subject to Park Land In -Lieu fees,
which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on park and recreational
facilities and contribute to helping the City achieve its goal service ratio of 10 acres of parkland
per 1,000 residents. These fees would be used in the future to contribute funding for the
establishment of new park/recreation facilities or expansion of existing facilities, however, these
actions would not be directly triggered by or required as a result of implementation of the project.
Through participation in this fee program, potential project impacts associated with accelerated
deterioration of existing facilities would be less than . Therefore, the project would not create any
new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than
significant.
Transportation/Traffic
In 2013, the State of California passed Senate Bill (SB) 743, which mandates that jurisdictions
can no longer use LOS or other measures of automobile delay/congestion to evaluate
transportation impacts under CEQA. The State then issued guidelines identifying vehicles miles
traveled (VMT), which measures the total amount of driving over a given area, as the primary
metric to be used for CEQA analysis of transportation impacts, with these changes becoming
mandatory on July 1, 2020. The City of San Luis Obispo formally adopted VMT impact thresholds
in June of 2020, and these thresholds are applied to projects as the primary metric for evaluating
potential project impacts under CEQA. The City has a current jobs-to-housing ratio of roughly
2.5:1, which is considered relatively “jobs heavy,”. The current jobs-to-housing ratio results in
longer commute trips – primarily by singleoccupant automobile – for employees commuting into
Page 136 of 186
the City from outside communities. By increasing the number of housing units within the City,
regional VMT is projected to experience a net decrease as more residents of the region are able
to live within closer proximity of job centers and where there is greater access to a well -
connected transit, pedestrian and bicycle network. Based on the City’s Multimodal
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, adopted June of 2020, this project falls below the
Thresholds of Significance for Mixed-use projects when analyzing the dominant use on the site.
The VMT generated from the revised project would be 15% below baseline Regional (County)
average Residential VMT per capita. Therefore, no significant impact would occur.
Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located east of the project site.
Local access to the project site is provided by Bridge Street and South Higuera; with pedestrian
and bicycle access also available via a bike path connection at the western end of Bridge Street
to Exposition Drive and the Meadow Park bicycle path network. All roadways in the immediate
project vicinity have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and on -street parking. The project does not
conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does not significantly add to demand
on the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management program s or any other
agency’s plans for congestion management. Therefore, the proposed project would not create
any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Utilities and Service Systems
Since adoption of the IS/MND and approval of the previous project, the City has initiated the
expansion of and improvements to the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The WRRF
is designed for an average dry-weather flow of 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and treated an
average of 2.9 mgd during 2020. The average dry weather flow of wastewater is expected to
reach 5.4 mgd at the WRRF once the City reaches its 2035 build-out population identified in the
General Plan. Upon completion in 2024, the WRRF modifications will increase treatment
capacity at the facility to 5.4 mgd, which is planned to accommodate wastewater flows in the
City under full buildout of the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General
Plan land use designation and would be adequately served by City sewer infrastructure and the
WRRF.
Regarding water, the City maintains adequate, diverse water supply (and excess supply) to meet
Citywide water demands during single- and multiple-dry years through 2035 (build-out of the
General Plan). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation
and would be adequately served by City water infrastructure and water supply.
The proposed project would be adequately served by the Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves
the area, and has a remaining capacity of 13,000,000 cubic yards (maximum permitted capacity
is 24,000,000 cubic yards).
Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the
severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant.
DETERMINATION
Page 137 of 186
In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo
has determined that this addendum to the adopted IS/MND for the Bridge Street Affordable
Housing project is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project
description since the IS/MND was adopted. The preparation of a subsequent environmental
document is not necessary because:
1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have
occurred which require a subsequent environmental document:
a. The project changes do not result in new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts.
b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major
changes to the IS/MND.
c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously
approved mitigation measures.
2. The changes are consistent with City General Plan goals and polices that promote
provision of additional housing within the City.
Attachment:
1. Initial Study / Negative Declaration ER# 0286-2014
2. Previous Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration ER#0286-2014
Page 138 of 186
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # 0286-2014
1. Project Title:
279 Bridge Street Project
Development of a 2.73 acre site with three shell buildings, one on-site caretaker unit, an access
bridge over Meadow Creek, and other associated site improvements, and including a modified
list of allowed uses. ARCH/ER-0286-2014.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7176
4. Project Location:
279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Devin Gallagher
1680 La Finca Court
Arroyo Grande, CA, 93420
Projects Representative Name and Address:
John Knight
49 Mariposa Street
San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Services & Manufacturing
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 139 of 186
2
7. Zoning:
Manufacturing (M)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project includes development of a 2.73 acre site with three shell buildings. The
three separate buildings would include a total of 22,758 square feet of useable space and 13,525
square feet of coverage. All leasable commercial space will be on ground level and a mezzanine
level within Building A, with a second level caretakers unit provided on the second floor of
Building C. The site would be accessed from Bridge Street via the flag portion of the site, and
across a Conspan Bridge that would be constructed to cross Meadow Creek. Allowed uses on the
site would be as specified in the attached Use List, which is a more restrictive list of
allowed/conditionally allowed uses proposed by the applicant.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is a 2.73-acre flag lot with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street.
The northern “flag” portion of the site is developed with a drive aisle and ten parking spaces that
serve an existing building on an adjacent property. The property is an existing legal parcel with
no developed access from Bridge Street or any other public rights-of-way. Currently
undeveloped, the property is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses. It is bordered to
the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor, and to the south by an ephemeral swale. There
are five existing trees on the site (outside the creek corridor), including: one California Pepper
Tree, one Italian Stone Pine, one Coastal Live Oak, one Pepper Tree, and one Chinese Pistache.
Proposed tree removals include the Italian Stone Pine and Chinese Pistache, and several
trees/willow clusters in the riparian corridor to allow for the bridge crossing.
This site is located in an “AO” flood zone. This zone indicates that there is a potential of
flooding up to two-feet over the existing grade during the 100 year storm. The site is bordered by
existing commercial and industrial uses to the north, by a 17 unit mixed use project to the west
and south (currently under construction), by the South Hills Natural Reserve to the Southeast,
and two existing single family homes to the east.
The Land Use and Zoning maps for the property identify the property as designated
Manufacturing. Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows:
North: Developed with light industrial and office uses; zoned M and C-S-PD.
East: Developed with single-family residences; zoned R-2-S.
Southeast: Conservation/Openspace (South Hills); zoned C/OS-40-SP.
South: Currently being developed with single-family residences; zoned R-2-PD.
West: Currently being developed with live-work units; zoned M-PD.
See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 140 of 186
3
Architectural Review: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval is required for the site
layout and building design. The ARC will concurrently take action on the requested creek
setback reduction and this environmental document.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD)
Central Coast Water Quality Control Board (CCWQCB)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Fish and Game)
Army Corps of Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 141 of 186
4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
X
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
X
Geology / Soils
X
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall b e subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 142 of 186
5
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
For: Derek Johnson
Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director Community Development Director
04-29-2015
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 143 of 186
6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 144 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 4,
16, 28
--X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
16,
17, 28
--X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
16,
17, 28
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
8, 28 --X--
Evaluation
a. The project site is not located within a scenic vista; however, the site is adjacent to the base of the South Hills
Natural Reserve. The higher portions of the South Hills are considered a scenic vista within the City. The
significant viewshed of this portion of the property begins at approximately the 300 -foot contour and above. Both
the existing residential development immediately east of the site and the residential development currently under
construction immediately to the south are at similar or higher contours then the proposed development. Because
these elevations are well below the 300-foot contour that is considered a significant vista, the proposed development
will not result in significant impacts to a scenic vista.
b. The project site is not within or adjacent to a local or state scenic highway.
c. The proposed development site is screened from Bridge Street behind existing c ommercial properties fronting the
right-of-way and thick vegetation within the riparian corridor, which limit visibility to the site from the public
roadway. A seasonal creek and its associated vegetation that includes willow trees and native shrubs furth er screen
the proposed project site from the roadway and adjacent properties. All proposed structures have been designed to
meet or exceed site setback and height limitations, and together with site improvements will be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
d. The proposed development includes a mix of building-wall mounted fixtures, bollards, and post fixtures for
nighttime illumination. All proposed fixtures will include full cut-off shielding and be dark sky compliant, as
required by the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (MC Chapter 17.23 ). Wall mounted fixtures on Buildings
A and C are limited to the interior faces of the structures (Building A, north and east facades; Building C, south
façade only), and will not cause illumination or glare to cross to adjacent properties. Building B, at the center of the
site, has wall mounted fixtures along the east, west and south facades. Along the south façade, which parallels the
southern property line, a setback of 32-feet from the closest portion of the structure will ensure that light spillage
will not become a nuisance.
A mixture of 15-foot high post lights and 3-foot high bollards are proposed to light the pathways, parking, and other
outdoor areas. As discussed in greater detail in Section 12: Noise, with the exception of the caretakers unit, hours of
operation for the site will be primarily during daylight hours, therefore nighttime illumination will largely be
required for security purposes. As there are no intervening buildings between these parking and open yard areas that
will be illuminated, the proposed post lights could create a new source of light and glare impacting the adjacent
residents and South Hills Natural Reserve. Mitigation Measure AES 1 has been recommended that all post lights
shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting. An additional mitigation Measure (AES 2) has been
recommended to require that all freestanding bollard fixtures be outside required yard and creek setbacks. This will
necessitate relocation of one bollard currently shown within the creek setback immed iately west of the access
bridge. Relocation of this bollard outside of the creek setback will ensure that any potentially significant impacts on
riparian species are mitigated.
The project may include reflective roofing materials including but not limite d to solar panels and metal roofing.
Careful design and placement of such materials will reduce off site impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 145 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8
Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light posts shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted
elsewhere on project plans or other low focused lighting fixtures as approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks.
Conclusion: With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures potential impacts associated with light,
glare, and aesthetics will be reduced to a less than significant level.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 18
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 10,
11
--X--
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
17
--X--
Evaluation
a. The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use.
b. The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated
for Commercial uses in the General Plan and is zoned C-S (Commercial Services). The project site is surrounded by
developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site
agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion: No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
19,
28,
29, 32
--X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
--X--
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
--X--
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 146 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of
contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient
air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are
described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while area s
that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. San Luis Obispo is currently designated as
nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground -level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state
standards for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. In April 2012 the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
Control District (SLO APCD) adopted The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document identifying thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are
subject to CEQA, and is designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from
motor vehicle use. These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the SLO APCD believed air
pollution emissions would cause significa nt environmental impacts under CEQA. Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may
result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality
Handbook is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of assisting lead
agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, comm ercial and industrial development. Under
CEQA, the SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to
cause adverse impacts to air quality.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions
from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air
quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbe stos. The
SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities. A mitigation measure (AQ 1) has been recommended that all requirements outlined in the Asbestos
ATCM be complied with.
The project will include extensive grading, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in underground
utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition of this kind of underground equipment can
have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of
asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the
requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos
NESHAP). A mitigation measure (AQ 2) has been recommended for compliance with all regulatory requirements pertaining
to the disturbance, removal or relocation of utility pipelines.
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and b usinesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors a mitigation
measure (AQ 3) has been recommended to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20%
opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402).
Construction equipment itself can be the source of emissions, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board or
APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in
the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4 -4. Truck trips associated with the 2,210 CY of soils that
will be exported from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific
truck routing selected. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 147 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. A mitigation
measure (AQ 4) has been recommended to ensure proper use of subject equipment. Additionally, because the project is in
close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, an additional mitigation measure (AQ 5) is recommended to ensure that public
health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that an industrial park with 22,758 square feet falls below the
threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (maximum size for exemption stated as
71,000 square feet), therefor it is not necessary to run the more accurate CalEEMod computer model. The CalEEMod
computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses.
The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project
(maximum size for exemption stated at 130,000). Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation
measures for this project. Because of the proximity to sensitive receptors, several uses that would otherwise be allowed or
conditionally allowed in the Manufacturing Zone may not be appropriate for this si te. Included in the project description is a
modified list of those uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have
the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Specific to Air Quality, those
uses which have been prohibited on this site (though otherwise allowed in the Manufacturing Zone) include those uses
involving vehicle services, fuel or petroleum dealers, laundry/dry cleaning plants, airports/heliport, cemetery, mausoleum or
columbarium and heavy manufacturing. Additionally, the level of scrutiny and permitting requirements have been intensified
for several other uses, including outdoor BBQ/Grills, photo and film processing labs, printing and publishing, furniture and
fixture manufacturing, and outdoor light industrial uses to ensure that specific practices associated with activities are
reviewed and conditioned to ensure that they will not create a nuisance. Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List.
Because future tenants of the shell structures are unknown at this time, it is also not known what types of equipment that ma y
be used in the future. Operational sources may require APCD permits. The following list is provided by the APCD as a
guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more
detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendix, page 4 -4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook.
New wineries or expanding wineries with the capacity of 26,000 gallons (10,000 cases at twelve 750 milliliter
bottles per case) year or more require a Permit to Operate for fermentation and storage of wine;
Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
Chemical product processing and or manufacturing;
Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
Food and beverage preparation (primarily coffee roasters);
Furniture and fixture products;
Metal industries, fabrication;
Small scale manufacturing;
Public utility facilities;
Boilers;
Internal combustion engines;
Sterilization units(s) using ethylene oxide and incinerator(s);
Cogeneration facilities;
Tub grinders; and
Trommel screens.
Most facilities applying for an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate with stationary diesel engines greater than 50 hp ,
should be prioritized or screened for facility wide health risk impacts. A diesel engine -only facility limited to 20 non-
emergency operating hours per year or that has demonstrated to have overall diesel particulate emissions less than or equal to
2 lb/yr does not need to do additional health risk assessment. Specific information regarding permitting requirements is
available at the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912.
In July 2009, the California Air Pollution Control officers Associations (CAPCOA) adopted a guidance document,
“HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPOSED LAND USE PROJECTS,” to provide uniform direction on how to
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 148 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
assess the health risk impacts from and to proposed land use projects. The CAPCOA guidance document focuses on how to
identify and quantify the potential acute, chronic, and cancer impacts of sources under CEQA review. As defined in the
CAPCOA guidance document there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long -term
public health risk impacts and are named Type A and Type B.
This project is considered a Type A project, a new proposed land use project that could generate toxic air contaminants that
impact sensitive receptors. Air districts across California are uniform in their recommendation to use the significance
thresholds that have been established under each district’s “Hot Spots” and permitting programs. The AP CD has defined the
excess cancer risk significance threshold at 10 in a million for Type A projects in San Luis Obispo County. If tenants for the
site are subject to APCD permitting a screening level health risk assessment will be required to determine the potential health
risks to residents in the vicinity of the development. If the screening assessment is above 10 in a million, a more
comprehensive health risk analysis will be required. Results of the screening and/or the refined health risk assessment n eed
to be provided to the APCD for review and approval. Mitigation measure (AQ 6) is recommended to ensure that screening
level health risk assessments are completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of
business permits when required by the APCD.
e) The project includes the development of an industrial park which will potentially be occupied by a variety of uses that ar e
allowed or conditionally allowed in the Manufacturing zone. As noted in the discussion above, the project description
includes a modified list of uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, excluding those uses which have
the potential to objectionable odors and other forms of nuisance.
Mitigation Measures: Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic
evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption
request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must
comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with
the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781 -5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited
to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey
conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of ide ntified ACM.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following
particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify
practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from
exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased
watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities
during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust -
control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 149 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction
site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers
shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by
contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781 -5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct
the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of
more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California
based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any
ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at
any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of
the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s
5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling
requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive re quirements to minimize impacts to
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 150 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and
number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds,
screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the
issuance of business permits when required by the APCD.
Conclusion: With recommended air quality mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on air
quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
4,10,
11,
28, 30
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
--X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
--X--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
--X--
Evaluation
a-d. The project proposes construction adjacent to Meadow Creek, a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek, with access
provided via a new ConspanTM bridge. The project has been designed in substantial compliance with the City’s Creek
Setback Ordinance, with no encroachments into the established creek setback area other than minor grading and other
modifications encroaching into the established setbacks of the creek channel for installation of the proposed bridge.
A discretionary creek setback exception will be required for construction of the proposed pedestrian and vehicle
bridge (Source Reference 11: City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 17.16.025). To eliminate the need for
lateral over-excavation and re-compaction of soils for structural foundations and bridge abutments, cast-in-drilled-
hold concrete pile (caisson) foundation systems can be used. Because of the shallow groundwater conditions, the
construction of the caissons will require the use of casing or other similar drilling/construction methods to prevent
groundwater from collapsing the sidewalls of drilled piers. A mitigation measure (BIO 1) has been recommended to
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 151 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
ensure that final geotechnical engineering is completed to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of the over -
excavated building pads and bridge foundations with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent or within
riparian setbacks. Standard Conditions of Approval and Building Code Requirements will ensure that proper
precautions are taken to ensure that impacts to the creek will be minimized. The Natural Resources Manager has
reviewed the project plans and concurred that with the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures for the
proposed development, including the bridge access across Meadow Creek, is supportable as there are no other
feasible options to access the property.
Natural Communities and Habitat Types
The project site is predominantly composed of a non-native annual grassland habitat bordered by the Meadow Creek
riparian corridor on the north and an ephemeral swale along the southern border of the site. The Biological Resources
Assessment prepared for the project (Source Reference 30 & Attachment 9) identifies three distinct plant
communities and habitat characteristics within the project site, including disturbed non-native annual grassland,
Meadow Creek Arroyo Willow riparian woodland, ephemeral swale, and developed land.
The mosaic of remnant patches of habitat within the urbanized landscape around the project area can support a variety
of wildlife species that have become adapted to the urban environment, such as raccoons, opossums, rodents, and
reptiles, and resident and migratory birds. Common passerines observed during field surveys included th e pacific
slope flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, spotted towhee, northern mockingbird, and house finch. Given
the undeveloped hillsides of surrounding areas and nearby Meadow Park, other wildlife species likely to occur on the
site are seasonal migrants and/or residents to the area. The proposed new access road crossing of Meadow Creek and
conversion of the annual grassland has the potential to impact ground nesting and/or tree nesting bird species if
activities are conducted during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO 2 has been recommended to ensure that
appropriate timing and surveys are preformed, and best practices followed, prior to any vegetation removal or ground
disturbance. Additionally, while impacts on common ground dwelling wildlife and the loss of less than 2.0 acres of
non-native grassland is not considered a significant impact, Mitigation Measure BIO 3 is recommended to further
reduce the level of this less-than-significant impact on common ground dwelling wildlife species.
Although both Meadow Creek and the ephemeral swale are likely considered waters of the U.S. subject to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and waters of the State by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), i t is
not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project .
Additionally, the project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Special Status Species and Natural Communities of Special Conce rn
Search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDD) identified both botanical and wildlife resources within a
five-mile radius of the project site. However, most of these botanical and wildlife species are associated with specific
soil types or habitat characteristics which are not present on the project site. Given the urban setting with a limited
extent of grassland and riparian habitats, and the seasonal nature of Meadow Creek, the project site does not support
suitable habitat for any special-status wildlife species. Although San Luis Obispo Creek is a well-documented stream
for the South-central California steelhead Distinct Population Segment, there are significant migration barriers
located within Meadow Creek, as well as a lack of sufficient stream flow throughout the year, that prevents steelhead
migration into Meadow Creek from San Luis Obispo Creek. Field survey results indicated no observations of any
rare, threatened, or endangered plant species within the project site. Further, the observable and identifiable plants,
habitats, and soils suggest the site does not support habitat for special-status plants.
Impact Assessment
Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to vegetation and wildlife utilizing disturbed non -
native annual grassland and willow riparian woodland habitats from the development of the access bridge crossing to
the site and for the development area with an approximately 0.2 acre area remaining within the City-required 20-foot
creek setback area. Given the small area of non-native vegetation within the urban landscape, this would be
considered a less than significant impact. Approximately 0.08 acre (60-foot by 60-foot) of willow riparian woodland
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 152 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
habitat would be removed for the bridge access across Meadow Creek. Given the value of riparian habitat in all
landscape settings, this should be considered a potentially significant impact. The bridge crossing will result in fill of
likely waters of the U.S./State and removal of willow and California black walnut riparian habitat that would require
regulatory compliance from federal and state agencies. Impacts on seasonal creek and riparian habitat r esulting in fill
of waters of the U.S./State should be considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce potential impacts on
waters of the U.S./State to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measures BIO 4 and BIO 5 are recommended to
ensure that all Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish
and Wildlife regulatory compliance and permitting requirements are met.
e. No heritage trees or significant native vegetation will be removed with development of the site. There are five existing
trees on the site (outside the creek corridor), including: one California Pepper Tree, one Italian Stone Pine, one
Coastal Live Oak, one Pepper Tree, and one Chinese Pistache. Proposed tree removals include the I talian Stone Pine
and Chinese Pistache, and several trees/willow clusters in the riparian corridor to allow for the bridge crossing. The
bridge construction would remove up to two 6-inch diameter at breast height (dbh), four 8 -inch dbh and one 12-inch
dbh California black walnut trees. The dbh of the willow trunks impacted include 1) 5”, 5”, 5”, 6”, 7”, 7”, 8”, 8”, 8”,
11”, and 13”; and 2) 3”, 4”, 4”, 9”, and seven stems less than 3” dbh. Both the City Arborist and Natural Resources
Manager have reviewed the removals and concurred that the proposed landscape plan, including landscape trees and
native trees, shrubs and perennials within the creek setback area, provide adequate mitigation. Recommended
Mitigation Measure BIO 5 would ensure that any compensatory riparian tree plantings required by CDFW would be
implemented.
f. The project site is not subject to any known adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in
lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks.
Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal
and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1 st and January 31st outside of the
nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then,
preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project
construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.
If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the
establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sit es shall be
avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the
nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nes t would
reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction
survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of
the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor
shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts
for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals . The salvage and relocation effort for non-
listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the
proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the
permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the prop osed
project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources.
Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 153 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16
Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent
impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory
compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife
Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written
documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement
be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the
CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project
has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition,
CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat
restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additi onal compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City-
required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory
mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than
significant level.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the potential impacts associated with the project will be reduced to
less than significant impact on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
4, 10,
21,22,
23, 24
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
--X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
--X--
Evaluation
a. The project site is an undeveloped open space area located between industrial development, residential areas, and
preserved open space. Historical records, including maps and photographs show that during the late 19 th and early
20th century the parcel remained undeveloped while the surrounding properties were developed with residential
areas to the north, the Catholic Cemetery to the west, and the Exposition Park Raceway to the east. A Phase I
Archeological Resource Inventory was prepared (Attachment 22) which did not identify any historic resources on
the site or within the immediate vicinity.
b-d. The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City
maintained resource maps. An Archeological Resource Inventory of the site was prepared to determine the presence
or likelihood of archaeological historical resources. Prehistoric settlements in this area typically are found near
reliable water sources, important raw material sources, or important food resources. The low lying floodplain that
encompasses the project area does not meet any of these criteria, although it is near locations that do. The surface
survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials. There is the limited potential that
materials (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and human burials) could be
encountered given the proximity to the creek. The City’s Archeological Preservation Guidelines include a
requirement that in the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are encountered that work cease
until the Community Development Department can ensure that the project can continue within procedural
parameters accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo and the State of California, and any materials discovered during
construction activities are appropriately handled.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 154 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4,16,
26,
27, 28
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X--
IV. Landslides? --X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
--X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
--X--
Evaluation
a, c, d. San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by
extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province
comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge -valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide
special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and
well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulti ng or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo
County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends
to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the
closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the
City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time
(the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered “active”. Other active faults in the region
include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to
the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High
Seismic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most
likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in
compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seism ic Zone D. To
minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist
such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project sit e has a high potential for liquefaction, which is
true for most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes,
which require proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound b uildings to ensure new
structures are built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
Both a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report and Foundation Alternative Memo were prepared for this
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 155 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18
project, which include preliminary conclusions and recommendations related to the development of the property,
from a geotechnical and structural standpoint. These analyses conclude that the proposed project, while challenging
in its scope and size, is structurally feasible, and that the site seems well-suited for a project of this type. As discussed
in Section 4: Biology, to eliminate the need for lateral over excavation and re-compaction of the soils below for
structural foundations (both buildings and the proposed bridge), which would encroach into the creek setback
adjacent to Building C and expand the area of encroachment surrounding the bridge, cast -in-drilled-hold concrete pile
(caisson) foundation systems can be used. Because of the shallow groundwater conditions, the construction of the
caissons will require the use of casing or other similar drilling/construction methods to prevent groundwater from
collapsing the sidewalls of drilled piers. A mitigation measure, (BIO 1) has been recommended to ensure that final
geotechnical engineering is completed to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of the over -excavated building pads
and bridge foundations with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent or within riparian setbacks. S tandard
Conditions of Approval and Building Code Requir ements will ensure that proper precautions are taken to ensure that
impacts to the creek will be minimized.
b. This is an undeveloped infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City. Subsurface soils are generally silty sandy
clays overlain by silty sandy clay with gravel, with a “Medium” expansion level. In addition to structures and surface
parking, the proposed development plan includes areas of permeable hardscape and ground covers. The planting plan
is specifically designed to enhance the biology of the riparian channel and near-creek environment, provide visual
screening, and to prevent further erosion. The project will not result in loss of topsoil.
e. The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic t anks or alternative wastewater
systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Mitigation Measures: Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design -
level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific
areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The
report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, , slabs -on-grade,
expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to
the geotechnical engineer.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on geologic and soil
resources.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1,12,
28, 32
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
X
Evaluation
a, b. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California’s’ Assembly
Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive
Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed
project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment centers. City
policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and
Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that
energy efficient design will result in significant energy savings, which result i n emissions reductions.
SLOAPCD states that GHGs (CO2 and CH4) from all projects subject to CEQA must be quantified and mitigated to
the extent feasible. The California Office of Planning and Research has provided the following direction for the
assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions:
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 156 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19
Lead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate
the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular
traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities;
The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies
should not dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful
evaluation. All available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly
contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation
impacts); and,
The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than
significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic,
technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions
from a project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant.”
The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2eq emissions;
see Air Quality discussion is Section 3 (above) for discussion. The remaining project CO2eq emissions are primarily
from building heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s
electrical demands. Utilizing the LEED 2009 Project Checklist for Core and Shell Development, the project
proponent identified qualifying project features totaling 110 points, which would qualify the project as LEED
Platinum.
Short term GHG emissions from construction activities consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust.
Mitigation Measures AQ 3 and AQ 4 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing
those impacts to below a level of significance. In San Luis Obispo there are many ways to get around while reducing
single-occupant vehicle trips, both for employees of the site and those patronizing the businesses during the
operational phase of the project. Among these are the City’s Bus system, Rideshare programs that facilitate car and
vanpooling, and the intricate bicycle transportation network.
Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage
for lighting. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enf orced with new construction.
So although Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that an industrial park smaller than 36,000
square feet is below the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (proposed
development includes three buildings totally 22,758 square feet ), running the more accurate CalEEMod computer
model identifies that the operational phase impacts will likely be less than the APCD’s thresholds in Table 3 -2 of the
CEQA Handbook. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel use, and the resulting
emissions related to the project’s land uses. The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 113,000 square feet).
Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
10,
11, 29
--X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
--X-- --X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
31 --X--
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 157 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
10, 17
--X--
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
3, 28
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
--X--
Evaluation
a. Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity,
ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a
substance or combination of substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious,
irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are
hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged,
spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disp osed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11,
Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste
if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria.
Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or would be used. It is necessary to differentiate
between the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the
environment. A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment.
The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity
of a material.
Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose
the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which
a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility.
Construction Phase. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable building,
health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and
occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels
(gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents
and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials
used would be small, so the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, because such use must comply with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and
Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Operational Phase. The proposed project is a shell industrial park located in the Manufacturing (M) zone, which
would allow or conditionally allow a variety of uses. The site’s physical location, directly adjacent to both Meadow
Creek and residential uses, renders several of the otherwise permissible uses inapprop riate due to the potential of
exposure of the public and the environment to hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. As discussed in Section 3: Air Quality, included in the project description is a modified list of tho se uses
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 158 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21
which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to
cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Specific to Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, those uses which have been prohibited on this site (though otherwise allowed in the Manufacturing Zone)
include those uses involving vehicle services, fuel or petroleum dealers, laundry/dry cleaning plants,
airports/heliport, and heavy manufacturing. Additionally, the level of scrutiny and permitting requirements have
been intensified for several other uses, including photo and film processing labs, printing and publishing, furniture
and fixture manufacturing, and light industrial uses to ensure that specific practi ces associated with activities are
reviewed and conditioned to ensure that they will not create a nuisance. Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List.
b. As discussed in Impacts a, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or
emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment.
Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated
with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed project or by transporters
picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These re gulations establish standards by which
hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where transport of these
materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of reg ulations.
c. The proposed project is a shell industrial park, and is located 0.30 miles from the nearest corner of Hawthorne
Elementary School, at the intersection of Hutton and Branch Streets. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed
project is a shell industrial park, and a truncated list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses has been included in
the project description to ensure that individual uses at the site would not result in the routine transport, use,
disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to
the environment, including at the existing school.
d. The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 309 South Street, the former McCarthy
Steel, approximately 500 feet northeast of the project site. That site is listed on the Cortese State Water Resources
Control Board GEOTRACKER database due to the presence of leaking underground Tank (LUSK) Cleanup Sites.
That project is considered closed; therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public
or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site.
e, f. The project is not located within any airport land use plan area as it is at the foot of the South Hills and outside any
flight pattern. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area.
g. The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans .
Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response
or evacuation plan are considered less than significant.
h. The project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and although directly adjacent to the South Hills Open
Space is not located within a wildland hazard area. The surrounding land is largely developed with urban and
residential uses, and is set back from the creek corridor as required by the Conservation and Op en Space Element.
The proposed project will have no impact on the placement of people or structures ne xt to wildland areas that could
result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
6, 14,
15,17,
25,28
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre -existing
--X--
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 159 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
--X--
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
--X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? --X--
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 11,
12, 30
--X--
Evaluation
a, c- f, i. The project site is currently vacant except for a small red bricked parking area and drive aisle on the north
panhandle of the site, and is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses with an average slope of less than two
percent. It is bordered to the north with the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and on the south with an ephemeral
swale. The site is within an AO flood zone with a sheet flow up to 2-feet deep. As such, the development is subject
to the Floodplain Management Regulations. Although the project includes less than 22,000 square feet of
impervious area, due to its proximity to a blueline creek and location in the 100-year floodplain the project is subject
to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and Post Construction
Requirements for storm water control. Under these standards, the projects where Impervious Area ≥ 22,000 SF and
in Watershed Management Zone 1 shall meet Post Construction Requirements 1 – 4 as follows: 1) Site Design and
Runoff Reduction, 2) Water Quality Treatment, 3) Runoff Retention, and 4) Peak Management. For the SLO
City/WWMP drainage criteria to be accommodated, Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations require the
analysis to verify that there will be: 1) No change in the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 & 2 year peak flow runoff exiting the
property, 2) Use of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize potential release of sediments and clarify
storm flows in minor storm events to reduce pollutants moving downstream into San Luis Creek, and 3) City
Standard Criteria for Source Control of Drainage and Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 10 10, “Projects with
pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to implement operation or source control measures
consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality Association or other accepted standards.
The on-site watersheds or drainage management areas, when developed will be a mix of hard surfaced roofs and
paving, porous pavers, gravel surface and landscaping, as depicted in the September 2014 Preliminary Hydrologic
and Hydraulic Analysis. With one exception, the buildings are proposed to be constructed using a flow-under
concept, with an open path under the structures to allow the free flow of storm water. For the slab -on-grade building
the area is blocked off as an ineffective flow area.
A “train” of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed to mitigate the potential pollutant load. These include
the use of the perimeter bioswale or retention basins below the buildings, site design and efficient irrigation
practices, roof runoff controls, use of pervious pa vements with gravel storage beds, infiltration basins beneath
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 160 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23
buildings A and B, and a vegetated swale along the projects southern perimeter. Based on modeling contained in the
report, the Consulting Engineer concluded that the proposed BMPs are adequate to mitigate the increased pollutant
load and that the project as proposed will not adversely impact flood levels in the area.
The Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis prepared by Keith Crow, PE, PLS, September 2014, conclude
the project’s water flows can adequately be mitigated with proposed BMPs from preconstruction to post-
construction, and complies with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, Waterways Management Plan, LID
storm water treatment requirements, and Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. Compliance with the
Waterways Management Plan is sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas
of water quality and hydrology. The Public Works Department has determined that the proposed improvemen ts
identified in the Crow Analysis are sufficient to avoid drainage impacts on-site, upstream, or downstream.
b. The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources.
Groundwater recharge will also be maintained through the implementation of best management practices. Roof
runoff will be released to either the perimeter bioswale or to shallow detention basins located beneath the buildings.
Each basin will contain 12-inches of clean gravel and 24-inches of bioretention soil media to facilitate treatment. All
walks and decks are elevated and are permeable with the grade underneath designed to either infiltrate naturally or
sheet flow to the detention basins or the perimeter bioswale. The eastern parking area will be treated by a parking lot
bioswale and porous pavement with secondary treatment occurring in existing brambles swale.
g, i. Meadow Creek crosses through the northern portion of the project site. The majority of the site is within the
boundaries of the area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm with inundation depths of up to
2-feet (AO 2’ depth Zone). Both the northernmost extent and southeast corner of the site are somewhat higher
elevation and are within the XB Zone, which is subject to a 0.2% annual chance of flooding . As discussed above, the
project has been designed with elevated structures, retention basins, and permeable structures to ensure that
development will not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. Compliance with City standards will be sufficient
to ensure that the proposed project does not endanger structures on this and other adjoin ing sites.
i, j. The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from any known levee or dam, or potential seiche or
tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential
for inundation by mudflow.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 4,
10, 28
--X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
--X--
Evaluation
a. The proposed development project is designed to utilize an infill development site and fit among existing
manufacturing and residential development. Structures and project amenities are contained within the developable
portion of the site without encroachment into sensitive creek setback areas, and will not physically divide an
established community.
b. With approval of necessary project entitlements, including environmental review and Architectural Review, the
proposed project will not conflict with applicable City of San Luis Obispo land use plans, policies, or regulations for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with City
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 161 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24
General Plan Designation and zoning for the project site, regulations and development standards. As discussed in
Section 3: Air Quality and Section 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, included in the project description is a
modified list of those uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses
which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Please
refer to Attachment 3, Use List.
Approval of the access bridge will require findings be made for a Creek Setback Reduction as provided in Municipal
Code Section 17.16.025.G4, which include that the location and design of the feature receiving the exception will
minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat; that the structure will not limit the city’s
design options for providing flood control measures; the exception will not prevent the implementation of city -
adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environment al effects of implementing such plans; that there are
circumstances applying to the site which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity; that the exception will not
constitute a grant of special privilege or be detrimental to the public welfare; that site development cannot be
accomplished with a redesign of the project, and; redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable
use of the property. These standards will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, who will take final
action on the project.
c. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the
proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
4
--X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
--X--
Evaluation
a, b. No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
--X--
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 162 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
27
--X--
12
--X--
Evaluation
a, c. The Noise Guidebook was adopted to help assess noise exposure and ensure project designs meet the standards of
the City’s General Plan Noise Element. The Guidebook applies to noise from road, traffic, the railroad, and aircraft ,
as well as noise generated by various uses. Noise exposure information covers the major transportation noise
sources, and a representative sampling of stationary sources, identified for study when the Noise Element was last
updated. The Guidelines describe the compatibility of different land uses with a range of environmental noise levels
in terms of ldn or CNEL. An exterior noise environment of 50 to 60 Ldn or CNEL is considered to be “normally
acceptable” for residential uses according to those guidelines. The Guidelines also consider the occupational noise
exposure as well as noise exposure away from work environments, recognizing an exterior noise level of 55dB Ldn
as a goal to protect the public from hearing loss, activity interference, sleep disturbance, and annoyance. Figure 5 of
the Noise Element indicates that existing and build-out noise levels at the site are below 60 decibels (dB) Ldn.
The proposed shell buildings and exterior spaces could house a variety of allowed and conditionally allowed uses,
which would be required to conform to adopted noise standards. The proposed site layout has the potential to be
problematic for future noise-generating uses, where buildings and building openings are adjacent to existing
residences. As currently designed, Buildings A and C are sited with minimal setbacks to adjacent residences, while
the loading dock for Building B is located fronting the property line shared with adjacent residential zoning and an
approved residential project that is under construction. A mitigation measure (NOI 1) has been recommended that
loading facilities be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties. The Architectural
Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically
located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Additionally, a six-foot privacy fence has been proposed which
would assist in attenuating noise generated on the site.
The Guidebook indicates that noise level estimates should be taken as worst case estimates as they do not take into
account shielding by buildings or landforms which can reduce noise exposure up to 14 dB. The Noise Element
indicates that for residential uses noise levels of 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor
areas. As discussed in Section 3: Air Quality, Section 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 10: Land
Use and Planning, included in the project description is a modified list of those uses which may be allowed or
conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air
quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Potential impacts from these individual uses will therefore be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that exterior noise levels will be less than 60 dB when attenuation
afforded by building features and site design are taken into account. Interior noise levels of less than 45dB will be
achievable with standard building materials and construction techniques. Excepting for the caretakers unit,
commercial hours of operation will be limited to approximately 7 am to 6pm, Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List.
b. Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project include a variety of potential uses, as
described in the applicant’s proposed list of uses, some of which could involve the use of any equipment or
processes that would result in some levels of ground vibration. However, such uses would be subject to individual
case-by-case evaluation through the use permit process, ensuring that impacts from future activities woul d not
become a nuisance and would be less than significant. Short-term increases in groundborne vibration levels
attributable to the construction-related activities for the proposed project are anticipated. Construction activities
would likely require the use of various types of equipment, such as forklifts, concrete mixers, and haul trucks.
Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed by City ordinance, impacts
associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant.
d. Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed shell buildings. Noise
levels during construction may be temporarily higher than existing noise levels in the vicinity. Although there would
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 163 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
26
be intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, noise impacts would be less
than significant because the construction would be short term and restricted to the typical working hours, and
temporary increased noise levels allowed by City ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.12: Noise Control).
e, f. The project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the nearest point of San Luis Air Port, but is not located
within any airport land use plan area as it is at the foot of the South Hills and outside any flight pattern. There are no
private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area.
Mitigation Measures: Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent
properties, to increase the separation from noise -sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise.
The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are
strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on area noise levels.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 29 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
--X--
--X--
Evaluation:
a. The proposed project includes construction of a business park appropriate for a variety of light industrial and
manufacturing uses. The three buildings include 22,758 square feet, including one 2 -bedroom caretakers unit. The
new employment generated by the project would not be considered substantial, nor would the addition of one
residential unit to the existing housing stock. Considering the surrounding area is currently developed, and the
proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would not induce additional
growth that would be considered significant. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure are required to serve the
project. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth.
b, c. The site is currently undeveloped. Therefore no housing would be displaced with the proposed development.
Conclusion: No impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 17, 29 --X--
b) Police protection? --X--
c) Schools? --X--
d) Parks? --X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? --X--
f) Other public facilities? --X--
Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 164 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
27
a. The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed
project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection
services over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the
site is already served by the City for fire protection. The project would not substantially alter the number of housing
units or population in the city and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve t he site.
There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to
fire protection would be less than significant.
b. The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The
development of the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police
facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police
facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
c. Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the SLOCUSD. These fees
would be directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school
capacities. Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could
result from the proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a
less than significant level. As the proposed structures are for commercial use, no new students are anticipated to be
associated with this development.
d. Because the project is primarily commercial in nature, it would result in a very minor increase in the number of
people utilizing park facilities relative to the city’s existing population, and significant deterioration or accelerated
deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The
proposed project is within close proximity to Meadow Park and the South Hills Open Space, which are within easy
walking distance, and would have a less than significant impact on parks.
e. As noted above and discussed in Section 16: Transportation/ Traffic, the project will not significantly add to demand
on the circulation system. Because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively
minor increase in users relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration
of transportation infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The
proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
10, 29
--X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
--X--
Evaluation:
a. The project will result in a minor demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Given that the project is largely
commercial in nature no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. Park
Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space, maintenance or
equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy. Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new projects
on the City’s recreational facilities.
b. The project includes a small area near the creek for employees to take breaks and enjoy the site , including picnic
table and landscaping. No other recreational facilities are proposed or will be necessitated.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 165 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
28
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1, 16,
17,
20, 28
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
--X--
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
--X--
Evaluation
a, b. Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located east of the project site. Local access to the
project site is provided by Bridge Street and South Higuera; with pedestrian and bicycle access also available via a
bike path connection at the western end of Bridge Street to Exposition Drive and the Meadow Park bicycle path
network. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs, gut ters, sidewalks, and on-street parking. The
project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does not significantly add to demand on
the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other agency’s plans for
congestion management. As currently proposed, the project will generate approximately 21 AM peak trips and 23
peak PM trips, which are well within the available capacity of the existing street network.
ITE
Code
AM
Rate
AM
Trips
PM
Rate
PM
Trips
23,300 sf light
manufacturing 110 0.92 21 0.97 23
These vehicular trips will be added to local and area streets. While existing streets have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels of service , the project location and
anticipated business mix make it a prime candidate for use of non -motorized forms of transportation, particularly
walking and biking. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to increased vehicular
trips and does not conflict with performance standards provided in City adopted plans or policies. The project will
also contribute to overall impact mitigation for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee program.
c. The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air
traffic patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 166 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
29
d. The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, including Bridge Street. The project would improve
require through traffic through an existing parking lot, but would not significantly alter the existing travel flow of
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project driveway and bridge would be consistent with City code
requirements for ingress/egress to safely and adequately serve potential users of the site. Because the project is a
similar use to those in the immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses.
e. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. As
proposed, the project bridge access would provide adequate access for all vehicles (including emergency vehicles),
bicyclists, and pedestrians. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access.
f. The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within the City’s
urban center, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services. South Higuera is served by the SLO City bus lines
for Routes 2, 4 and 5, which are located within walking distance on South Higuera. The projects central location is
also convenient for walking and biking, with a bike path at the eastern end of Bridge Street connecting the area to
Exposition Drive, Meadow Park, and points east. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage. The
proposed project includes short term bicycle racks near each of the building entrances and long term bicycle storage
within the buildings.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
6, 7,
14,16,
25,26,
27, 28
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
--X--
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
--X--
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
--X--
Evaluation
a-c, e. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water,
wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water
service, which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity
of the project site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion
of existing facilities which could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the
City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 167 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
30
The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standard s in the Uniform Plumbing
Code and City standards. Sewer impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity
at the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential
impacts of the project.
d. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as ant icipated by the
General Plan. Per the General Plan Water/Wastewater Element and the 2014 Water Resource Status Report, the City
has sufficient water supplies for build-out of the City’s General Plan. The incremental change is not considered to be
significant. Water impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for water supplies and
water facilities, such as the City’s water treatment plan. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential
impacts of the project. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
f, g. The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access and
access to ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission.
San Luis Garbage has reviewed the location and size of enclosures and determined that they are sufficient in size to
handle garbage and recycling.
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows that Californians dispose
of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to
groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The
Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels)
by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by thi s project, consistent with the City’s Conservation and
Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development
Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf)
recycling facilities have been accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling
discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental
additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste
disposal.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
--X--
The project is an infill commercial development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have
the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential
impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources will be less than significant with incorporation of
recommended mitigation measures.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
--X--
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although
incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts tha t
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 168 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
31
could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics (AES 1-2), air quality (AQ 1-6), biological resources (BIO 1-5),
cultural resources (CULT 1-2), and noise (NOI 1).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study.
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, December 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
3. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
4. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
5. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
7. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
8. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
9. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
11. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015
12. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
13. 2013 California Building Code
14. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
15. Water Resources Status Report, October 2014, on file with in the Utilities Department
16. Site Visit
17. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge
18. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
19. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
20. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
21. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
24. Archeological Resource Inventory, Bertrando & Bertrando, July 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 169 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
32
25. Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis, September 2014
26. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Beacon Geotechnical, April 2012
27. Geotechnical Engineering Report Alternative Foundation Addendum, Beacon Geotechnical, March 16, 2015
28. Project Plans, dated November 14, 2014
29. Applicant project statement/description
30. Biological Resources Assessment, Sage Institute, July 2014
31. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List:
http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm
32. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Referral Comments, via email March and April 2015
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Plans
3. Use List
4. Archeological Resource Inventory, Bertrando & Bertrando, July 2014
5. Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis, September 2014
6. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Beacon Geotechnical, April 2012
7. Geotechnical Engineering Report Alternative Foundation Addendum, Beacon Geotechnical, March 16,
2015
8. Applicant project statement/description
9. Biological Resources Assessment, Sage Institute, July 2014
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light post shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard
lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans.
Monitoring Plan, AES 1: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as
part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for
consistency with City standards and to ensure that light spillage into the creek corridor or across
property lines will not occur, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits.
Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and
creek setbacks.
Monitoring Plan, AES 2: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as
part of the Building Permit application package, who shall ensure that all lighting is outside required
yard and creek setbacks, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 170 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33
Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not
exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall
be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with
NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days
of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties
shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3
minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25
m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing
activities.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 171 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
34
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at
the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork
or demolition.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD
permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific
information regarding permitting requirements.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 172 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
35
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the
following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of
regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with
gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on
highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation
specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State
required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix,
hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific
standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of
compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below
APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD
for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 173 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
36
Monitoring Plan, AQ 6: Confirmation with compliance with APCD regulations shall be provided
with business permit applications as applicable. All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor
compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be
provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with
APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that
caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where
adjacent to riparian setbacks.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be
reviewed by the City’s Community Development staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the
Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the
final geotechnical engineering report and use of caisson foundations, and provide site inspections as
necessary to ensure implementation.
Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level,
vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between
September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for
the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be
required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests
are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.
If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided
with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified
biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults
and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified
biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on
nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be
reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit
application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction
nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation.
Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland
wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If
ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 174 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
37
disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife
that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for
non-listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be
reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit
application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction
surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation.
Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance
in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be
required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all
the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations
require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented
in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting
would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent
impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such,
regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant
level.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including
documentation of compliance with any Corps permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements
shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the
Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CWA/Corps compliance.
Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California
Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed
Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required
for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement
all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed
Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been
designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In
addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the
form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory
riparian tree plantings. Using the City-required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree
replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory
compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including
documentation of compliance with any CDFW permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 175 of 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 0286-2014
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
38
shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the
Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CDFW compliance.
Geology & Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a
comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project.
Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and
structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site
preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall design
parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on
retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer.
Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as
part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits.
Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential
development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise-sensitive uses and to allow the
buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission will review final
building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate
noise generated on the site.
Monitoring Plan, NOI 1: The Architectural Review Commission will review the site plan to ensure
loading docks are located to attenuate generated noise effect on adjacent residential land.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 176 of 186
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER #0286-2014
1. Project Title: 279 Bridge Street Mixed-Use Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
sscott@slocity.org
(805) 781-7176
4. Project Location: 279 Bridge Street
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Bridge Squared, LLC
1680 La Finca Court
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
6. General Plan Designation: Services & Manufacturing
7. Zoning: Manufacturing (M)
8. Description of the Project: The proposed mixed-use project consists of three
buildings including: Building A (8,636-square foot [sf] manufacturing shell with
mezzanine); Building B (31,726 sf mixed-use building including 7,200 sf of
commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom residential
units above); and Building C (6,850-sf mixed-use building including 3,421-sf of
commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above) with
associated parking and site improvements. The project includes a request for a
mixed-use parking reduction of six percent.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is a 2.73-acre flag lot
with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street. The northern “flag”
portion of the site is developed with a drive aisle and ten parking spaces that serve
an existing building on an adjacent property. The property is an existing legal
parcel with access provided by a bridge over Meadow Creek. The project site is
bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor, existing commercial
and industrial uses to the north (M and C-S-PD), live/work units to the west (M-
PD), and residential development to the south and east (R-2-PD and R-2-S). The
South Hills Open Space area is located further to the south.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 177 of 186
Addendum to Initial Study #0286-2014
Page 2
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Major Development Review and Planning
Commission Use Permit
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Air Pollution Control
District, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Previous Entitlement and Environmental Review: On June 1, 2015, the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the
previous project, which included approval of construction of the existing access bridge
over Meadow Creek, three manufacturing shell buildings (including caretaker’s quarters),
tree removals, and site improvements. A copy of the adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration is attached.
At the time, the ARC approved the bridge component of the project, pending further
design review of the manufacturing shell buildings. On May 1, 2017, the ARC approved
a project on this project site that consisted of three shell buildings including the
following: Building A (8,636 square feet including mezzanine level); Building B (9,957
square feet); and Building C (4,704 square feet including a second floor caretaker’s
residence with outdoor patio). The previous approval included tree removals and onsite
plantings as recommended by the City Arborist, and associated site improvements
(Attachment 2, Previous ARC Report and Resolution). Since that time, the applicant has
substantially modified the project and proposed uses for the site, which require design
review by the ARC (with a recommendation to be provided to the Planning Commission)
and consideration of a Planning Commission Use Permit to establish the proposed mixed-
use project and mixed-use parking reduction.
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Environmental impacts associated with development of the project site were evaluated in
the MND (ER #0286-2014). The previous project evaluated in the adopted MND
included the construction of three shell buildings (a total of 22,758 square feet of useable
space and 13,525 square feet of coverage), construction of a bridge over Meadow Creek
(which has been completed), construction of parking and site improvements, and tree
removals. As a component of the previous project entitlement, a Use List for the site was
established. The currently proposed project is consistent with the adopted Use List.
The proposed project addressed in this Addendum consists of three buildings 8,636
(Building A), 31,726 (Building B), and 6,850 (Building C) square feet each and
associated parking and site improvements. Proposed tree removals would be the same as
identified in the previous entitlement (Chinese pistache, California pepper tree cluster and
Italian stone pine). The primary changes to the project description since the MND was
adopted consist of the proposed use of the proposed buildings from manufacturing to
mixed-use (commercial and residential) and the proposed size and architectural design of
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 178 of 186
Addendum to Initial Study #0286-2014
Page 3
Buildings B and C. No changes to approved Building A (manufacturing shell) are
proposed.
Potential Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant
The previously-adopted MND found that with incorporation of mitigation measures,
potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, and noise
will be less than significant. A summary of the potential impacts and adopted mitigation
measures is provided below, including an assessment of the potential impacts resulting
from the currently proposed project. As discussed below, implementation of the project
would not result in any new impacts or impacts with increased severity than what was
identified in the adopted MND, and no new or amended mitigation measures are
required.
Aesthetics: The adopted MND identified a potential impact due to the potential for glare
from the parking lot and building light poles affecting adjacent residences. Adopted
mitigation includes replacing freestanding light posts with bollard lighting, to be located
outside of required setbacks. This mitigation would apply to the current project. In
addition, the current project is subject to Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.050 (Edge
Conditions), which requires that any driveways and drive aisles facing an adjacent zone
must be fully screened from the adjacent (R-2) use. The proposed project incorporates
solid fencing and perimeter landscaping to be consistent with this regulation. All other
aesthetic impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant,
similar to the proposed project, because the project site is not located within a scenic
vista, is not visible from a local or state scenic highway or roadway, and development of
the site would be consistent with the underlying zoning and Community Design
Guidelines, which address visual compatibility, including consistency with “Edge
Condition” regulations due to the adjacent residential (R-2) zoning.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The adopted MND noted potential
construction-related air quality impacts, which would be mitigated by compliance with
standard APCD mitigation measures and permitting requirements. These mitigation
measures would apply to the current project. Regarding operational impacts, the current
mixed-use project would not exceed the operational thresholds identified by the APCD,
and would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan because the project locates commercial
and residential uses proximate to each other, and the site has access to bicycle lanes,
transit, and a local park.
Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-use Development) which notes that
mixed-use development forwards the City’s sustainability goals by locating housing,
jobs, recreation and other daily needs in close proximity to each other. Furthermore,
Mixed-use Development regulations prohibit activities or uses that would be
“incompatible with residential activities and/or have the possibility of affecting the health
or safety of mixed-use development residents due to the potential for the use to create
dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts,
or would be hazardous because of materials, processes, products, or wastes”. Mixed-Use
Development performance standards also state that “all residential units shall be designed
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 179 of 186
Addendum to Initial Study #0286-2014
Page 4
to minimize adverse impacts from mechanical equipment and operations of
nonresidential project air pollutant emissions and odors in compliance with the Air
Pollution Control District Air Quality Handbook and [Municipal Code] Chapter 8.22
(Offensive Odors)”. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed project and
compliance with existing regulations and adopted mitigation measures, the project would
not result in any new or increased significant impacts.
Biological Resources: The adopted MND identified potential impacts primarily related to
the bridge over Meadow Creek, which has been constructed. The MND also identifies
mitigation measures to mitigate potential impacts to nesting birds and wildlife during
construction of the project, including pre-construction surveys, and requirements for
monitoring. These mitigation measures would apply to the current project. In addition,
standard erosion and sedimentation control measures, are required to protect water
quality and habitat along the Meadow Creek corridor, pursuant to the City’s Municipal
Code and Waterways Management Plan. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed
project and compliance with adopted mitigation measures, the project would not result in
any new or increased significant impacts.
Geology/Soils: The adopted MND included the findings of a Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report and Foundation Alternative Memo, which concluded that the project
is structurally feasible. Mitigation is identified to require a final geotechnical engineering
investigation and comprehensive design-level report, which is required to address site
preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, slabs-
on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining
walls). This mitigation measure applies to the current project. In addition, as noted above,
standard erosion and sedimentation measures are required during construction, which
would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion and sedimentation.
Noise: The adopted MND identified an impact related to use of manufacturing shell
building loading docks, and required mitigation states that loading facilities are to be
oriented away from residential uses on adjacent properties. The current project has
changed manufacturing buildings B and C to mixed-use buildings with commercial uses
on the ground floor and residential uses above. This use mix is anticipated to result in less
potential operational noise than potential manufacturing uses, and any potential loading
facilities are required to be oriented away from residential uses, in compliance with the
adopted measure.
In addition, the current project is subject to Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.050 (Edge
Conditions), which: prohibits balconies and terraces above the first floor on the building
side facing the R-2 zone; increased setbacks for roof top uses (ten feet greater than the
standard); siting and four-sided screening of trash and recycling collection areas such that
noise impacts are avoided; limited hours of operation (7:00 AM – 8:00 PM); and
screening of mechanical service and loading areas. In addition, as noted above (Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the mixed-use project is subject to regulations
identified in Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-use Development), including
performance standards that require that “all residential units shall be designed to
minimize adverse impacts from nonresidential project noise and shall comply with
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 180 of 186
Addendum to Initial Study #0286-2014
Page 5
[Municipal Code] Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control)”. Based on the changes to the proposed
use of the site, and compliance with the Zoning Regulations, no new or greater noise
impacts would occur.
Other Resources: Based on the changes to the project description, no other significant
impacts would occur. The project is required to comply with the City’s adopted Drainage
Design Manual and Waterways Management Plan to address drainage, stormwater
management, and flooding (similar to the proposed project). The project would be
adequately served by existing City water, sewer, parks, schools, and roadways and would
not require off-site improvements beyond what was identified in the previous project.
The applicant is required pay impact fees, including Traffic Impact Fees, to address the
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to water, sewer, and transportation
infrastructure. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed project and compliance
with existing regulations, the project would not result in any new or increased significant
impacts to other environmental resources.
DETERMINATION:
In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis
Obispo has determined that this addendum to the 279 Bridge Street MND is necessary to
document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the
MND was adopted. The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not
necessary because:
1. None of the following circumstances included in Section 15162 of the State
CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent environmental
document:
a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental
impacts.
b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require
major changes to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
c. The modified project does not require any new mitigation measures.
2. The changes are consistent with City General Plan goals and polices that promote
provision of additional housing within the City.
Attached: Initial Study / Negative Declaration ER# 0286-2014
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 181 of 186
PREVIOUS
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER #0286-2014
1. Project Title: 279 Bridge Street Mixed-Use Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
sscott@slocity.org
(805) 781-7176
4. Project Location: 279 Bridge Street
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Bridge Squared, LLC
1680 La Finca Court
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
6. General Plan Designation: Services & Manufacturing
7. Zoning: Manufacturing (M)
8. Description of the Project: The proposed mixed-use project consists of three
buildings including: Building A (8,636-square foot [sf] manufacturing shell with
mezzanine); Building B (31,726 sf mixed-use building including 7,200 sf of
commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom residential
units above); and Building C (6,850-sf mixed-use building including 3,421-sf of
commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above) with
associated parking and site improvements. The project includes a request for a
mixed-use parking reduction of six percent.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is a 2.73-acre flag lot
with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street. The northern “flag”
portion of the site is developed with a drive aisle and ten parking spaces that serve
an existing building on an adjacent property. The property is an existing legal
parcel with access provided by a bridge over Meadow Creek. The project site is
bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor, existing commercial
and industrial uses to the north (M and C-S-PD), live/work units to the west (M-
PD), and residential development to the south and east (R-2-PD and R-2-S). The
South Hills Open Space area is located further to the south.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 182 of 186
PREVIOUSAddendum to Initial Study #0286-2014
Page 2
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Major Development Review and Planning
Commission Use Permit
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Air Pollution Control
District, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Previous Entitlement and Environmental Review: On June 1, 2015, the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the
previous project, which included approval of construction of the existing access bridge
over Meadow Creek, three manufacturing shell buildings (including caretaker’s quarters),
tree removals, and site improvements. A copy of the adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration is attached.
At the time, the ARC approved the bridge component of the project, pending further
design review of the manufacturing shell buildings. On May 1, 2017, the ARC approved
a project on this project site that consisted of three shell buildings including the
following: Building A (8,636 square feet including mezzanine level); Building B (9,957
square feet); and Building C (4,704 square feet including a second floor caretaker’s
residence with outdoor patio). The previous approval included tree removals and onsite
plantings as recommended by the City Arborist, and associated site improvements
(Attachment 2, Previous ARC Report and Resolution). Since that time, the applicant has
substantially modified the project and proposed uses for the site, which require design
review by the ARC (with a recommendation to be provided to the Planning Commission)
and consideration of a Planning Commission Use Permit to establish the proposed mixed-
use project and mixed-use parking reduction.
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Environmental impacts associated with development of the project site were evaluated in
the MND (ER #0286-2014). The previous project evaluated in the adopted MND
included the construction of three shell buildings (a total of 22,758 square feet of useable
space and 13,525 square feet of coverage), construction of a bridge over Meadow Creek
(which has been completed), construction of parking and site improvements, and tree
removals. As a component of the previous project entitlement, a Use List for the site was
established. The currently proposed project is consistent with the adopted Use List.
The proposed project addressed in this Addendum consists of three buildings 8,636
(Building A), 31,726 (Building B), and 6,850 (Building C) square feet each and
associated parking and site improvements. Proposed tree removals would be the same as
identified in the previous entitlement (Chinese pistache, California pepper tree cluster and
Italian stone pine). The primary changes to the project description since the MND was
adopted consist of the proposed use of the proposed buildings from manufacturing to
mixed-use (commercial and residential) and the proposed size and architectural design of
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 183 of 186
PREVIOUSAddendum to Initial Study #0286-2014
Page 3
Buildings B and C. No changes to approved Building A (manufacturing shell) are
proposed.
Potential Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant
The previously-adopted MND found that with incorporation of mitigation measures,
potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, and noise
will be less than significant. A summary of the potential impacts and adopted mitigation
measures is provided below, including an assessment of the potential impacts resulting
from the currently proposed project. As discussed below, implementation of the project
would not result in any new impacts or impacts with increased severity than what was
identified in the adopted MND, and no new or amended mitigation measures are
required.
Aesthetics: The adopted MND identified a potential impact due to the potential for glare
from the parking lot and building light poles affecting adjacent residences. Adopted
mitigation includes replacing freestanding light posts with bollard lighting, to be located
outside of required setbacks. This mitigation would apply to the current project. In
addition, the current project is subject to Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.050 (Edge
Conditions), which requires that any driveways and drive aisles facing an adjacent zone
must be fully screened from the adjacent (R-2) use. The proposed project incorporates
solid fencing and perimeter landscaping to be consistent with this regulation. All other
aesthetic impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant,
similar to the proposed project, because the project site is not located within a scenic
vista, is not visible from a local or state scenic highway or roadway, and development of
the site would be consistent with the underlying zoning and Community Design
Guidelines, which address visual compatibility, including consistency with “Edge
Condition” regulations due to the adjacent residential (R-2) zoning.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The adopted MND noted potential
construction-related air quality impacts, which would be mitigated by compliance with
standard APCD mitigation measures and permitting requirements. These mitigation
measures would apply to the current project. Regarding operational impacts, the current
mixed-use project would not exceed the operational thresholds identified by the APCD,
and would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan because the project locates commercial
and residential uses proximate to each other, and the site has access to bicycle lanes,
transit, and a local park.
Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-use Development) which notes that
mixed-use development forwards the City’s sustainability goals by locating housing,
jobs, recreation and other daily needs in close proximity to each other. Furthermore,
Mixed-use Development regulations prohibit activities or uses that would be
“incompatible with residential activities and/or have the possibility of affecting the health
or safety of mixed-use development residents due to the potential for the use to create
dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts,
or would be hazardous because of materials, processes, products, or wastes”. Mixed-Use
Development performance standards also state that “all residential units shall be designed
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 184 of 186
PREVIOUSAddendum to Initial Study #0286-2014
Page 4
to minimize adverse impacts from mechanical equipment and operations of
nonresidential project air pollutant emissions and odors in compliance with the Air
Pollution Control District Air Quality Handbook and [Municipal Code] Chapter 8.22
(Offensive Odors)”. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed project and
compliance with existing regulations and adopted mitigation measures, the project would
not result in any new or increased significant impacts.
Biological Resources: The adopted MND identified potential impacts primarily related to
the bridge over Meadow Creek, which has been constructed. The MND also identifies
mitigation measures to mitigate potential impacts to nesting birds and wildlife during
construction of the project, including pre-construction surveys, and requirements for
monitoring. These mitigation measures would apply to the current project. In addition,
standard erosion and sedimentation control measures, are required to protect water
quality and habitat along the Meadow Creek corridor, pursuant to the City’s Municipal
Code and Waterways Management Plan. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed
project and compliance with adopted mitigation measures, the project would not result in
any new or increased significant impacts.
Geology/Soils: The adopted MND included the findings of a Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report and Foundation Alternative Memo, which concluded that the project
is structurally feasible. Mitigation is identified to require a final geotechnical engineering
investigation and comprehensive design-level report, which is required to address site
preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, slabs-
on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining
walls). This mitigation measure applies to the current project. In addition, as noted above,
standard erosion and sedimentation measures are required during construction, which
would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion and sedimentation.
Noise: The adopted MND identified an impact related to use of manufacturing shell
building loading docks, and required mitigation states that loading facilities are to be
oriented away from residential uses on adjacent properties. The current project has
changed manufacturing buildings B and C to mixed-use buildings with commercial uses
on the ground floor and residential uses above. This use mix is anticipated to result in less
potential operational noise than potential manufacturing uses, and any potential loading
facilities are required to be oriented away from residential uses, in compliance with the
adopted measure.
In addition, the current project is subject to Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.050 (Edge
Conditions), which: prohibits balconies and terraces above the first floor on the building
side facing the R-2 zone; increased setbacks for roof top uses (ten feet greater than the
standard); siting and four-sided screening of trash and recycling collection areas such that
noise impacts are avoided; limited hours of operation (7:00 AM – 8:00 PM); and
screening of mechanical service and loading areas. In addition, as noted above (Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the mixed-use project is subject to regulations
identified in Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-use Development), including
performance standards that require that “all residential units shall be designed to
minimize adverse impacts from nonresidential project noise and shall comply with
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 185 of 186
PREVIOUSAddendum to Initial Study #0286-2014
Page 5
[Municipal Code] Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control)”. Based on the changes to the proposed
use of the site, and compliance with the Zoning Regulations, no new or greater noise
impacts would occur.
Other Resources: Based on the changes to the project description, no other significant
impacts would occur. The project is required to comply with the City’s adopted Drainage
Design Manual and Waterways Management Plan to address drainage, stormwater
management, and flooding (similar to the proposed project). The project would be
adequately served by existing City water, sewer, parks, schools, and roadways and would
not require off-site improvements beyond what was identified in the previous project.
The applicant is required pay impact fees, including Traffic Impact Fees, to address the
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to water, sewer, and transportation
infrastructure. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed project and compliance
with existing regulations, the project would not result in any new or increased significant
impacts to other environmental resources.
DETERMINATION:
In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis
Obispo has determined that this addendum to the 279 Bridge Street MND is necessary to
document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the
MND was adopted. The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not
necessary because:
1. None of the following circumstances included in Section 15162 of the State
CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent environmental
document:
a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental
impacts.
b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require
major changes to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
c. The modified project does not require any new mitigation measures.
2. The changes are consistent with City General Plan goals and polices that promote
provision of additional housing within the City.
Attached: Initial Study / Negative Declaration ER# 0286-2014
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 186 of 186
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
1
279 Bridge Street
Affordable Housing Mixed-Use
ARCH-0587-2020, USE-0412-2021, AFFH-0413-2021 &
EID-0494-2021
Review of a mixed-use project with a 24% density bonus,
including a minor use permit, consisting of 94 residential
units and 924 square feet of commercial space. An
addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
August 25, 2021
Applicant: Scott Smith, HASLO
2
1
2
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
2
Background
3
May 1, 2017, the ARC approved a manufacturing development
project consisting of 23,297 square feet of commercial space,
including a caretaker’s unit.
September 9, 2019, the ARC reviewed and recommend approval
of a revised design of the project that consisted of 19,267 square
feet of commercial space and 18 residential units.
September 25, 2019, the PC approved the revised project.
On July 19, 2020, the ARC reviewed the project and found it
consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and
recommended final action to the PC.
Site Plan
4
3
4
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
3
Minor Use Permit
5
Mixed-use development projects require a Minor Use
Permit to be constructed within the Manufacturing zone.
The project complies with the required findings for a mixed-
use project within the Manufacture zone, all required
findings have been incorporated into the draft resolution.
Edge Conditions
6
5
6
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
4
17.140.040 Alternative Incentive & Waiver
7
The project includes a request for one alternative incentive
as a concession and a waiver:
Concession to reduce site development standards to
allow for balconies on the second and third floors.
Waiver from the site development standard that
requires window placement to be offset by 12 inches.
Projects that provide affordable housing are allowed up to 80
percent density bonus based on the number of deed-
restricted affordable units provided in the project.
ARC Directional Items
8
The ARC provided four directional items to the applicant to
address related to building and site design;
Provide additional screening along the balconies
Reduce the height of the screening features surrounding
the interior courtyard
Provide trees of a greater maturity along the southern
perimeter.
Incorporate addition of an accent color.
7
8
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
5
Environmental Review
9
The project also includes an Addendum to the previously adopted
MND:
Minor technical changes do not materially change the findings
and conclusions of the adopted MND;
No substantial changes are proposed or would occur that would
require major revisions to the adopted MND;
No new significant environmental effects are identified and
there would not be a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
The project would not result in any significant effects that would
be substantially more severe than what was identified in the
adopted IS/MND; and
The applicant will comply with all identified adopted mitigation
measures, which are incorporated into the Draft Resolution.
Recommendation
Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the Addendum to
the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and approving the Minor Use Permit,
development plan and associated affordable housing
incentive request, based on findings and subject to
conditions of approval.
9
10
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
6
Proposed Modifications to Conditions
11
Condition No. 13: “…The landscape plans shall provide trees
planted along the southern and eastern perimeter of the
project site to be of a height and breadth at greater maturity
to provide substantial additional screening between the
existing and new structures, minimum size 36-inch box,
subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.”
Proposed Modifications to Conditions
12
Condition No. 9: “Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly
depict the location of all required short and long-term bicycle
parking for all intended uses, plans submitted for construction
permits shall include bicycle lockers or interior space within each
residential unit or other area for the storage of at least one bicycle
per residential unit. Plans shall also include at least one first floor,
secured and lockable bike storage area that can accommodate
oversized cargo and electric bikes with access to electricity. Short-
term bicycle racks such as “Peak Racks” shall be installed in close
proximity to, and visible from, the main entry into the buildings
(inverted “U” rack designs shall not be permitted). Sufficient detail
shall be provided about the placement and design of bike racks
and lockers to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering
Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction
of the Public Works and Community Development Directors.
11
12
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
7
Proposed New Condition
13
Condition No. 11: “Plans submitted for a building permit shall
include low level foot lighting along the pedestrian
accessway across the bridge, lighting along the bridge,
compliant with §17.70.100. Preference shall be towards
motion sensor lighting fixtures in close proximity to the
finished grade intended for enhancing pedestrian safety and
security, subject to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.”
Building Design
14
13
14
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
8
Edge Conditions
15
Edge Conditions
16
15
16
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
9
Edge Conditions – Phase 1 Elevations
17
Edge Conditions – Phase 2 & 3 Elevations
18
17
18
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
10
Terraza Project
19
Original Project
1)Construction of three commercial shell buildings in the Manufacturing
zone:
Building A: 8,332 square foot (including mezzanine level)
Building B: 9,957 square foot
Building C: 3,380 square foot (including 1,718 square foot caretakers residence)
20
19
20
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
11
Original Project
21
Other Discussion Items
1.Outdoor Unpaved Yard
a)Relocate, resize, or remove for compatibility with adjacent residential uses
2.Outdoor Decks Adjacent to Residential
a)Discuss appropriateness of outdoor decks
3.Caretakers Dwelling (1,718 square foot 2-bedroom residence)
1.Must be accessory to primary use and used for a caretaker employed on the site.
2.Potentially resize to be more of a traditional caretakers residence.
Revised Project
22
Building A: 8,736 square feet (manufacturing shell)
Building B:31,726 square feet (7,200 sf commercial, 16 residential units)
Building C: 6,850 square feet (3,421 sf commercial, two residential units)
21
22
Staff Presentation 8/28/2021
12
Revised Project
23
•Revise plans to show additional screening of rear parking area
•Applicant response: Additional trees along southern property boundary
Terraza Project
24
23
24
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
BRIDGE STREET APARTMENTS
279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 08/25/2021 EX.A
AERIAL VIEW
PROJECT OVERVIEW
• Phased Mixed-Use project in
manufacturing zone
• Affordable Housing with multi-
family and senior living, plus
commercial manufacturing shell
• Buildings are elevated above the
flood zone with podium design over
parking
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
BRIDGE STREET APARTMENTS
279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 08/25/2021 EX.B
Consider the context
• Neighboring residences to the west
and south are contemporary and
industrial in style
• Neighboring residences to the east are
separated by visual barriers
• Surrounding industrial buildings
are large in scale
• Surrounding materials include
corrugated metal, stucco, horizontal
wood and vertical standing seam in
varying colors
architectural context:
This project responds to the architectural
context through the majority use of
metal siding and stucco in a warm
color palette to compliment the natural
colors of the hillside, only utilzing cool
colors as accents to differentiate the
project’s uses.
CORRUGATED METAL SIDING AND ROLL-UP
DOORS AT ADJACENT LIVE-WORK UNITS
1 ADJACENT LINEAR WAREHOUSE WITH
INDUSTRIAL FINISHES AND WINDOW
STYLES
2 NEIGHBORING CONTEMPORARY
RESIDENCES WITH REPETITIVE ELEMENTS,
PARKING BELOW, 2-STORY RESIDENCE
ABOVE WITH ROOFTOP DECK
3
2 1
SOUTH st
BRIDGE ST
3
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
BRIDGE STREET APARTMENTS
279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 08/25/2021 EX.C
SITE PLANNING
BUILDING SETBACKS:
• Project’s apparent scale is smaller
than surrounding industrial buildings
and provides substantial setbacks
of <20ft from R-2 uses to respect
neighbor’s privacy and views
• Smallest setback provided is 12ft and
is adjacent to M-PD zone, compliant
with zoning regulations
• Creek setbacks vary from 34-40ft, well
above the min. 20ft.
• Buildings are elevated above the
flood zone with podium design over
parking
• Meandering paths planned in the
creek setback for pedestrian enjoyment
CREEK SETBACKs:NOPARKINGNOPARKINGM M
NO
PARKING
EV CAPABLE
STD
EV CAPABLE
VAN
EV CAPABLEVANEV READYSTD.EV CAPABLEVANEV CAPABLESTD.EV READYNO
PARKING
EV READY
VAN >>>>>>EV CAPABLEEV READYCOMPACTEV READYMM
EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE COMPACT
EV CAPABLEEV READY
EV READY
EV CAPABLE
EV CAPABLE
PHASE 2
FAMILY (30)
PHASE 3
FAMILY (32)
PHASE 1
SENIOR (32)
S81°00'57"W 203.
4
4
'
M
S78°21'43"E
4
8
5
.
1
0
'
M N0°27'10"E 326.95'MS77°08'13"W
2
2
1
.
0
7
'
M
24'-5"
SETBACK
24'-5"SETBACK21'-5"SETBACK25'-1"
SETBACK
24'-0"SETBACK36'-3"SETBACK26'-9"
SETBACK
12'-0"
SETBACK CREEKSETBACKDRAINAGEEASEMENTCREEKSETBACKDRAINAGEEASEMENT12'-10"SETBACK15'-0"SETBACK23'-10"SETBACK
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
BRIDGE STREET APARTMENTS
279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 08/25/2021 EX.D
SITE PLANNING cont.
open space and natural
features:
• Project is providing pedestrian
connection over the bridge
• This connection provides access to the
Meadow Park and South Hills Open Space
trails
• Central courtyards are provided at each
building
• Balconies are provided with more
opaque guardrail design to provide
additional privacy
• Parking complies at each phase & bike
parking exceeds requirements
• Pavers are provided in the parking areas
and the drive aisle for best stormwater
design and long term maintenance.
• Wider drive aisle and a fire truck
turnaround provided. Secondary site
egress is not required with fewer less
than 100 units
• Parking screening is provided at all
portions of building, screening in central
courtyard areas is dropped to 6ft and
starts 1ft from finish grade
PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS:
PHASE 1 & 2
COURTYARD
PHASE 1 & 2
FROM BRIDGE
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
BRIDGE STREET APARTMENTS
279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 08/25/2021 EX.E
neighborhood
compatibility
edge conditions and privacy:
balconies
• The livability of smaller units benefit
from the addition of balconies
• Balconies assist in the articulation of
long lengths of the building, breaking
up the apparent mass and scale
• The Housing Authority of San Luis
Obispo’s property managment does
an excellent job managing tenant
balconies
• Balconies are provided with a more
opaque guardrail design to provide
additional privacy
KEY PLAN
1
2
3 4
1
2
3
4
west facades’ windows
• Windows in adjacent, eastern R-2 zone
are sheilded by 8 foot fence along their
property lines and proposed building
provides vertical window offsets, see
Site Sections 1 and 2
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
BRIDGE STREET APARTMENTS
279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 08/25/2021 EX.F
neighborhood
compatibility
edge conditions and privacy:
windows
• This project requests a waiver of
zoning regulation 17.70.050(D)(5)
for the following reasons:
• To achieve requested density
windows would need to be provided
as shown to meet requirements for
compliance with emergency egress
from sleeping areas
• Project’s setbacks are larger than
required by Zoning Regulations
• The need for window offsets at further
distances becomes less relevant in
providing privacy
• The proposed project’s finish floors
vary from those in adjacent residential
buildings, creating natural vertical
offsets and reducing line of sights
• Proposed tree species will range
from 30-50 feet in height when
mature, and will be planted more
mature during construction, providing
increased screening of windows
• Green overlay represents
windows which comply
with a 12” minimum offset
from adjacent R-2 zone
window offset exhibit
windows adjacent to eastern r-2 zone>>PHASE 3
FAMILY (32)
PHASE 1
SENIOR (32)
S78°21'43"E 485.10'M
>>PHASE 3
FAMILY (32)
PHASE 1
SENIOR (32)
S78°21'43"E 485.10'M
263 261 259 257 255 253 251 249 247
3-BED
3-BED
1-BED 1-BED 1-BED 1-BED
1-BED 1-BED 3-BED 1-BED 1-BED 1-BED
1-BED2-BED
3-BED
263 261 259 257 255 253 251 249 247
3-BED
1-BED 1-BED 1-BED 1-BED
1-BED 1-BED 3-BED 1-BED 1-BED 1-BED
1-BED2-BED
1
2
• Yellow overlay represents
windows which do not
comply with 12” minimum
offset, but are blocked by
proposed landscape
• Red overlay represents
windows which do not
comply with 12” minimum
offset and are not blocked
by proposed landscape
NOTE:
NEIGHBORING WINDOWS ARE APPROXIMATE
LOCATIONS REPRESENT BEDROOM WINDOWS
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
BRIDGE STREET APARTMENTS
279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 08/25/2021
SCALE & MASS:
ACCENT COLORS:
• Pushes and pulls in the build
facade along with balconies provide
articulation along lengths of the
building to break up apparent
mass and scale
• No length of building is longer
than 40ft without providing a plane,
material and color change
• The individual buildings will
incorporate an accent color to
assist wayfinding and to give
each building a unique identity
• The accent color will be located at
building lobby entrances
• Directional signage will be provided
along drive aisle utilizing the
buildings’ accent colors, see image
on EX.D
BUILDING PLANNING
EX.G
9 6 5 4 2 1783
35'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTROOF 199.2' (+34'-5")
PHASE 3 F.F.E. 165'
THIRD F.F. 186.3' (+21'-7")
SECOND F.F. 176' (+11'-3")
AVG. NAT. GRADE 164.75'
L K J F D B AGHCE
11 9 8 6107 2 1345
35'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTROOF 200.9' (+34'-7")
PHASE 1 F.F.E. 167'
THIRD F.F. 188.3' (+22')
AVG. NAT. GRADE 166.31'
SECOND F.F. 178' (+11'-8")
J E D B AC JEDBGFH
21 3 1198610745
9 6 5 4 2 1783
35'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTROOF 199.2' (+34'-5")
PHASE 3 F.F.E. 165'
THIRD F.F. 186.3' (+21'-7")
SECOND F.F. 176' (+11'-3")
AVG. NAT. GRADE 164.75'
L K J F D B AGHCE
11 9 8 6107 2 1345
35'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTROOF 200.9' (+34'-7")
PHASE 1 F.F.E. 167'
THIRD F.F. 188.3' (+22')
AVG. NAT. GRADE 166.31'
SECOND F.F. 178' (+11'-8")
J E D B AC JEDBGFH
21 3 1198610745
phase 1a accent color update
phase 2 accent color update
NOTE:
PHASE 3 ACCENT COLOT CHANGE
IS BEST SEEN ON EX.D AND EX.H
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
BRIDGE STREET APARTMENTS
279 BRIDGE STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 08/25/2021 EX.H
VIEW FROM bridge entry