HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3b. 1035 Madonna Rd. (ARCH-0253-2021) San Luis Ranch
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE AND LEARNING CENTER
INCLUDED IN THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND CONSIDERATION OF
AN ADDENDUM TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR AND SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL
EIR
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Rd BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
Phone Number: (805) 610-1109
Email: jfrickenbach@aol.com
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0253-2021 FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) approving the project design (Development
Plan) and addendum to the Specific Plan Final EIR, and Supplemental Final EIR, based
on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to consider approval of the proposed Agricultural
Heritage and Learning Center, informed by the recommendations of the Architectural
Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee. In arriving at a decision, the
Planning Commission should consider the proposal’s consistency with the General Plan,
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP), Zoning Regulations, Community Design
Guidelines, and other applicable City development standards. Planning Commission
(PC) review is required for projects that include more than 10 residential units, or more
than 10,000 square feet of commercial space.
2.0 SUMMARY
The project is the “Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center” as envisioned in the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City Council in 2017. The applicant
calls the proposed development the San Luis Farms and Marketplace, but it is oft en more
commonly referred to as the “Ag Heritage Center”. It would be located on a specific site
identified within the 53-acre AG-zoned portion of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. The
project includes 31,236 SF of building area.
Consistent with what is described in the specific plan, the project consists of a farm
market, restaurant, general retail, and agricultural processing buildings (Attachment B,
project plans). Pursuant to mitigation requirements in the Final EIR, the project was
originally intended to relocate and incorporate three historic structures from the Dalidio
Ranch, but one of those structures—a grandstand viewing barn—was severely damaged
Meeting Date: 10/27/2021
Item Number: 3b
Time Estimate: 60 minutes
Page 159 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
in a fire in February 2019. Consequently, the project now will incorporate the two intact
relocated historic buildings, including the ranch house and barn, which will be
rehabilitated and used as part of the development. The project also includes the stabilized
remains of the damaged historic grandstand viewing barn, which is an important visual
and historic component of the project. The balance of the AG zoned area within the
specific plan will be maintained as a working farm with associated ag support structures
and farm roads.
3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP), which includes guidelines and standards for
the Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center, was adopted by the City Council in
September 2017. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed
project design (ARCH-0253-2021) on September 20, 2021, for consistency with the
SLRSP Design Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The ARC
unanimously recommended the Planning Commission find the project consistent with
design guidelines of the SLRSP and CDG without further direction or conditions tha t
would modify the proposed design. Minutes from the ARC meeting are included in
Attachment C.
The project was also considered by the Cultural Heritage Committee on September 27,
2021. The CHC unanimously recommended the Planning Commission approve the
addendum to the EIR and find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance, Secretary of Interior Standards, and historic policies and programs of the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan without further direction or conditions that would modify the
proposed design. Minutes from the CHC meeting are included in Attachment D.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Figure 2 (below) shows the location of proposed development in the context of
surrounding development, both existing and planned within San Luis Ranch.
Figure 2: Ag Heritage Center in Surrounding Context
Page 160 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
Figure 3 (below) shows the proposed layout of the Ag Heritage Center in more detail,
including the location of three historic structures associated with the San Luis Ranch
complex. The original complex included a variety of structures, some dating to the early
20th century. The nine structures included three single-family residences, a garage/shed,
a smaller shed, the main barn, a large equipment storage building, a warehouse, and the
former spectators’ barn/viewing stand, which was converted to farm use. Consistent with
the intent of the required mitigation measures included in the EIR, three of the most
significant structures have been relocated to the project site, including a reside nce, the
hay barn, and a surviving wall of the racetrack viewing stand, which was destroyed in a
fire in February 2019.
All new buildings within the proposed development are intended to be architecturally
consistent with the relocated historic structures, and to reflect an agricultural theme.
Proposed architecture draws from Farmhouse and Modern Agrarian elements, consistent
with what is anticipated in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Architectural and design
related analysis are described in the ARC agenda report of September 20, 2021, while
analysis related to historic preservation are described in detail in the CHC agenda report
of September 27, 2021 (see Attachments C and D).
Figure 4 shows the overall development concept, and how the three relocated historic
structures will be integrated into the overall architectural design.
Figure 3: Ag Heritage Center Proposed Layout
Page 161 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
The proposed project must conform to the standards and limitations of General Plan,
SLRSP, and any applicable aspects of the Zoning Regulations. A discussion of the
project’s consistency with these regulations follows.
4.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The project area is within the San Luis Ranch Special Focus area as identified in Section
8.1.4 of the Land Use Element (LUE). Section 8.1.4 of the LUE identifies a general
framework guiding development in that area, including issues related to circulation, site
design, view protection, agricultural protection, and public safety. Specifically, it calls for
maintaining the agricultural heritage of the site, consistent with the intent of the proposed
project.
The LUE required that a specific plan be prepared for the entire 132-acre San Luis Ranch
area. A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of a general plan. The
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP) was adopted in 2017. Because the Specific Plan
was previously determined to be consistent with the General Plan, the project’s
consistency with the SLRSP is the focus of this policy analysis. This discussion is in
included in Section 4.2 of this Agenda Report.
4.2 Consistency with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
Upon its adoption in 2017, the SLRSP became the primary guiding land use regulatory
document for the area it encompassed. Figure 5 shows the land use map within the
SLRSP, and the proposed project area is within the AG land use designation shown on
that map.
Figure 4: Development rendering showing historic structures. View is south.
Page 162 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of a general plan. It effectively
establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual
development proposals in a defined area. In the case of the SLRSP, it addresses the
broad range of planning issues and policies typically covered in the City’s General Plan
or zoning ordinance, from land use, circulation, site planning standards , design
guidelines, landscape design requirements, project phasing, and infrastructure
requirements. The specific plan also
establishes standards that effectively
implement the more broad policies for
the area that are included in the General
Plan, and are tailored to the needs of the
project site. For that reason, the project
will be evaluated against the
requirements of the SLRSP to determine
consistency with City planning policies.
Table 1 summarizes key relevant
policies from the SLRSP, and City staff’s
analysis of the project’s consistency with
those policies. In certain instances, the
SLRSP defers to the City’s zoning
requirements, and where this is the
case, it is noted in the analysis. As noted
above, the ARC has reviewed the project
and recommended the Planning
Commission find the project consistent
with Community Design and Specific Plan Design Guidelines. Table 1 includes City
staff’s analysis of the project’s consistency with the SLRSP as well as the key aspects of
design guidelines reviewed by the ARC. Table 2 pr ovides a summary of the historic
preservation policies which were the focus of the CHC review. The applicant’s analysis
of the project’s consistency with key direction in the SLRSP is found on Sheet 2 of the
project plans (Attachment 2).
Figure 5: SLRSP Land Use Map,
showing the Project Site
* Project
Site
Page 163 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
Table 1. Project Consistency with SLRSP Policies Related to Project Design
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
SLRSP Chapter 3 – Neighborhood Form
§ Table 3-10: Agriculture
Development Standards
This section establishes standards related to development potential, building
heights, setbacks, parking, landscaping, and lighting requirements for the AG
zone. See Table 3 for a comparison of these requirements and what is
proposed. The project is consistent with these requirements. Sheets 1 and
2 of the applicant’s submittal also provides a summary of design-related
information in the context of various City regulations.
§ Section 3.6: Sign and
Monument Development
Standards
Specific Plan Table 3-11 describes standards for signs allowed in the Ag
Heritage Center development. Since the conceptual signage plan is being
provided along with development plans in order to allow for concurrent
evaluation of signs with building design and site layout, the Sign Regulations
allow flexibility from standards as a Sign Program. Sign Programs are
encouraged for new development projects since they provide an opportunity
to ensure signs are complementary with the surrounding neighborhood or
commercial district. Once a final sign program is approved, it will be used on
an ongoing basis for staff to review proposed signs in the project. A
conceptual signage plan is included on plan Sheets 35-40 (Attachment B),
which shows monument, directional, and neighborhood signage.
Conceptual building signs are also shown on Sheets 12, 15 and 21
(Attachment B). Signs should be evaluated for compatibility with architecture
and coordination among tenant spaces. The ARC and CHC reviewed the
conceptual sign program and had no comments or directional items
regarding recommended modifications.
§ Section 3.7.3: Agricultural
Heritage Facilities and Learning
Center Design Guidelines
This section provides general guidance for site planning and design, building
form, building elements, lighting, signs, building materials, exterior colors,
visual elements, landscaping, and fencing. Proposed design information
related to these issues is summarized on Sheet 2, but shown in more detail
on Sheets 5-21, 25, 26 and 28-35. As proposed, the project is consistent with
the intent of the Design Guidelines in the Specific Plan.
§ Section 3.8: Architectural Style
Reference Guide
This project is designed with a Modern Agrarian architectural theme, which
is described in Section 3.8.4. This section provides guidance on massing,
building form and composition, materials, colors, and various architectural
features. The ARC found the project was consistent with the architecture
prescribed in the SLRSP. Proposed building elevations and the integration of
historical elements into architecture are shown on Sheets 10-28.
§ Section 3.9: Plant Palette
Section 3.9 discusses the appropriate plant palette to be used in project
landscaping, with a focus on native and drought-tolerant plants. Table 3-12
provides a plant list, which the Planning Commission can refer to in order to
determine consistency. The project’s proposed landscaping and plant palette
information may be found on Sheets 29-32. The proposed trees are
consistent with those included in the Specific Plan. While the shrub palette
complements the proposed tree palette, the SLRSP does not specify the
appropriate shrub species to use.
Page 164 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
Table 1. Project Consistency with SLRSP Policies Related to Project Design
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
§ Chapter 2: General Design
Principles
The SLRSP was previously found to be consistent with the City’s Community
Design Guidelines. However, the CDG provides a framework upon which the
SLRSP builds and provides additional direction with respect to basic design
issues. The project appropriately applies the General Design Principles of the
CDG, notably that it integrates agricultural elements to fit the setting, is
thematically unified and functional. Buildings appear to be well -
proportioned, and consistent with the scale of historic structures that have
been relocated to the site for reuse. The ARC found the project to be
consistent with the CDG.
§ Section 7.3: Historic Resource
Preservation
The project integrates historic ranch structures into the design, which is an
integral part of its overall function and form. In September 2021, the CHC
found the project to be consistent with this aspect of the CDG.
The SLRSP includes guidance for the relocation and reuse of historic structures that will
become part of the project. It also includes related narratives to clarify intent of the
relevant policies and programs, which include the following:
Table 2. Project Consistency with SLRSP Policies Related to Historic Resources
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Policy Framework
3.7.3. Agricultural Heritage
Facilities and Learning
Center Design Guidelines
Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Concept. Historic structures
identified on-site will be integrated into the site plan design as part of the
Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center, as directed by a qualified
Historic Architect, then through a Historical Structure Relocation Plan, as specified
in Mitigation Measure CR-1. Archival documentation of the historic structures on -
site and informational displays of historic resources will also be completed and
included in the site plan when appropriate.
8.1.2 Goals, Policies, and Programs
Policy 2.5 Protect associated structures such as the Dalidio Home, Laguna Race Track viewing
stand, barn, and water tower.
Program 2.5.1 Evaluate historic structures on the site for purposes of preservation and protective
reuse.
Policy. 7.1 Ensure that buildings are designed in a manner consistent with the character of the
Plan Area.
Program 7.1.1 Establish guidelines for: building facades, orientation and form, and materials that
reflect and convey human scale and the historic traditions of the Plan Area.
The relocation and repurposing of the historic structures in question will comply with the
requirements of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Treatment of the structures to be
integrated into new development will follow required mitigation measures from the Final
EIR and be designed in a manner to promote and celebrate their historic context, while
providing educational opportunities regarding the City’s agricultural heritage. Section 6.2
of the CHC Agenda Report (Attachment D) describes how the reconstruction and
Page 165 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
rehabilitation efforts will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOI), which
provide additional guidance on the rehabilitation of historic structures. Key aspects of
that analysis are summarized below.
The existing structures are unsafe in their current condition and not habitable. Existing
materials will be preserved and incorporated into the rehabilitated structures where
feasible, consistent with SOI standards and under the direction of a qualified historic
consultant and will maintain the original exterior visual appearance of the residence and
barn, while restoring the interior in the context of appropriate building code requirements.
In the case of the Hay Barn, it will be repurposed as retail space, adorned with historic
signage and adjoined by a glass atrium exhibition corridor filled with memorabilia from the
16th District Agricultural Association horse races and fairs. The residence will be used as
an education hub and display area, with interpretive signage and historic artifacts from
the site. In both cases, the intent is to increase public awareness of the history of the
ranch and the City’s agricultural heritage.
The fire-damaged Grandstand Wall will not be a habitable structure but will be positioned
as it was at the turn of the 20th century, overlooking the agricultural field as once did the
racetrack. It will become a focal point of the entire Ag Heritage Center, with interpretive
signage, mounted on a low, protective perimeter wall, that describes the historic activities
linked to this important site.
4.3 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The SLRSP modifies various standards and requirements from the Zoning Regulations.
These include issues such as allowed land uses, setbacks, building heights, landscaping,
and signage, among others. In other cases, the SLRSP defers to the Zoning Regulations,
and where the SLRSP does not include standards, the project is required to be consistent
with Zoning Regulations for issues such as lighting, parking (in some cases),
walls/fences. Table 3 summarizes the project’s characteristics, providing context within
the framework of both the SLRSP and applicable zoning regulations. The project is
consistent with applicable Zoning Regulations.
5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Table 3 summarizes the primary project characteristics and compares those to the
applicable standards for the purpose of determining project consistency.
Table 3. Project Characteristics Compared to Requirements
Site Details Proposed Requirement
Land Use Designation AG AG
Setbacks Front: 20 feet
Side: 10 feet
Front: >20 feet
Side: 10 feet
Page 166 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
Table 3. Project Characteristics Compared to Requirements
Site Details Proposed Requirement
Rear: 20 feet Rear: 20 feet
(per SLRSP Table 3-10)
Building Height 35 feet
(see building elevations on Sheets
10, 11, 14, 17 and 20)
35 feet; historic structures may be as
much as 45 feet
(Per SLRSP Table 3-10)
Lot Coverage 23.5% 80% maximum (per SLRSP Table 3-7)
Signs
Sign program to determine
(see Sheet 35)
1 monument sign 4 feet high and
20 SF in area;
Up to 4 wall signs 3 feet high and
50 SF in area each
(per SLRSP Table 3-11)
Public Art Various agriculturally-themed
sculptures and features; locations
shown on Sheet 31
Public art only required for
commercial portion of SLRSP; project
subject to Municipal Code 17.70.140
Parking
Automobile spaces
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
78
24
4
(see Sheet 1)
61 (1 per 500 SF per SLRSP)
12 (per municipal code; 20% of
required vehicle parking)
4 (per municipal code)
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On July 18, 2017, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
for the SLRSP and approved the SLRSP through Council Resolution 10822 (2017
Series). A Final Supplemental EIR to address modifications to the phasing plan within
Page 167 of 256
Item 3b.
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Report – October 27, 2021
the SLRSP was certified by the City Council on July 17, 2018, through Council Resolution
10927 (2018 Series). All mitigation measures adopted as part of the SLRSP FEIR and
FSEIR that are applicable to the proposed project are carried forward and applied to the
proposed project to effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously identified.
The project is anticipated by the SLRSP, and consistent with the certified FEIR and
FSEIR.
An Addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to address updated information related
to the significance of the Spectators Barn/Viewing Stand and the change in mitigation
approach based on the structure’s destruction in the 2019 fire (Attachment E, or link:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31027/6376688536 41101713 ).
No additional Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required pursuant to Public
Resources Code §21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 b ecause: 1) the
project does not include or require any revisions to the certified SLRSP FEIR or FSEIR;
2) no substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken, and no revisions to the SLRSP FEIR o r FSEIR are required;
and 3) no new information of substantial importance is available that was not already
known at the time the SLRSP FEIR and FSEIR were certified.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including
Planning, Engineering, Transportation, Natural Resources, Building, Utilities, and Fire.
While a number of code requirements will apply to the project review at the building permit
stage, minimal comments were received for project specific conditions of approval since
the project is consistent with the specific plan and tract map which has included prior
review for tract conditions and public improvements which are not in the scope of this
project review.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue project. An action to continue the items should include a detailed list of
additional information or analysis required.
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, SLRSP, Zoning Regulations or other policy
documents.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft Resolution – Development Plan Approval
B – Project Plans
C – ARC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes 9-20-21
D – CHC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes 9-27-21
E – Addendum to Final EIR
Page 168 of 256
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL
HERITAGE AND LEARNING CENTER WITHIN THE AG ZONED
PORTION OF THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND A
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
2017 CERTIFIED FINAL EIR, 2018 SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIR FOR
SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, WITH AN EIR ADDENDUM TO
ADDRESS MINOR CHANGES IN THE DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA); AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 27, 2021 (1035 MADONNA ROAD,
ARCH-0253-2021)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing on September 20, 2021, recommending the Planning Commission find
the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and design guidelines of the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP), pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0253-2021,
Coastal Community Builders, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing on September 27, 2021, recommending the Planning Commission approve the
Addendum to the FEIR, and find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance,
Secretary of Interior Standards, and historic policies and programs of the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan; and, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0253-2021, Coastal Community
Builders, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on October 27, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0253-2021, Coastal
Community Builders, 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 development plan
approval to the project (ARCH-0253-2021), based on the following findings:
Page 169 of 256
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0253-2021
Page 2
1. The proposed action is consistent with applicable City planning regulations, including the
General Plan, San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Community Design
Guidelines.
2. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working
at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and will be compatible
with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
3. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to agricultural
preservation and heritage and the development of agriculturally related facilities within the San
Luis Ranch Special Focus Area (LUE 8.1.4).
4. The project is consistent with San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Policy 3.7.3 for the Agricultural
Heritage Facilities Learning Center and Guidelines since historic structures are integrated into
the site plan design and relocation and final rehabilitation measures will be carried out in
accordance with direction by a qualified historic consultant.
5. The project design is consistent with the San Luis Ranch Design Guidelines within the SLRSP,
and consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for development in the Agriculture zone
because the architectural styles are complementary to the neighboring agricultural land and
agricultural heritage in the community, including site design, roofing style, siding materials,
finish, landscaping, and scale. The project design incorporates articulation, massing, and a mix
of color/finish materials that are compatible with existing and planned development within the
immediate vicinity.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is consistent with the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for SLRSP, certified through Council Resolution 10822
(2017 Series), as well as a Final Supplemental EIR to address modifications to the phasing plan
within the SLRSP was certified by the City Council on July 17, 2018, through Council Resolution
10927 (2018 Series). All mitigation measures adopted as part of the SLRSP FEIR and FSEIR that
are applicable to the proposed project are carried forward and applied to the proposed project to
effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously identified. An Addendum to the Final EIR
has been prepared to address updated information related to the significance of the Spectators
Barn/Viewing Stand and the change in mitigation approach based on the structure’s destruction in
the 2019 fire. No Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required pursuant to Public
Resources Code §21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 because: 1) the project does
not include or require any revisions to the certified SLRSP FEIR or FSEIR; 2) no substantial
changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken, and no revisions to the SLRSP FEIR or FSEIR are required; and 3) no new information
of substantial importance is available that was not already known at the time the SLRSP FEIR and
FSEIR were certified.
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Page 170 of 256
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0253-2021
Page 3
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-
0253-2021). 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 and include all conditions, mitigation measures, and development
agreement provisions as noted in Condition #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 Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project
site, as established under City Council Resolutions No. 10822 (2017 Series) and No. 10927
(2018 Series).
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required short and
long-term bicycle parking on the site. 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.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearl y depict the location of all required Electric
Vehicle (EV) parking spaces, as well as those that are EV-ready, and could be converted into
EV spaces in the future, pursuant to the requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.72.040.
5. 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.
6. Mechanical and electrical equipment should be located internally to the buildings. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the buildings,
which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If
any condensers, transformers, or other mechanical equipment are to be ground mounted or
placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that these features will
be adequately screened. 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.
Page 171 of 256
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0253-2021
Page 4
7. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
Landscaping plans shall include the following information, at a minimum:
a. The species, diameter at breast height, location, and condition of all existing trees;
b. Identification of trees that will be retained, removed, or relocated;
c. Location and size of plant and tree species proposed to be planted;
d. The location of proposed utilities, driveways, street tree locations, and the size and
species of proposed street trees; and
e. A reclaimed water irrigation plan.
8. 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).
9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the 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 con figuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
10. Prior to occupancy, an overflight notification shall be recorded and appear with the property
deed. The applicant shall also record a covenant with the City to ensure that disclosure is
provided to all buyers and lessees at the subject property. Notice form and content shall be to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and include the following language:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an
airport, within what is known as the airport influence area. For that reason, the property may
be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport
operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those
annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport
annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and
determine whether they are acceptable to you.
11. 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
Page 172 of 256
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0253-2021
Page 5
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 27th day of October, 2021.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 173 of 256
Page 174 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE11046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACETITLE SHEETSLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACEPROJECT DIRECTORYOWNER:COASTAL COMMUNITY BUILDERS, INC.330 JAMES WAY, SUITE 270PISMO BEACH, CA 93448CONTACT: JACOB GROSSMANEMAIL: JACOB@CCB1.NETPHONE: (805)-556-3060 x 109ARCHITECT:RRM DESIGN GROUP3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: RANDY RUSSOM PHONE: (805)-543-1794EMAIL: RWRUSSOM@RRMDESIGN.COMPROJECT ADDRESS:FROOM RANCH ROADAPN:053-153-010PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAGRICULTURAL HERITAGE AND LEARNING CENTER AS ENVISIONED IN THE SAN LUIS SPECIFIC PLAN. PER THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A FARM MARKET, RESTAURANT, GENERAL RETAIL AND AG PROCESSING BUILDINGS. PER SPECIFIC PLAN CLUTURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION MEASURE, CR-1 (A), AND (C) THE PROJECT ALSO INCORPORATED REHABILITATION OF TWO RELOCATED HISTORIC BUILDINGS, THE WOOD HOUSE AND THE WOOD BARN. THE PROJECT STABILIZES AND MAINTAINS FOR VIEWING, THE REMAINS OF THE HISTORIC GRANDSTAND VIEWING BARN. AS A WHOLE, THESE THREE COMPONENTS REPRESENT THE CULTURAL LEARNING CENTER PORTION OF THE PROJECT. THE BALANCE OF THE AG ZONED AREA WILL BE MAINTAINED AS A WORKING FARM WITH ASSOCIATED AG SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND FARM ROADS. THE FARM PLAN WILL BE A SEPARATE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.NO VARIANCES OR EXCEPTIONS ARE REQUESTED.ALL HISTORIC REHABILITATION TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIORS GUIDELINES FOR TREATMENT OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES. A FINAL REHABILITATION PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH PAULA CARR / SWCA IN COMPLIANCE WITH CULTURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION MEASURES CR-1 (A), AND (C). REFER TO THE ATTACHED SWCA SOIS CONFORMITY MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 2, 2021 FOR ADDITIONAL PROPOSED REHABILITATION INFORMATION. THE ATTACHED SWCA POST FIRE APPROACH MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 11, 2021 ADDRESSES THE REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROJECT EIR.THE CENTER MEETS ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND IS ACCESSED FROM FROOM RANCH ROAD INCLUDING A CONNECTION TO THE CLASS-1 BIKE PATHSHEET INDEX1 TITLE SHEET2 CONFORMANCE MATRIX3 OVERALL SITE PLAN4 BIRDSEYE VIEW5 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN6 COURTYARD VIEW 1 7 COURTYARD VIEW 28 WALL VIEW9 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN10 SITE SECTION11 MARKET - BUILDING ELEVATIONS12 MARKET - COLOR & MATERIALS13 MARKET - FLOOR PLANS14 RESTAURANT- BUILDING ELEVATIONS15 RESTAURANT - COLOR AND MATERIALS16 RESTAURANT - FLOOR PLANS17 AG PROCESSING - BUILDING ELEVATIONS18 AG PROCESSING - COLOR AND MATERIALS19 AG PROCESSING - FLOOR PLANS20 RETAIL AND HISTORIC BARN - BUILDING ELEVATIONS21 RETAIL AND HISTORIC BARN- COLOR AND MATERIALS22 RETAIL AND HISTORIC BARN- FLOOR PLANS23 HISTORIC FARM RELATIONSHIP PLAN24 CULTURAL HERITAGE LEARNING CENTER 25 HISTORIC HOUSE - COLOR AND MATERIALS26 HOMAGE TO HISTORIC VIEWING BARN27 AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION28 ACCESSORY AGRICULTURE STRUCTURES29 LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION IMAGES30 LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION IMAGES31 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN32 CONCEPTUAL PLANT SCHEDULE33 SITE FURNISHINGS INSPIRATION BOARD34 TRASH ENCLOSURE AND WATER CALCULATIONS35 SIGNAGE SITE PLAN36 BUILDING SIGNAGE ELEVATIONS37 BUILDING SIGNAGE ELEVATIONS38 HISTORIC HOUSE SIGNAGE39 SITE SIGNAGE40 BUILDING SIGNAGE41 GRADING AND DRAINAGE42 SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES43 STORM WATER CONTROL PLANPROJECT STATISTICSZONINGAG PER SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-9PARCEL SIZE:52.53 ACRESBUILDING GROSS AREA31,236 SFMARKET BUILDING4,529 SF TOTALPRODUCE MARKET 2,591 SFRETAIL/HARD PRODUCE 1,938 SFRESTAURANT BUILDING4,695 SFCONDITIONED SPACE 3,317 SFCOVERED OUTDOOR 1,378 SFAG PROCESSING BUILDING9,841 SFRETAIL/HISTORIC BARN9,469 SF TOTALNEW RETAIL BUILDING 6,531 SFGLASS ATRIUM 600 SFREHABILITATED HISTORIC BARN2,338 SFHISTORIC WOOD HOUSE2,608 SFFIRST FLOOR 1,898 SFSECOND FLOOR 710 SFPLAZA AREA38,987 SFPERMEABLE 10,777 SFIMPERMEABLE 28,210 SFLANDSCAPE AREA38,089 SFIMPERVIOUS SURFACE:74,684 SFMAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT:35 FT.MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT:35 FT.YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSEDFRONT20’ >20’SIDE10’ 10’REAR20’ 20’CONSTRUCTION TYPE:VBALLOWED PROPOSEDLEARNING CENTER:3,000 SFWOOD HOUSE 1,898 SFATRIUM 600 SFTOTAL PROPOSED:2,498 SFMARKET FARM STAND:3,000 SFMARKET BUILDING:2,591 SFFOOD SERVICES:5,000 SFRESTAURANT BUILDING:4,695 SFAG PROCESSING CENTER:10,000 SFAG PROCESSING BUILDING:9,841 SFAG ACCESSORY BUIDLINGS:10,000 SF10,000 SFGENERAL RETAIL:15,000 SFMARKET BUILDING: 1,938 SFWOOD BARN 1,344 SFRETAIL BUILDING 7,113 SFTOTAL PROPOSED:10,395 SFVICINITY MAPZONING MAPPARKINGAUTO PARKINGCALCULATION SPACE COUNTPARKING REQUIRED1/500SF PER SPECIFIC PLAN 61PARKING PROVIDED78EV REQUIRED# 0F TOTAL SPACES (76-100) 5EV PROVIDEDPER CALGREEN 5.106.5.3.35MOTORCYCLE PARKINGCALCULATION SPACE COUNTPARKING REQUIRED:PER MUNICIPAL CODE:1/20 AUTO PARKING REQUIRED 4PARKING PROVIDED:4BICYCLE PARKINGPARKING REQUIRED:PER MUNICIPAL CODE: 17.72.070 B TABLE 3.6SHOPPING CENTER USE 20% OF REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKING61 SPACES X 20%= 12SHORT TERM PROVIDED:75% PER MUNICIPAL CODE: 12LONG TERM PROVIDED:25% PER MUNICIPAL CODE: 3TOTAL PROVIDED:15MADONNA RDOCEANAIRE DRDALIDIO DRSITESITEHWY 1AG SITESIESIESISITEFIRE DEPARTMENT1. EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 7A FOR EXPOSURE TO WILDLIFE “IGNITION RESISTANT”. ANY REUSE OF WOOD MATERIALS FOR EXTERIOR APPLICATION SHALL HAVE “1-HOUR FIRE RATED” UNDERLAYMENT.2. PROVIDE FIRE SPRINKLERS FOR ALL STRUCTURES INCLUDING EXISTING WOOD BARN THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE NEW STRUCTURE.3. PROVIDE FIRE HYDRANTS WITHIN 300 FEET OF ALL EXTERIOR WALLS OF STRUCTURES.Page 175 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE21046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACECONFORMANCE MATRIXUSE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS USE REGULATIONSAgricultural EventsAIncludedAgricultural heritage & learning centerAIncludedAgricultural retail salesAIncludedAnimal keepingAIncludedBeer/wine/spirits production facilityAIncludedCaretaker quartersAConsidered (possible)Catering serviceAIncludedCommercial recreation facility - outdoorAIncludedCommunity gardenAIncludedCrop production and processingAIncludedGeneral retail - 15,000 sf or lessAIncludedGrazingAConsidered (possible)Greenhouse/plant nursery, commercialAConsidered (possible)Library, museums (Heritage Learning Center)AIncludedLiquor store/alcohol salesAIncludedOutdoor/BBQ/grill, accessory to restaurantAIncludedOutdoor/temporary/seasonal salesAIncludedParking facility - temporaryAConsidered (possible)Produce standAIncludedPublic assembly facilityAConsidered (possible)Farm to table restaurantAIncludedSpecial eventAConsidered (possible)Wine/local beer tasting roomAIncludedTable 3-9 Agricultural (AG) Allowed UsesUSEZone AGAll buildings and proposed uses (tenants) conform with allowable uses in Table 3-9Allowable Uses See Table 3-9All buildings and proposed uses (tenants) conform with allowable uses in Table 3-9DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALLearning Center3,000 sf maximumProposed building square footages are at or below allowed maximum.Market/Farm Stand3,000 sf maximumProposed building square footages are at or below allowed maximum.Ag Processing Center10,000 sf maximumProposed building square footages are at or below allowed maximum.Food Services 5,000 sf maximumProposed building square footages are at or below allowed maximum.Ag Accessory Structures10,000 sf maximum with no structure greater than 1,500 sfProposed building square footages are at or below allowed maximum.General Retail 15,000 sf maximumProposed building square footages are at or below allowed maximum.BUILDING HEIGHTBuilding Height35' maximum; Historical structures may exceed height limit up to 45' max.Max proposed building height is 35'SETBACKSStreet Front20' minimumBuildings conform to SP setbacksSide10' minimumBuildings conform to SP setbacksRear20' minimumBuildings conform to SP setbacksOTHERAutomobile Parking1 space per 500 sf Min.Bicycle ParkingSee SLOMC Section 17.16.060 IncludedLandscapingSee Table 3-12 IncludedLightingAll lighting shall be downward focused except for ambient string-style patio lightsIncludedSignsSee Table 3-11 IncludedFences/Walls/HedgesSee SLOMC Section 17.16.050 Considered (possible)ArchitectureShall conform with design guidelines in Section 3.73 herinIncludedTable 3-10 Agriculture Development StandardsSITE PLANNING AND DESIGNSite design should consider the highly visible character of this site and place loading/ delivery/back of house uses in various inconspicuous locations.Achieved, deliveries are in non-visable parking lot areas & behind restaurant. Particular attention paid to view from freeway.Buildings should be aesthetically pleasing from all angles, especially for buildings that have high visibility from Highway 101.Achieved. Four-sided architecture incorporatedSite design should incorporate pedestrian walkways, outdoor seating, and landscape areas.Achieved. Site plan is based on indoor-outdoor design with permanent outdoor seating and fire pits.Outdoor spaces should reflect careful planning and provide plaza spaces with defined edges, benches, and lighting that establish a sense of place.Achieved, plaza designed for distinct sense of placeBuilding forms, materials, and finishes should reflect the agrarian heritage of the site.AchievedMurals, trellises, or vines should be placed on large expanses of walls at the rear or sides of buildings to soften the apearance and create visual interest.Achieved, see rear of Market and Retail buildingA series of pedestrian promenades and plazas should link the various structures placed on-site for the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center. Achieved, Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center is forefront, prominent and connected.A variety of outdoor seating areas should be incorporated to encourage formal and informal on-site dining.Achieved, permanent benches, tables, picnic area, fire pits and shade structures are proposed.Site amenities, including benches, drinking fountains, provisions for bicyclists, water features, and public art, should be utilized and should complement the project's architectural character.Achieved, provisions for bicyclists and public art are proposed.Flexible spacing for use by food trucks, formal and informal events, live music, and other agricultural related activities should be incorporated adjacent to the planned Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center.Achieved, central plaza stage located in front of Agricultural Heritage CenterLighting should be designed to provide ambiance, saftey, and security without unnecessary spillover or glare onto adjacent properties.Achieved, lighting is focused downwardBuilding light fixtures, such as barn style or gooseneck, should be designed or selected to be architecturally compatible with the main structures, which should complement the agrarian theme of the site.Achieved, barn lighting and gooseneck lighting proposed on buildingsSigns should be in scale with and in proportion to the primary building façade so that the signs do not dominate the apperance.Achieved, signs are in scale and in style per specific planTable 3.7.3 Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Design GuidelinesBuilding materials should consist of authentic materials commonly associated wit the architectural style of the building. Highly reflective or tinted glass, imitation stone or brick, corrugated fiberglass, plastic roof tiles, and undecorated concrete block should be avoided.Achieved, building material is conistent with farm and agrarian styleExterior colors should be consistent with the architectural style of the building. Color schemes that involve a minimum of three (3) colors should be utilized.Achieved, color schemes are consistent with farm and agrarian styleDifferent colors accentuating different aspects and details of the building architecture should be utilized. Except for accenting different aspects and details of a building, bright colors should be avoided. Achieved, different colors utilizedLandscaping will be comprised of the plants listed in Table 3-12.Achieved, plant palette conforms to table 3-12Fencing should reflect an agrarian theme with wood and metal materials. Wood fecnces with metal mesh (hog wire) and split rail fences are encouraged. Barbed wire fencing should not be used.Achieved, wood, hog wire, and split rail fencing used. No barbed wire fencing proposed.Trees and shrubs should be located and spaced to allow for mature and long-term growth.Achieved, noted on landscape plansTrees should be selected based on performace basis with the objective of producing fruit, minimizing water use, providing shade, minimizing hazardous litter, Achieved, drought tolerant trees, fruiting trees, shade trees used. Focused on color and contrast and minimizing liter.Vines and potted plants should be incorporated to provide wall, column, and post texture and color as well as for accentuating entryways, courtyards, and sidewalks.Achieved, vines on buildings and fencing included. Planting used to accentuate pathways and entrywaysPlantings should be used to screen or separate less desirable areas from public view, such as trash enclosures, parking areas, storage areas, loading areas, and public utilities.Achieved, less desirable areas are turcked away from public view and screened with plantingNOTE: SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS MATRIX PROVIDEDPage 176 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE31046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEOVERALL SITE PLANPROJECT SITESEE AG HERITAGE SITE PLAN SHEET 9AG ACCESSORY BUILDINGSREFERENCE SHEET 28REFER TO ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE AG CONSERVATION EASEMENT, ON AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION SHEET 27EXISTING AG ROAD EASEMENT. FINAL FARM PLAN WITH CITY FARM TO BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCYBIO SWALE EASEMENTPage 177 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE41046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEBIRDSEYE VIEWPage 178 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE5ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN01020 401” = 20’-0” 24X36 SHEETRESTAURANT BUILDINGMARKET BUILDINGHISTORIC HOUSECOMMUNITY GARDENPLOTSAG PROCESSINGRETAILATRIUM GALLERYGRAVEL PATH / LOADINGANIMAL PENSHISTORIC WOOD BARNHOA MAINTAINED COMMUNITY GARDEN21,780 SFAG LANDAG LANDSMALL OWNER PLOTSAG LANDHISTORIC VIEWING BARN WALLPage 179 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE61046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACECOURTYARD VIEW 1 1SITE PLANNTSPage 180 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE71046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACESITE PLANNTSCOURTYARD VIEW 22Page 181 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE81046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEWALL VIEW3SITE PLANNTSPage 182 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE91046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEAG LANDAG LANDCENTRAL PLAZAVIEW PLAZARAMP AND STAIRSAG PROCESSING9,841 SFRETAIL7,113 SFHISTORIC WOOD BARN2,287 SFRESTAURANT4,695 SFMARKET4,529 SFHISTORIC HOUSE1,898 SFTRASH ENCLOSUREEXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND LINECROSSWALK TO CLASS ONE BIKE PATHTRASH ENCLOSUREBIKE PARKINGFIRE HYDRANTSHORT TERM DELIVERY PARKINGEV PARKINGPARKING37 SPACESPARKING43 SPACESARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN01020 401” = 20’-0” 24X36 SHEETBERM AND GRADE CHANGEBUILDING SETBACK LINEBARN FACADESERVICE AREAGRAVEL PATH / AG LANDANIMAL PENSHISTORIC VIEWING BARN WALLSMALL OWNER PLOTSBIKE PARKINGLONG-TERM BIKE STORAGERKIRKINGNGEV PEV PARARRESTAURANT DELIVERYPEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO HOTEL221COMMUNITY GARDENPLOTS40,000 SFHOA MAINTAINED COMMUNITY GARDEN21,780 SFATRIUM /LEARNING CENTER600 SF1PG. 10PUBLIC ARTOPPORTUNITYPUBLIC ART OPPORTUNITYPUBLIC ART OPPORTUNITYPG. 10PG. 10PG. 10LEGEND:EV CAPABLE PARKINGEV READY PARKINGACCESSIBLE PARKING300’-0” FROM FIRE HYDRANT “ Page 183 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE101046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE3/16” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16SITE SECTIONRETAIL BUILDINGBURNT WALL VIEWING PLATFORM MAIN ENTRYMARKET BUILDINGRESTAURANT BUILDINGAG PROCESSING BUILDINGMARKET BUILDINGCENTRAL PLAZACENTRAL PLAZARESTAURANT BUILDINGSECTION 1SECTION 234’-3”0’-0”MAX HEIGHTFINISH FLOOR0’-0”MAX HEIGHTFINISH FLOOR35’-0”Page 184 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE111046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEMARKET - BUILDING ELEVATIONS35’-0”35’-0”MAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHT35’-0”35’-0”MAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHTFRONT/ NORTH ELEVATIONBACK/SOUTH ELEVATIONSIDE/ WEST ELEVATIONSIDE/EAST ELEVATIONPage 185 of 256
Image LocationFGWINDOWBLACK STEEL-LOOKDOORSBLACK OVERHEAD DOORSSLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE121046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEMARKET - COLOR & MATERIALSAAAABBCBGFD1D2D1D2EECLIGHTINGBLACK GOOSENECKBARNLIGHT ELECTRICDARK SKY COMPLIANTSIGNAGESW 7069 IRON ORETRIMCLEAR COAT WOOD-LOOKSIGNAGESW 3503 WHITE BIRCHFIBER CEMENT SIDINGSHERWIN WILLIAMSSW 7102 WHITE FLOURROOFOLD TOWN GRAY AEP STANDING SEAMCNOTE:EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 7A.Page 186 of 256
2498 SFBACK OFHOUSE98994 SFAHAARDOPROODUCE#1915 SFHARDPRODUCE#250' - 6"100' - 0"2' - 0"40' - 0"8' - 6"23' - 8"52' - 0"24' - 4"SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE131046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEMARKET - FLOOR PLANSPRODUCE MARKET: RETAIL /HARD PRODUCE: TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET: 2,591SF1,9384,529 SFPRODUCE MARKET 2,591 SFRETAIL/ HARD PRODUCE #1942 SFRETAIL/HARD PRODUCE #2996 SFPage 187 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE141046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACERESTAURANT- BUILDING ELEVATIONS34’-3”34’-3”34’-3”34’-3”MAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHTFRONT/ NORTH ELEVATIONBACK/ SOUTH ELEVATIONSIDE/ WEST ELEVATIONSIDE/ EAST ELEVATIONPage 188 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE151046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEABCEFGABCCGDEFRESTAURANT - COLOR AND MATERIALSAFWINDOWBLACK STEEL-LOOKLIGHTINGBLACK GOOSENECKBARNLIGHT ELECTRICDARK SKY COMPLIANTTRIMCLEAR COAT WOOD-LOOKVERTICAL FIBER CEMENT SIDINGSHERWIN WILLIAMSSW 2819 DOWNING SLATEROOFZINCALUMEAEP STANDING SEAMDOORSBLACK OVERHEAD DOORSSIGNAGESW 7069 IRON OREDNOTE:EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 7A.Page 189 of 256
COLD STOR.KEGWOMENMENDRY STOR.ELEC.RISERKITCHENHOSTBARDINING AREADINING AREAOOUTSIDE DINING1' - 2"6' - 0"12' - 0"20' - 0"12' - 0"6' - 0"57' - 2"50' - 0"36' - 0"12' - 0"98' - 0"SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE161046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACERESTAURANT - FLOOR PLANSGROSS SQUARE FEET: 4,695NOTE: PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTDINING AREA DINING AREA HOSTBAR KEG OUTSIDE DINING KITCHENCOLD STOR. DRY STOR. WOMEN MEN ELEC. RISERPage 190 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE171046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEAG PROCESSING - BUILDING ELEVATIONS35’-0”35’-0”MAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHT35’-0”35’-0”MAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHTFRONT/ NORTH ELEVATIONBACK/SOUTH ELEVATIONSIDE/ WEST ELEVATIONSIDE/EAST ELEVATIONSIGN TO BE DETERMINED AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AT A LATER DATEPOTENTIAL FOR BACK ROLL-UP DOORS TO BECOME WINDOWS Page 191 of 256
ABCDEFGWINDOWBLACK STEEL-LOOKLIGHTINGBLACK GOOSENECKBARNLIGHT ELECTRICDARK SKY COMPLIANTSIDINGRECLAIMED WOOD-LOOKTRIMCLEAR COAT WOOD-LOOKVERTICAL FIBER CEMENT SIDINGSHERWIN WILLIAMSSW 2844 ROYCROFT MIST GRAYROOFZINCALUMEAEP STANDING SEAMDOORSBLACK OVERHEAD DOORSSLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE181046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEDFABCGBAG PROCESSING - COLOR AND MATERIALSAEGNOTE:EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 7A.Page 192 of 256
633 SFWINE BARS1741 SFBREWERY19' - 6"26' - 0"94' - 10"140' - 4"3' - 0"2' - 0"73' - 0"2' - 0"80' - 0"65' - 0"75' - 4"17' - 8"60' - 4"1574 SFCIDERMAKER920 SFCO EEROASTER316 SFENDOR316 SFENDORSLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE191046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEAG PROCESSING - FLOOR PLANSGROSS SQUARE FEET: 9,481 SFNOTE: USES ARE CONCEPTUAL PER ALLOWED USES DEFINED IN SPECIFIC PLAN, REFER TO SHEET 2COFFEE ROASTER 920 SFCIDER MAKER 1,574 SFBREWERY 1,741 SFWINE BARS 633 SFVENDOR 316 SFVENDOR 316 SFPage 193 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE201046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE35’-0”35’-0”MAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHTRETAIL AND HISTORIC BARN - BUILDING ELEVATIONS35’-0”35’-0”MAX HEIGHTMAX HEIGHTHISTORIC VIEWING BARN WALLHISTORIC BARNFRONT/ NORTH ELEVATIONBACK/SOUTH ELEVATIONSIDE/ WEST ELEVATIONSIDE/EAST ELEVATIONPage 194 of 256
A1A2BCDEFHG1G2WINDOWBLACK STEEL-LOOKNO GRIDS ON BACK WINDOWSCONCRETE BASEBOARD FORM CONCRETELIGHTINGBLACK GOOSENECKBARNLIGHT ELECTRICDARK SKY COMPLIANTVERTICAL FIBER CEMENT SIDINGSHERWIN WILLIAMSSW 7102 WHITE FLOURBARN WOOD SIDING RECLAIMED HAY BARN MATERIAL ACCENT METALSHERWIN WILLIAMSSW 7069 IRON OREROOFZINCALUMEAEP STANDING SEAMROOFCORRUGATED METALDOORSBLACK OVERHEAD DOORSDOORSBYPASS GLASS DOORSSLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE211046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEDDDEFRETAIL AND HISTORIC BARN- COLOR AND MATERIALSBBHG2CA1A1A1A2A2G1NOTE:EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 7A. REUSE OF WOOD MATERIALS FOR EXTERIOR APPLICATION SHALL HAVE 1-HOUR FIRE RATED UNDERLAYMENT.Page 195 of 256
63 SFLONGTERM BIKESTORAGE20 SFRISER1377 SFRETAIL 1346 SFRETAIL 720 SFRETAIL 860 SFRETAIL 21344 SFRETAIL 1724 SFRETAIL 742 SFRETAIL 41' - 8"28' - 0"67' - 0"74' - 6"11' - 4"303 SFMEN302 SFWOMENEE10' - 0"56' - 0"8' - 6"EE600 SFHALL429 SFHALL52 SFELEC.148' - 0"74' - 6"8' - 6"55' - 0"11' - 0"SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE221046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACETOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET: NEW RETAIL BUILDING:GLASS ATRIUM:RELOCATED & REHABILITATED HISTORIC WOOD BARN: RETAIL:GLASS ATRIUM:PUBLIC RESTROOMS:MECHANICAL AND STORAGE:9,469 SF6,531 SF600 SF2,338 SF7,600 SF600 SF605 SF135 SFRETAIL AND HISTORIC BARN- FLOOR PLANSRETAIL 41,346 SFRETAIL 2860 SFGLASS ATRIUM CONNECTION600 SFVIEWING DECK FOR HISTORIC BARN WALLINTERPRETIVE DISPLAYINTERPRETIVE DISPLAYRETAIL 11,344 SFMEN303 SFWOMEN302 SFELEC.52 SFRISERRETAIL 3720 SFRETAIL 51,377 SFRETAIL 6742 SFRETAIL 724 SFGLASS ATRIUM TRANSITION PER SWCA RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSISTENT WITH STATE STANDARDSGALLERY DISPLAY IN ATRIUMNEW RETAIL BUILDINGBUILDING AREAUSE AREARELOCATED AND REHABILITATED HISTORIC BARNLONG TERM BIKE STORAGEPage 196 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE231046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEHISTORIC FARM RELATIONSHIP PLANRELOCATED AND REHABILITATED RELOCATED HISTORIC WOOD BARN PER MITIGATION MEASURE SWCA CR-1(A).NATURALIZED LANDSCAPE SURROUNDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES PER SWCA RECOMMENDATIONS PER MITIGATION MEASURE CR-1WALL VIEWING TERRACE WITH INTERPRETIVE DISPLAYSNOTE:BUILDING DOCUMENTATION, RELOCATION, AND REHABILITATION TO BE CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CULTURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION MEASURE CR-1 (A), CR-(B), AND CR-1(C) AS MODIFIED THROUGH SWCA POST FIRE MITIGATION APPROACH MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 11, 2021. REFER TO THE ATTACHED SWCA SOIS CONFORMITY MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 2, 2021 FOR ADDITIONAL PROPOSED REHABILITATION INFORMATION. REMAINING FIRE DAMAGED WALL OF HISTORIC VIEWING BARNRELOCATED AND REHABILITATED HISTORICAL WOOD HOUSE TO SERVE AS LEANING AND INTERPRETIVE CENTER PER MITIGATION MEASURE SWCA CR-1(A).MAINTAIN HISTORIC HOUSE ORIENTATIONCULTURAL HERITAGE LEARNING CENTERPROPOSED PLANSCALE: NTSHISTORIC PLANSCALE: NTSCONNECTING GLASS ATRIUM; DISPLAY GALLERY PER MITIGATION MEASURE SWCA CR-1(C).NOTE: ORIGINAL HISTORIC BUILDING ORIENTATION PER SAN LUIS RANCH MAP SURVEYPage 197 of 256
223 SFCLASSROOM52' - 0"8' - 0"14' - 0"14' - 8"15' - 4"2' - 5"11' - 0"1' - 2"16' - 10"7' - 8"2' - 0"2' - 0"14' - 1"7' - 0"192 SFSTOREIN ORMATION239 SFRECE T. O ICE415 SFE HIBITS85 SFESTIBULEORCH225 SFMEETINGSECONDARYCLASSROOMC.C.7 SFC.142 SFHALL63 SFR.R.FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”CLASSROOMRECEPTION/ OFFICEEXHIBITSLOUNGEBUILDING AREANOTE: FINAL INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY DETAILING THE HISTORY OF SAN LUIS RANCH COMPLEX TO BE DEVELOPED. DISPLAY TO INCLUDE IMAGES AND DETAILS FROM THE HABS DOCUMENTATION AND ANY COLLECTED RESEARCH PERTAINING TO THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. THE CONTENT SHALL BE PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN OR HISTORIAN WHO MEETS THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION STANDARDS FOR HISTORY.INTERIOR TO BE REHAVILITATED PER SCWA CR-1 (A).INFORMATIONAL DISPLAYS TO BE INCORPORATED PER CULTURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION MEASURE CR-1(C) AS MODIFIED PER SWCA POST FIRE MITIGATION APPROACH MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 11, 2021. ADDITIONAL REHABILITATION INFORMATION FOUND IN THE ATTACHED SWCA SOIS CONFORMITY MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 2, 2021.PORCH: 134 SFRECEPTION/OFFICE: 239 SFSTORE/INFORMATION: 192 SFEXHIBITS: 415 SFCLASSROOM: 223 SFMEETING/SECONDARY: 225 SFRESTROOM: 63 SFVESTIBULE: 85 SFSLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE241046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACECULTURAL HERITAGE LEARNING CENTER Page 198 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE251046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACETRIMSHERWIN WILLIAMSSW 7102 WHITE FLOURACCENTSHERWIN WILLIAMSSW 6502 LOCH BLUEWALL LIGHTURBAN AMBIANCEUHP1153SIDINGCOLOR TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF EXPLORATORY SANDING AND FURTHER RESEARCHSHERWIN WILLIAMSSW 6673 BANANA CREAMROOFTIMBERLINE WEATHERED WOODGAF ASPHALT SHINGLESHISTORIC HOUSE - COLOR AND MATERIALSABCDCBCBBAACCEDEPage 199 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE261046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEHOMAGE TO HISTORIC VIEWING BARNRELOCATED AND REHABILITATED WHITE BARNATRIUM GALLERYRELOCATED AND REHABILITATED WHITE BARNREUSED EXISTING “BURNT WALL” ATRIUM GALLERY ENTRANCEATRIUM GALLERYEXAMPLES OF INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY IMAGERYINTERPRETIVE DISPLAYSREUSE OF EXISTING “BURNT WALL” FACADE OF VIEWING BARN FOR INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY.Page 200 of 256
/HJHQG+DELWDWV)DUPODQG DFUHV 5LSDULDQ DFUHV 5RDGV DFUHV 5XGHUDO DFUHV 2IIVLWH0LWLJDWLRQ3DUFHO'UDLQDJH±6DQ/XLV5DQFK2IIVLWH$JULFXOWXUDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQW0DS&HQWHU : 16DQ/XLV2ELVSR&DOLIRUQLD%LRORJLFDO6XUYH\'DWH )HHW/RV2VRV9DOOH\5RDGLEGEND:ON-SITE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION AREA: 48.85 ACRESAG CONSERVATION AREA DEDICATED PRIME FARMLANDTOTAL ON-SITE CONSERVATION AREA 48.85 ACRESCAL TRAN DEDICATIONS#1 4.91 ACRES#2 1.08 ACRES#3 .30 ACRESLOT 10 (42.56 ACRES)AG. ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA 0.5 ACRESPRIME FARMLAND 42.06 ACRESPROVIDEDON-SITE 42.06 ACRESOFF-SITE 24.50 ACRESTOTAL PRIME FARMLAND PROVIDED66.56 ACRESSLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE271046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEAGRICULTURE CONSERVATIONVVEXISTING AG ROAD EASEMENTBIO SWALE EASEMENTAGRICULTURE EASEMENT; 1/2 ACRE MAX. FINAL STRUCTURE LOCATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH FARM PLANAGRICULTURE CONSERVATION EASEMENTREQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURE AG-1: 59.356 ACRESNOTE:REFERENCED FROM BASE LINE DOCUMENTATION REPORT FOR SAN LUIS RANCH ONSITE AGRICULTURAL EASEMENT BY ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC DATED NOV 2019 FOR SAN LUIS RANCH OFFSITE PARCEL APN 067-121-022FARMLANDNOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALEOFF-SITE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATIONON-SITE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATIONNOTE:REFERENCED FROM BASE LINE DOCUMENTATION REPORT FOR SAN LUIS RANCH OFFSITE AGRICULTURAL EASEMENT BY ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC DATED OCT 2018 FOR SAN LUIS RANCH OFFSITE PARCEL APN 067-181-101ADDITIONAL 30 ACRES OF PRESERVED AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROVIDED THROUGH AN OPEN-SPACE EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED ON 11-29-2018, DOCUMENT 2018049254 AND DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT “B·1” LEGAL DESCRIPTION AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY 30.00 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO GARY ESAJIAN RECORDED JANUARY 18, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 2006-003672 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID 30.00 ACRES TO BE THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED APRIL 19, 1979, IN VOLUME 2147, AT PAGE 788, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 30.00 ACRES TO BE PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE.ADDITADDITADDITADDITADDITIOIOIOIOIONNNNNAL 30AL 30AL 30AL 30AL 30ACRACRACRACRACREEEEESOFSOFSOFSOFSOFPRPRPRPRPREEEEESSSSSEEEEERVRVRVRVRVEEEEEDDDDDADAADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE NOTE: NO MORE THAN SIX ACRES TO BE USED FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOTS, INTERACTIVE SEASON FARMING, TENANT FARM TO TABLE, ANIMAL PENS, AND EDUCATIONAL CROPS.Page 201 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE281046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEACCESSORY AGRICULTURE STRUCTURES01020 401” = 20’-0” 24X36 SHEETAGRICULTURE BUILDINGS10,000 SF TOTALEXISTING AG ROADAGRICULTURE EASEMENT; 1/2 ACRE MAX. FARM ROAD LOCATION IS APROXIMATE AND WILL BE IDENTIFIED IN FINAL FARM PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED NOTE: IMAGES REPRESENT EXAMPLES, FINAL DESIGNS TO BE SUBMITTED Page 202 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE29LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION IMAGESPage 203 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE30LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION IMAGESPage 204 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE31LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN01020 401” = 20’-0” 24X36 SHEETE E E E EST E ST SH E S EE E S S E S E 6- E S E EST S TE HTSE TEE E TE E ST E TH E HE E ST T E E T E E TS S3’ T T E T T THE E S T ESS E T T E T E TE STEE E HE ST T E TH E S ST HTTE STEE E - EE H SE ST T E TH SE T ST HT E E T E ETE TE STEE TE T ET H E E E TH ESET S EE EST E T T H TEETE SE T 13’ X 6’ E T TH STE SHE SES TE E HE T T TH E SE TE S SE TE S E TE ST HT E TS’ X 8’ S T T ST S ESS E ESS T T E S TH T E T THE E T S TH THE ES T E EE T ST ESS T T ET H E EH T E TS EST T -T -T E E TS E E T 4E E S THET T E TH T E E T ES E E E EH E SSH T E ETE S THET TE TH11111211111223312133466242222112222333444466666DESIGN KEYHARDSCAPESITE INFRASTRUCTURESITE AMENITIESSITE STRUCTURESPUBLIC ART OPPORTUNITIES3344466681010111213141314121211833Page 205 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE32CONCEPTUAL PLANT SCHEDULET EES T S X / T S ST 24” X TS S 1S S ’ / E S 1 E T E EX / E T 24” XE SE / E E 1 / E H T EE 24” XE E E / E 24” XST H E S S / H ESE ST HE 24” XT S E / E T EE 24” X T E E ’/ E TE 1 S E ST T’ / E E 24” XE S / ST E 24” XS / H ESE E 24” X SH SH E E / E E SE / E 3 E TTE T / E E E X E E / E E E E H E E S T / E H S S 1 TH S X E / 1 TH S X E E / 1 STE S TT E H / TT E SH H ET TE T E / E SH 1 ETES / T HT 1 E S S E / E H SEE SH T T / T T ST H TE / H TE E E 1 E E X S S SET / E SH EE E / T SH 1 H E E E S / EE SS E ET X SSE E S / E S T T 1 E E E TT E E / TT E E E E STE T / E T E 1 H S T S / E S E S E H X ET ES / ET ES X H H E S E / H TH 1 S S S T S E / SE TH S S / EE TH E 1 E E X ST / E 1 TS ES E / E 1 T S E / E E 1 CONCEPTUAL PLANT SCHEDULE Page 206 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE33SITE FURNISHINGS INSPIRATION BOARDPEDESTRIAN PARKING LOT LIGHTSPEAK BIKE RACKS CAMPUS RACKBOLLARD LIGHTSSIGN LIGHTSEXTERIOR LIGHTING: Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed and installed to comply with CalGreen section 5.106.8. Refer to Landscape Site Plan (Sheet 31) for locations.Page 207 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE34TRASH ENCLOSURE AND WATER CALCULATIONS1RQ5HVLGHQWLDO 5HF\FOHG:DWHU(7R LQFKHV\HDU 2YHUKHDG/DQGVFDSH$UHD IW 'ULS/DQGVFDSH$UHD IW 6/$ IW IW+\GUR]RQH3ODQW:DWHU8VH7\SH ORZPRGHUDWHKLJK =RQH /RZ=RQH 0RGHUDWH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH =RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH=RQH =RQH0$:$ (7:8 5HF\FOHG:DWHU3URMHFW$OORZHG)XOO0$:$+&) +XQGUHG&XELF)HHW SHU\HDU$FUHIHHWSHU\HDU*DOORQV +$7RWDO/$6DQ/XLV2ELVSR0D[LPXP$SSOLHG:DWHU$OORZDQFH(VWLPDWHG7RWDO:DWHU8VH 3)[+$ IW ,((QWHU,UULJDWLRQ7\SH6/$6/$3ODQW)DFWRU 3) +\GUR]RQH$UHD +$ IW ATER CALCULATIONSPLANTING DESIGN CRITERIATHE T ETTE E S SE E TE E T TE T TH E THE TE S T S 2 ESS THE T TE E E E TE TE THE E E E E T E TE E EST SHE TH S T ETTE E TH THE T S STE EET EX EE THE ST TE ST S TE SE T TH H TE E E T S E T ES ETE SHEET X E TE E EST TE T T TE SE T S S E E E T T ES E S EE E TH E ET TIRRIGATION AND PLANTING DESIGN CRITERIA E THE SE S S T T E E SE T T THE T TE E TE S T T THE E E E TS E H H E T EES SH S E E S E TE SE TE H ES TH E T S TH T E EST SHE TE E E TE E E E T ETH S T ETTE E TH THE T S STE ES E E EET EX EE THE ST TE E TE E E T S E E ( E )T SE E E TE E EPLANTING IRRIGATION DESIGN STATEMENTSIDE ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSUREFRONT ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURESLIDE BOLT AND SLEEVEDROP BOLT AND SLEEVE8'-0"PRECAST CONCRETE CAPWOOD POST AND BEAM SIZEDPER STRUCTURAL. PAINT ALLEXPOSED WOOD KELLYMOORE BROWN BEAR TOMATCH ARCHITECTURECORRUGATEDMETAL ROOFCMU BLOCK WALLRECYCLING4 CYSTEEL GATE FRAMEBARREL HINGEWOOD PANELS. PAINT TOMATCH ARCHITECTUREORGANICS18'-5"ROOF POSTPLAN VIEW - TRASH ENCLOSURE (SIDE ACCESS OPTION)CMU WALLROOF OUTLINEPLAN VIEW - TRASH ENCLOSURE (F.O.G. STORAGE OPTION)8'-0"(2) DOUBLESWING GATESGATE POSTTRASH4 CYORGANICSRECYCLING4 CYTRASH4 CYF.O.G.STORAGE(2) DOUBLESWING GATESROOF POSTCMU WALLROOF OUTLINEGATE POST25'-6"(2) SINGLESWING GATES () 60 620 ()20-101TRASH ENCLOSURESSSSSSBIKE RACK SPECIFICATIONSPage 208 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE351046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACESIGNAGE SITE PLANRESTAURANT BUILDINGMARKET BUILDINGHISTORIC HOUSEAG PROCESSINGRETAILHISTORIC WOOD BARNB2B3B4B5B6B1B1A3A2A1A3C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1C2C2C2C2C2C2C2C2C2C2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D1D1NOTE:POTENTIAL SIGNAGE PLACEMENT SUGGESTIONS SHOWN, NOT ALL LOCATIONS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE USED. ACTUAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON TENANT MIX. Page 209 of 256
RETAIL AND HISTORIC BARN - BUILDING ELEVATIONSB4SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE361046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEBUILDING SIGNAGE ELEVATIONSMARKET - BUILDING ELEVATIONSB1B1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1NOTE:POTENTIAL SIGNAGE PLACEMENT SUGGESTIONS SHOWN, NOT ALL LOCATIONS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE USED. ACTUAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON TENANT MIX. C2C2C2C2C2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2B6SIGN TO BE DETERMINED AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AT A LATER DATED2Page 210 of 256
AG PROCESSING BUILDINGB3SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE371046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEBUILDING SIGNAGE ELEVATIONSSIGN TO BE DETERMINED AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AT A LATER DATEC2D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1D1C2C2C2C2C2C2NOTE:POTENTIAL SIGNAGE PLACEMENT SUGGESTIONS SHOWN, NOT ALL LOCATIONS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE USED. ACTUAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON TENANT MIX. RESTAURANT- BUILDING ELEVATIONSC1B2D1D1Page 211 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE381046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEHISTORIC HOUSE SIGNAGEMAIN CULTURAL HERITAGE LEARNING CENTER SIGNAGEBLADE SIGNAGEPage 212 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE391046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEA1A2A3A3SITE SIGNAGE2’-6” W6’-6” W5’-0” H3’-0” HDIRECTIONAL SIGNAGERESIDENTIAL (NG-10, NG-23, NG-30) SUBDIVISION ENTRY MONUMENT: 1 per street frontage, 20SF, max height as approved by ARC. Shall be located in a landscaped planter typically at neighborhood entrance. Monument sign illumination shall be in compliance with City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections 15.40.430 and 15.40.470. DIRECTORY SIGN: 1 each per street frontage, 20SF, no applicable maximum height. Wall signs shall be located over building entrances. Directory sign illumination shall be in compliance with City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections 15.40.430 and 15.40.470.RECLAIMED WOODMETAL LETTERINGNOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALERECLAIMED WOODSIGN LIGHTSSTONE BASEENTRY MONUMENT SIGNAGESIGNAGE LEGENDSIGNAGE KEY MAPSIGN AND MONUMENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSMETAL LETTERINGSTONE BASE10’-0” W1’-6” HRECLAIMED WOODMETAL LETTERING STONE BASENEIGHBORHOOD SIGNAGEENTRY MONUMENTDIRECTIONAL SIGNAGENEIGHBORHOOD SIGNAGENOTES:1. ALL SIGNAGE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF VEHICULAR SITE LINES2. SIGNS ARE CONSISTENT WITH SAN LUIS RANCH MASTER DEVELOPER PLANSA1A2A3Page 213 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE401046-18-RS2010 JUNE 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 16 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACEBUILDING SIGNAGEBUILDING SIGNAGEREFER TO BUILDING COLOR MATERIALS FOR PROPOSED FINISHESMARKET BUILDING: TOTAL SFRESTAURANT BUILDING: TOTAL SFRETAIL & HISTORIC BARN BUILDING: TOTAL SFTENANT BLADE SIGNAGESIGNS SHALL BE LOCATED OVER OR ADJACENT TO BUILDING ENTRANCES.LED LIGHTING MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO SIGNS. SIGNS MAY NOT EXCEED 9” DTENANT SIGNAGESIGNS SHALL BE LOCATED OVER BUILDING ENTRANCES.DARK SKY COMPLIANT LED SIGNAGE LIGHTINGMARKET BUILDING SIGNAGEWOOD AND STEELDIMENSIONS: 5’-6”H x 14’W77 SF (QTY 2)COLOR: BLACK OR WHITERESTAURANT BUILDING SIGNAGETEXT SIZE: 12” HDIMENSIONS: 1’H x 15’L15 SFCOLOR: BLACK OR WHITEAG PROCESSING BUILDING SIGNAGEDIMENSIONS: 6’H x 16’L96 SFRETAIL & HISTORIC BARN BUILDING SIGNAGETEXT SIZE: 2’-6”DIMENSIONS: 2’6”H x 25’L63 SFCOLOR: BLACK OR WHITEROUND OR RECTANGULAR BLADE SIGNAGERECTANGLE DIMENSIONS: 28”H x 46”L, 8 SFROUND DIMENSIONS: 24” DIA., 4 SFSTOREFRONT SIGNAGETEXT SIZE: 12” MAX.DIMENSIONS: 1’6”H x 10’L, 15 SFAWNING SIGNAGE8” TEXT SIZEDIMENSIONS: 8”H x 10’L, 7.5 SFCOLOR: BLACK OR WHITEVERTICAL BLADE SIGNAGEDIMENSIONS: 1’ W x 5’H, 5 SFIF USED, MUST MEET ACCESSIBLE REQUIREMENTSRETAIL & HISTORIC BARN BUILDING SIGNAGETEXT SIZE: 8”HDIMENSIONS: 8” x 12’-6”9 SFCOLOR: BLACK OR WHITERETAIL & HISTORIC BARN BUILDING SIGNAGEDIMENSIONS: XX’ H x XX’ LXX SFSIGN TO BE DETERMINED AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AT A LATER DATEB1B2B3B4B5B6C1D1D2C2TYPE BUILDING SQUARE FEETB1 MARKET BUILDING 154 SFB2 RESTAURANT BUILDING 15 SFB3 AG PROCESSING BUILDING 96 SFB4 RETAIL & HISTORIC BARN BUILDING63 SFB5 HISTORIC HOUSE 9 SFTOTAL SF 337 SFSIGN TO BE DETERMINED AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AT A LATER DATETYPE QTY SQUARE FEETC1 13 104 MAX SFC2 10 50 SFTOTAL SF 154 MAX SFTYPE QTY SQUARE FEETD1 10 150 SFD2 7 52.5 SFTOTAL SF 152.5 SFPage 214 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE411” = 30’-0” (24X36 SHEET)01530 600 30 60 1201” = 60’-0” (12X18 SHEET)GRADING AND DRAINAGEPage 215 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE42SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIESNOTE: SHADED AREA REPRESENT EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS FROM APPROVED TRACT 3096 IMPROVEMENT PLANS.Page 216 of 256
SLO RANCH FARMS AND MARKETPLACE1046-18-RS2010 JUNE 2021 SLO RANCH FARM S
& M ARKETPLACE43STORM WATER CONTROL PLANNOTE: EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTSPage 217 of 256
Page 218 of 256
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE AND LEARNING CENTER IN THE SAN LUIS
RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE REHABILITATION OF TWO
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES, THE PRESERVATION OF REMNANTS
OF THE GRANDSTAND VIEWING BARN, AND FOUR NEW STRUCTURES
INCLUDING A RETAIL BUILDING, MARKET BUILDING, RETAURANT, AND AG
PROCESSING CENTER
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Rd BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
Phone Number: (805) 610-1109
Email: jfrickenbach@aol.com
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0243-2021 FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan Design Guidelines, and Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and Sign Regulations
and provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission.
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The project is the “Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center” as envisioned in the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted in 2017. The applicant calls the proposed
development the San Luis Farms and Marketplace, but it is often more commonly referred
to as the “Ag Heritage Center”. It would be located on the site designated for the Ag
Heritage Center development concept, within the 53 -acre AG-zoned portion of the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan.
Consistent with what is described in the specific
plan, the project consists of a farm market,
restaurant, general retail and agricultural
processing buildings (Attachment A, Project
Plans). Pursuant to mitigation requirements in the
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the
project was originally intended to relocate and
incorporate three historic structures from the
Dalidio Ranch, but one of those structures—a
grandstand viewing barn—was severely
damaged in a fire in February 2019.
Consequently, the project now will incorporate
the two intact relocated historic buildings,
including the ranch house and barn, which will be
rehabilitated and used as part of the development.
Meeting Date: 9/20/2021
Item Number: 4b
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Figure 1: Subject Property
Page 219 of 256
Item 4b
ARCH-0253-2021
Architectural Review Commission Report – September 20, 2021
The project also includes the stabilized remains of the damaged historic grandstand
viewing barn, which is an important visual and historic component of the project. The
balance of the AG zoned area within the specific plan will be maintained as a working
farm with associated ag support structures and farm roads.
General Location: The project site is located in the east-central portion of the 131-acre
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area, generally southwest of Dalidio Drive, and west of
Highway 101. Access will be via the planned extension of Froom Ranch Way.
Present Use: Vacant Land
Zoning: Agriculture (AG)
General Plan: Agriculture (San Luis Ranch Specific Plan)
Surrounding Uses: (all within the SLRSP)
East: Agriculture
West: Planned residential
North: Planned Hotel and Commercial Retail
South: Agriculture
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Figure 2 (below) shows the location of proposed development in the context of
surrounding development, both existing and planned within San Luis Ranch.
Figure 2: Ag Heritage Center in Surrounding Context
Page 220 of 256
Item 4b
ARCH-0253-2021
Architectural Review Commission Report – September 20, 2021
Figure 3 (below) shows the proposed layout of the Ag Heritage Center in more detail,
including the location of three historic structures associated with the San Luis Ranch
complex, which is described in detail in Section 4.5 of the Final EIR for the San Luis
Ranch project. The original complex included a variety of structures, some dating to the
early 20th century. The nine structures included three single -family residences, a
garage/shed, a smaller shed, the main barn, a large equipment storage building, a
warehouse, and the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand, which was converted to farm
use. Consistent with the intent of the required mitigation measures included in the San
Luis Ranch Final EIR, three of the most significant structures have been relocated to the
project site, including a residence, the hay barn, and a surviving wall of the racetrack
viewing stand, which was destroyed in a fire in February 2019.
All new buildings within the proposed development are intended to be architecturally
consistent with the relocated historic structures and reflect an agricultural theme.
Figure 4 on the following page shows the overall development concept, and how the three
relocated historic structures will be integrated into the overall architectural design.
Figure 3: Ag Heritage Center Proposed Layout
Page 221 of 256
Item 4b
ARCH-0253-2021
Architectural Review Commission Report – September 20, 2021
The following summarizes the proposed architectural details of buildings within the
complex.
Architecture: Draws from Farmhouse and Modern Agrarian elements, with design as
described in Section 3.7.3 of the Specific Plan (Attachment B, Agricultural Heritage
Facilities and Learning Center Design Guidelines).
Design details: As described in Section 3.7.3 of the Specific Plan. Details include
numerous agricultural architectural elements, outdoor seating areas, pedestrian
pathways, and thematically decorative lighting and signage. Design is intended to
highlight agricultural themes in the context of historic agricultural uses, and to be
consistent with neighboring residential development planned under the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan. Lighting features are intended to avoid spi llover and are downward
oriented to preserve the night sky and minimize potential impacts related to aircraft
operations.
Materials: Wood, metal roofs, with wood and metal trim and details.
Colors: Grays, wood tones, and back trim, consistent with agriculturally themed
architecture.
Building elevations for the proposed market, restaurant, agriculture processing facility,
and retail uses within the historic barn are shown on pages 11, 14, 17 and 20 of the
applicant’s submittal (Attachment A). Colors and materials for these facilities are included
on pages 12, 15, 18 and 21 of the same packet.
Figure 4: Development rendering showing historic structures. View is south.
Page 222 of 256
Item 4b
ARCH-0253-2021
Architectural Review Commission Report – September 20, 2021
3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and Community Design Guidelines
(CDG), and Sign Regulations (see links below); and 2) provide comments and
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=15833
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2116
4.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development should be evaluated based on its consistency with the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan, and CDG. Notably, upon its adoption the Specific Plan and
accompanying guidelines were found to be consistent with the General Plan, and the
guidelines contained in the Specific Plan were found to be consistent with the CDG.
Therefore, consistency with the Specific Plan is the key consideration for ARC with
respect to this project. In certain instances, the Specific Plan defers to other existing City
regulations, and these are noted below.
Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with relevant
provisions of the Specific Plan (Chapter 3: Table 3-10, Agriculture Development
Standards; Neighborhood Form, Section 3.6, Sign and Monument Development
Standards; Section 3.7.3, Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Design
Guidelines; Section 3.8, Architectural Style Reference Guide; and Section 3.9, Plant
Palette. For reference, this staff report includes a discussion of the applicability of portions
of the CDG (Chapter 2, General Design Principles; Section 7.3, Historic Resource
Preservation).
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Chapter 3 – Neighborhood Form
Table 3-10: Agriculture
Development Standards
The proposed project conforms with allowed size, building height,
setback, landscaping, and lighting requirements for the AG zone.
The ARC should also evaluate for compliance with other
architectural and design standards of the Specific Plan. Sheet 1 of
the applicant’s submittal provides a summary of design-related
information in the context of various City regulations.
Section 3.6: Sign and Monument
Sign Development Standards
Specific Plan Table 3-11 describes standards for signs allowed in
the Ag Heritage Center development. Since the conceptual
signage plan is being provided along with development plans in
order to allow for concurrent evaluation of signs with building design
and site layout, the Sign Regulations allow flexibility from standards
as a Sign Program. Sign Programs are encouraged for new
development projects since they provide an opportunity to ensure
are complementary with the surrounding neighborhood or
commercial district. A conceptual signage plan is included on
Sheets 35-40 (Attachment A), which shows monument, directional,
Page 223 of 256
Item 4b
ARCH-0253-2021
Architectural Review Commission Report – September 20, 2021
and neighborhood signage. Conceptual building signs are also
shown on Sheets 12, 15 and 21 (Attachment A). Signs should be
evaluated for compatibility with architecture and coordination
among tenant spaces. It should be noted that once the project is
approved a formal sign program will be used on an ongoing basis
for staff to review for consistency with applicable regulations.
Section 3.7.3: Agricultural
Heritage Facilities and Learning
Center Design Guidelines
This section provides general guidance for site planning and
design, building form, building elements, lighting, signs, building
materials, exterior colors, visual elements, landscaping, and
fencing. Proposed design information related to these issues is
summarized on Sheet 2, but shown in more detail on Sheets 5-21,
25, 26 and 28-35 (Attachment B). As proposed, the project appears
to be consistent with the intent of the Design Guidelines in the
Specific Plan.
Section 3.8: Architectural Style
Reference Guide
This project is designed with a Modern Agrarian architectural
theme, which is described in Section 3.8.4. This section provides
guidance on massing, building form and composition, materials,
colors, and various architectural features. The ARC should focus
on consistency with these guidelines. Proposed building elevations
and the integration of historical elements into architecture are
shown on Sheets 10-28 (Attachment A).
Section 3.9: Plant Palette
Section 3.9 discusses the appropriate plant palette to be used in
project landscaping, with a focus on native and drought-tolerant
plants. Table 3-12 provides a plant list, which ARC can refer to in
order to determine consistency. The project’s proposed
landscaping and plant palette information may be found on Sheets
29-32. The proposed trees are consistent with those included in
the Specific Plan.
Community Design Guidelines
Chapter 2: General Design
Principles
The Specific Plan was previously found to be consistent with the
City’s Community Design Guidelines. However, the CDG provides
a framework upon which the Specific Plan builds, and provides
additional direction with respect to basic design issues. The project
appropriately applies the General Design Principles of the CDG,
notably that it integrates agricultural elements to fit the setting, is
thematically unified and functional. Buildings appear to be well-
proportioned, and consistent with the scale of historic structures
that have been relocated to the site for reuse.
Section 7.3: Historic Resource
Preservation
The project integrates historic ranch structures into the design,
which is an integral part of its overall function and form. The
Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) is evaluating the design as a
separate review to ensure it complies with applicable regulations
related to cultural resources.
Page 224 of 256
Item 4b
ARCH-0253-2021
Architectural Review Commission Report – September 20, 2021
5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Requirement
Land Use Designation AG AG
Setbacks Front: 20 feet
Side: 10 feet
Rear: 20 feet
Front: 20 feet
Side: 10 feet
Rear: 20 feet
(per SLR Specific Plan Table 3-10)
Building Height 35 feet
(see building elevations on
Sheets 10, 11, 14, 17 and 20)
35 feet; historic structures may be as much
as 45 feet
(Per SLR Specific Plan Table 3-10)
Lot Coverage 23.5% 80% maximum
(per SLR Specific Plan Table 3-7)
Public Art Various agriculturally themed
sculptures and features;
locations shown on Sheet 31
Public art only required for commercial
portion of SLRSP; project subject to
Municipal Code 17.70.140.
Parking
Automobile spaces
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
78
24
4
(see Sheet 1)
61 (1 per 500 SF per SLR Specific Plan)
12 (per municipal code; 20% of required
vehicle parking)
4 (per municipal code)
Environmental Status
An Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for
the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan has been prepared to address updated
information related to the significance of the Spectators Barn/Viewing Stand
and the change in mitigation approach based on the structure’s destruction
in the 2019 fire (link:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31027/6376688536
41101713).
Page 225 of 256
Item 4b
ARCH-0253-2021
Architectural Review Commission Report – September 20, 2021
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines,
and City Sign Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission’s
recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action.
This action may include recommendations for conditions to address
consistency with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines and
Community Design Guidelines.
6.2 Continue the project hearing to a date certain or uncertain. An action
continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on
pertinent issues.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the
application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should
reference inconsistency with the General Plan, San Luis Ranch Specific Plan,
CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
A – Project Plans
B – San Luis Ranch Agricultural Heritage Center Design Guidelines
Page 226 of 256
1
Architectural Review Commission Minutes
September 20, 2021, 5:00 p.m.
Teleconference - Broadcast via Webinar
Architectural Review
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioner Brian Pineda, Commissioner Allen Root, Vice Chair
Ashley Mayou, Chair Christie Withers
Architectural Review
Commissioners
Absent:
Commissioner Michael DeMartini, Commissioner Mandi Pickens,
Commissioner Micah Smith
City Staff Present: Senior Planner Shawna Scott, Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission was
called to order on September 20, 2021 at 5:19 p.m. by Chair Withers.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
Motion By Commissioner Root
Second By Commissioner Pineda
To approve Consent Item 3a.
Ayes (4): Commissioner Pineda, Commissioner Root, Vice Chair Mayou, and
Chair Withers
Absent (3): Commissioner DeMartini, Commissioner Pickens, Commissioner
Smith
CARRIED (4 to 0)
Page 227 of 256
2
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 2021 ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
Approve the Architectural Review Commission Minutes of August 16, 2021.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.a 1656 MONTEREY (ARCH-0352-2021) REVIEW OF AN ADDITION TO
AN EXISTING STRUCTURE (SUNBEAM MOTEL). THE PROJECT
INCLUDES A 1,273-SQUARE-FOOT, SECOND-STORY ADDITION AND
A 94-SQUARE-FOOT, FIRST-FLOOR ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE
At the request of the project applicant, staff recommends the Architectural
Review Commission continue this item to a date uncertain. The applicant
has requested this continuance to further consider the scope and design
of the project in light of increasing construction costs.
By consensus, the Architectural Review Commission continued review of
this item to a date uncertain.
Ayes (4): Commissioner Pineda, Commissioner Root, Vice Chair Mayou,
and Chair Withers
Absent (3): Commissioner DeMartini, Commissioner Pickens, Commissioner
Smith
CARRIED (4 to 0)
4.b 1035 MADONNA (ARCH-0253-2021) REVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL
HERITAGE AND LEARNING CENTER IN THE SAN LUIS RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the staff report and
responded to Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Scott Martin, provided a brief overview of the
project and responded to questions raised.
Chair Withers opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
Chair Withers closed the public hearing.
Page 228 of 256
3
Motion By Vice Chair Mayou
Second By Commissioner Root
Find the proposed project consist with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
Design Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, Sign Regulations, and
recommend the Planning Commission approve the project.
Ayes (4): Commissioner Pineda, Commissioner Root, Vice Chair Mayou,
and Chair Withers
Absent (3): Commissioner DeMartini, Commissioner Pickens, Commissioner
Smith
CARRIED (4 to 0)
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided an update of upcoming projects.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the
Architectural Review Commission meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2021 at
5:00 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 10/04/2021
Page 229 of 256
Page 230 of 256
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE AND LEARNING CENTER IN THE SAN LUIS
RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE REHABILITATION OF TWO
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES, THE PRESERVATION OF REMNANTS
OF THE GRANDSTAND VIEWING BARN, AND FOUR NEW STRUCTURES
INCLUDING A RETAIL BUILDING, MARKET BUILDING, RESTAURANT, AND AG
PROCESSING CENTER
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
Phone Number: 805-610-1109
Email: jfrickenbach@aol.com
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0253-2021 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the consistency of the
proposed work with the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance and SOI Standards, and
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan including any necessary conditions of approval to ensure
such consistency.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The project is the “Agricultural Heritage and
Learning Center” as envisioned in the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan, which was adopted in 2017.
The applicant calls the proposed development the
San Luis Farms and Marketplace, but it is often more
commonly referred to as the “Ag Heritage Center”.
Consistent with what is described in the specific
plan, the project consists of a farm market,
restaurant, general retail and agricultural processing
buildings (Attachment A, project plans). Pursuant to
mitigation requirements in the Final EIR, the project
was originally intended to relocate and incorporate
three historic structures from the Dalidio Ranch, but
one of those structures—a grandstand viewing
barn—was severely damaged in a fire in February
2019. Consequently, the project now will incorporate
the two intact relocated historic buildings, including
the ranch house and barn, which will be rehabilitated and used as part of the
development.
Meeting Date: 9/27/2021
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 60 Minutes
Figure 1: Subject Property
Page 231 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
The project also includes the stabilized remains of the damaged historic grandstand
viewing barn, which is an important visual and historic component of the project. The
balance of the AG zoned area within the specific plan will be maintained as a working
farm with associated ag support structures and farm roads.
For more background on the Cultural Resources assessment in the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan EIR, please see the following link for the January 23, 2017, CHC Agenda
Packet:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=63020&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk
For more background information on the Cultural Resources component of the Specific
plan and the approach to treatment of the historic resources on the site, please see the
following link for the May 15, 2017, CHC Agenda Packet:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=64731&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT CONTEXT
2.1 Ag Heritage Center Project Location and Concept
The subject site is the AG-zoned portion of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, which
encompasses 53.5 acres within the southern half of the 131-acre Specific Plan area.
The Specific Plan calls for an Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center within a small
portion of the AG zone, which is the focus of this application. Figure 2 (below) shows the
location of proposed development in the context of surrounding development, both
existing and planned within San Luis Ranch.
Figure 2: Ag Heritage Center in Surrounding Context
Page 232 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
Figure 3 (below) shows the proposed layout of the Ag Heritage Center in more detail,
including the location of three historic structures associated with the San Luis Ranch
complex, which is described in detail in Section 4.5 of the Final EIR for the San Luis
Ranch project. The original complex included a variety of structures, som e dating to the
early 20th century. The nine structures included three single-family residences, a
garage/shed, a smaller shed, the main barn, a large equipment storage building, a
warehouse, and the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand, which was converted to farm
use. Consistent with the intent of the required mitigation measures included in the EIR,
three of the most significant structures have been relocated to the project site, including
a residence, the hay barn, and a surviving wall of the racetrack viewing stand, which wa s
destroyed in a fire in February 2019. Two memoranda prepared by SWCA (dated March
11 and July 22, 2021, Attachments B & C) describe how the relocation of the fire-damaged
structure complies with required mitigation, which remains unchanged from what was
included in the Final EIR.
2.2 Dalidio Ranch – Historic Ranch Complex
Dating back to the turn of the 20th century, the Dalidio Ranch (now known as “San Luis
Ranch”) included a collection of structures: the Wood Residence (Dalidio home), Laguna
Racetrack viewing stand, barn, water tower, and other buildings supporting the farming
of the ranch. Some buildings within the complex, most notably the Wood Residence, Hay
Barn and the Laguna Racetrack viewing stand, were found historically significant based
on State and local criteria in the FEIR prepared for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan.
Figure 3: Ag Heritage Center Proposed Layout
Page 233 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
The February 2019 fire at San Luis Ranch severely damaged the former 16th District
Agricultural Association’s racetrack grandstand which had been planned for relocation to
the Ag Heritage Center along with the Main Barn, and Wood Residence (Dalidio home).
The racetrack grandstand was a rare architectural type and a significant historical
resource both locally and statewide. As planning for the Agricultural Heritage Center
continues in the aftermath of the fire, the applicant team developed a post -fire approach
to meeting the mitigation measures specified in the certified Final EIR for the San Luis
Ranch project, the results of which are summarized in the memoranda dated March 11
and July 22, 2021 (Attachments B & C).
Figure 4: Historic Residence showing rehabilitation concept
Figure 5: Historic Barn showing rehabilitation concept
Page 234 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
New construction, additions, or alterations on historically listed properties are subject to
review by the Cultural Heritage Committee,1 who will make a recommendation to the
decision-making body for the project (Planning Commission) as to the consistency of the
proposed work with applicable historical preservation policies and standards and may
recommend related conditions of project approval. This evaluation is focused on the
proposal for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the remaining historically significant
structures and preservation of the remaining viewing stand remnants in the context of the
approved Specific Plan and certified FEIR.
4.0 PREVIOUS CHC REVIEW
The CHC previously reviewed the project on two occasions in 2017 to consider the
conceptual plan for what is now under consideration. In May 2017, CHC formally provided
recommendations to the Planning Commission for the project that were considered in the
approval of the Specific Plan in July 2017. Consequently, the approved Specific Plan
includes policy guidance that had the benefit of previous CHC review.
5.0 PROPOSED WORK
The Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center is intended to be a destination for residents
and tourists alike and will provide the community with local food, education, and a
connection to agriculture. The relocation and rehabilitation of historic structures
integrated into this site is a crucial part of the development concept.
1 Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030 (C)
Figure 6: Fire-damaged Racetrack Grandstand Wall
Figure 6: Fire-damaged Racetrack Grandstand Wall
Page 235 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
Three historically significant buildings in the area, the Dalidio Home (or Wood Residence),
the Hay Barn, and the Laguna Racetrack Viewing Stand remnants have already been
relocated from their previous location closer to Madonna Road to a temporary location on
the Ag Heritage Center site, where they will be repositioned and permanently preserved
as part of development of the site. The preservation and rehabilitation concept for each
structure in the context of future development is described below.
Wood Residence. The first floor of the Wood Residence (or “Main Residence” as
described in the Final EIR; also known as the “Dalidio Home”), with its wrap-around porch,
craftsman cabinetry, leaded glass, and other historic features, will be used in the
Agricultural Heritage Center as an education hub and display area, with interpretive
signage and historic artifacts from the site. The second floor will be used as farm offices.
The structure will be available for educational events featuring everything from
sustainable farming practices to traditional crafts such as quilting.
Hay Barn. The Hay Barn (or “Main Barn” as described in the Final EIR), with its
corrugated metal roof, original lichen -stained wood siding, hay-fork and other features,
will be incorporated into the Ag Heritage Center as retail space, adorned with historic
signage and adjoined by a glass atrium exhibition corridor filled with exhibits and photos
from the 16th District Agricultural Association horse races and fairs.
Laguna Racetrack Viewing Grandstand Wall. The fire-damaged Grandstand Wall (part
of the “Spectator’s Barn/Viewing Stand” as described in the Final EIR), the only surviving
portion of that structure, will be positioned as it was at the tu rn of the 19th century,
overlooking the agricultural field as once did the racetrack. Its redwood timbers and hand -
wrought iron nails will become a focal point of the entire Ag Heritage Center, with
interpretive signage, mounted on the adjacent patio wall. All signage, displays and exhibit
are being developed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian (Paula Carr of
SWCA). The proposed layout, exhibits and uses are intended to meet all applicable
Specific Plan standards and required mitigation measures.
Figure 7 illustrates the development concept showing these three structures in the overall
project context.
Page 236 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
All historic rehabilitation is intended to comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines
for Treatment of Historic Structures, and with cultural resource mitigation measures CR-
1(a) and CR-1(c) of the Final EIR. For additional details regarding mitigation compliance,
please refer to the attached memorandum dated July 22, 2021 (Attachment C).
6.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
Relevant guidance is provided mainly in the approved Specific Plan, which was informed
to some extent by the previous CHC review in May 2017. Additional guidance is provided
in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.2
Selected applicable guidelines, standards, and recommendations from these documents
are outlined below.
6.1 San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
The approved Specific Plan includes guidance for the relocation and reuse of historic
structures that will become part of the project. It also includes related narratives to clarify
intent of the relevant policies and programs, which include the following:
2 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service; Technical Preservation
Services, 2017
Figure 7: Development rendering showing historic structures. View is south.
Page 237 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Policy Framework
3.7.3. Agricultural
Heritage Facilities
and Learning Center
Design Guidelines
Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Concept.
Historic structures identified on-site will be integrated into the
site plan design as part of the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and
Learning Center, as directed by a qualified Historic Architect,
then through a Historical Structure Relocation Plan, as specified
in Mitigation Measure CR-1. Archival documentation of the
historic structures on-site and informational displays of historic
resources will also be completed and included in the site plan
when appropriate.
8.1.2 Goals, Policies, and Programs
Policy 2.5 Protect associated structures such as the Dalidio Home, Laguna
Race Track viewing stand, barn, and water tower.
Program 2.5.1 Evaluate historic structures on the site for purposes of
preservation and protective reuse.
Policy. 7.1 Ensure that buildings are designed in a manner consistent with
the character of the Plan Area.
Program 7.1.1 Establish guidelines for: building facad es, orientation and form,
and materials that reflect and convey human scale and the
historic traditions of the Plan Area.
Discussion: The relocation and repurposing of the historic structures in question will
comply with the requirements of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Treatment of the
structures to be integrated into new development will follow required mitigation measures
from the Final EIR and be designed in a manner to promote and celebrate their historic
context, while providing educational oppo rtunities regarding the City’s agricultural
heritage. See additional discussion in Section 6.2, which describes how all reconstruction
and rehabilitation efforts will comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Page 238 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
6.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Rehabilitation)
Standards for Rehabilitation
1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will
be retained and preserved.
5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement
of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. [not applicable to this
project]
9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not de stroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The
new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic
materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of
the property and its environment.
10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such
a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Page 239 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
Discussion: The Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance on rehabilitation 3 of
historic buildings, including approaches to work treatments and techniques that are either
consistent (“Recommended”) or inconsistent (“Not Recommended”) with the Standards,
specific to various features of historic buildings and sites.
The July 22, 2021 memorandum (Attachment C) describes in detail how the project
addresses the SOI standards, outlining the compliance approach associated with each of
the three structures included in the project. Please refer to that memo for this detailed
discussion. Based on City staff’s review of the analysis included in the memorandum, the
project appears to comply with all applicable SOI standa rds. Key aspects related to this
determination are discussed below.
The existing structures are unsafe in their current condition and not habitable. Existing
materials will be preserved and incorporated into the rehabilitated structures where
feasible consistent with SOI standards and under the direction of a qualified historic
consultant and will maintain the original exterior visual appearance of the residence and
barn, while restoring the interior in the context of appropriate building code requiremen ts.
In the case of the Hay Barn, it will be repurposed as retail space, adorned with historic
signage and adjoined by a glass atrium exhibition corridor filled with memorabilia from the
16th District Agricultural Association horse races and fairs. The residence will be used as
an education hub and display area, with interpretive signage and historic artifacts from
the site. In both cases, the intent is to increase public awareness of the history of the
ranch and the City’s agricultural heritage.
The fire-damaged Grandstand Wall will not be a habitable structure but will be positioned
as it was at the turn of the 19th century, overlooking the agricultural field as once did the
racetrack. It will become a focal point of the entire Ag Heritage Center, with interpretive
signage, mounted on a low, protective perimeter wall, that describes the historic activities
linked to this important site.
6.3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
On July 18, 2017, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) adopted a Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR; SCH #2015101083) for the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (San
Luis Ranch Project) and approved the requested project entitlements, including a
proposed Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment/Pre -zoning, Development
Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and application for annexation of the site into the city
of San Luis Obispo. The FEIR addressed proposed development of the entire site and
contemplated the relocation and rehabilitation of historic structures into the Ag Heritage
Center portion of the Specific Plan. The document included mitigation measures to
ensure that this aspect of the project was mitigated to the extent feasible, as the impact
was not considered fully mitigable to a less than significant level.
3 Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through
repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical,
cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a
historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character. (SOI
Standards, pg. 3)
Page 240 of 256
Item 4a
ARCH-0253-2021
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 27, 2021
Subsequent to certification of the FEIR, additional information regarding the 16 th District
Agricultural Association racetrack grandstand (also referred to as the spectator’s
barn/viewing stand) was identified that altered the previous eligibility findings of the
resource as described in the adopted FEIR. Consequently, an Addendum to the certified
FEIR was prepared to address this updated information, specifically to document the
revised status of the grandstand and associated racetrack, and to confirm the change of
mitigation strategy for the grandstand would not result in any new or more severe
significant environmental effects not previously analyzed in the FEIR.
The Addendum containing the updated information and analysis is included as
Attachment D. It concludes that no new significant impacts are identified, and no changes
to existing mitigation measures are required. Consistent with CEQA requirements, the
Addendum does not require circulation because it does not provide significant new
information that changes the adopted FEIR in a way that deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of
the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. The City will consider the
Addendum with the adopted FEIR as part of the basis for potential approval of the
Agricultural Heritage Center portion of the San Luis Ranch Project.
7.0 SUMMARY
The proposed Agricultural Heritage Center is intended to function as a focal point for not
only the new San Luis Ranch community, but act as a significant resource for residents
throughout the City. Consistent with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, its pu rpose is to
celebrate the agricultural heritage of the area in a variety of ways —not only through retail
sales of locally grown products, but through fun and interactive educational opportunities.
A key aspect of the educational goal is the integration of three historic structures into the
development, which in the case of the historic residence and barn, be functional
structures that facilitate agricultural sales, farm offices, and public education
opportunities. The integration of these historic features into the project will increase public
awareness of the City’s rich agricultural history, and in that way, promote public
stewardship of other agricultural and historical resources within the region.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the consistency of
the proposed work with the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance and SOI
Standards, and San Luis Ranch Specific Plan including any necessary conditions of
approval to ensure such consistency.
2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
A – Project Plans
B – Memorandum of March 11, 2021 (prepared by SWCA)
C – Memorandum of July 22, 2021 (prepared by SWCA)
D – Addendum to the Final EIR
Page 241 of 256
1
Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
September 27, 2021, 5:30 p.m.
Teleconference - Broadcast via Webinar
Cultural Heritage
Committee Members
Present:
Committee Member John Ashbaugh, Committee Member Chuck
Crotser, Committee Member Karen Edwards, Vice Chair Eva
Ulz, Chair Shannon Larrabee
City Staff Present: Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian, Assistant Planner Walter
Oetzell, Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner John
Rickenbach
______________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was
called to order on September 27, 2021, at 5:36 p.m. by Chair Larrabee with
Members present via teleconference.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JULY 26, 2021 CULTURAL
HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of July 26, 2021.
Motion By Member Crotser
Second By Member Ashbaugh
Vice-Chair Ulz recused on July 26, 2021 due to employment conflict.
Page 242 of 256
2
Ayes (4): Member Ashbaugh, Member Crotser, Member Edwards, and
Chair Larrabee
Abstained (1): Vice Chair Ulz
CARRIED (4 to 0)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.a 1035 MADONNA (ARCH-0253-2021) REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL
HERITAGE AND LEARNING CENTER IN THE SAN LUIS RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the staff report and
responded to Commission inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Scott Martin, Paula Carr and Jacob Grossman
provided an overview of the project and site use history and responded to
questions raised.
Chair Larrabee opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Larrabee closed the public hearing.
Motion By Vice Chair Ulz
Second By Member Crotser
Recommending the Planning Commission approve the Addendum to the
FEIR, and find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance, Secretary of Interior Standards, and historic policies and
programs of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan.
Ayes (5): Member Ashbaugh, Member Crotser, Member Edwards, Vice
Chair Ulz, and Chair Larrabee
CARRIED (5 to 0)
4.b 1700 OSOS (ARCH-0145-2021) REVIEW OF THE REPAIR AND
RENOVATION OF THE ALLEN HOUSE (MASTER LIST HISTORIC
RESOURCE)
Page 243 of 256
3
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded
to Committee inquiries.
Applicant representative, Andrew Goodwin, Architect, and Karl Lee,
owner, provided a brief overview of the project, reviewed challenges
presented by the deteriorated condition of the property, and responded to
questions and concerns voiced by the committee.
Chair Larrabee opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Larrabee closed the public hearing.
Motion By Member Ashbaugh
Second By Vice Chair Ulz
Recommend that the Community Development Director find the proposed
work to be consistent with the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance,
with incorporation of suggested conditions of approval as presented in the
staff report.
Ayes (5): Member Ashbaugh, Member Crotser, Member Edwards, Vice
Chair Ulz, and Chair Larrabee
CARRIED (5 to 0)
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:52. The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural
Heritage Committee is scheduled for October 25, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via
teleconference.
_________________________
Page 244 of 256
4
APPROVED BY CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/202X
Page 245 of 256
Page 246 of 256
Addendum #2 to the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, San
Luis Obispo, California
JULY 2021
PREPARED FOR
City of San Luis Obispo
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Page 247 of 256
Page 248 of 256
ADDENDUM #2 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, SAN
LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 52960
July 2021
Page 249 of 256
Page 250 of 256
Addendum #2 to FEIR for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Project
i
CONTENTS
Introduction and Purpose of the Addendum ............................................................................................ 1
Addendum Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 1
New Information and Updated Project Elements .................................................................................... 2
1.1 Newly Discovered Information ................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Changed Baseline Conditions and Updated Project Elements .................................................. 3
Minor Technical Changes to the FEIR ..................................................................................................... 3
Determination .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Page 251 of 256
Addendum #2 to FEIR for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Project
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 252 of 256
Addendum #2 to FEIR for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Project
1
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
On July 18, 2017, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) adopted a Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR; SCH #2015101083) for the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (San Luis Ranch Project) and
approved the requested project entitlements, including a proposed Specific Plan, General Plan
Amendment/Pre-zoning, Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and application for annexation
of the site into the city of San Luis Obispo. The project also included a Development
Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding to provide a mechanism for project implementation. The
project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, hotel, and agriculture and open space land
uses on a 131-acre parcel. The Specific Plan area would be organized into six proposed zones which
include Neighborhood General 1 (NG-10), Neighborhood General 2 (NG-23), Neighborhood General 3
(NG-30), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Parks and Open Space (P-OS), and Agriculture (A). Prior to
future buildout, grading permits, building permits, and further architectural review of future development
within the Specific Plan area would be required.
The 1st Addendum to the San Luis Ranch FEIR was prepared in June of 2018 with the purpose of
addressing an updated traffic analysis prepared for the project. The 1st Addendum documented the
conclusions of the updated traffic analysis, which determined that the proposed changes to the phasing of
traffic improvements would not result in any changes to impact determinations or mitigation measures
identified in the adopted FEIR.
Subsequent to certification of the FEIR and preparation of the 1st Addendum, additional information
regarding the 16th District Agricultural Association racetrack grandstand (grandstand, also referred to as
the spectator’s barn/viewing stand) has been identified that altered the previous eligibility findings of the
resource as described in the adopted FEIR. The purpose of this 2nd Addendum is to document the revised
status of the grandstand and associated racetrack and to confirm the change of mitigation strategy for the
grandstand would not result in any new or more severe significant environmental effects not previously
analyzed in the FEIR.
ADDENDUM REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when a lead
agency has adopted an EIR for a project, a subsequent EIR does not need to be prepared for the project
unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken that 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; or
3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known
with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted shows any of
the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
Page 253 of 256
Addendum #2 to FEIR for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Project
2
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified
in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Preparation of an addendum to an EIR is appropriate when none of the conditions specified in Section
15162 (above) are present and some minor technical changes to the previously adopted EIR are necessary.
Because the new information would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts, an
addendum is the appropriate CEQA document.
NEW INFORMATION AND UPDATED PROJECT ELEMENTS
1.1 NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION
As described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the FEIR, the spectator’s barn/viewing stand
(grandstand) was identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, at the local
level of significance, as a contributing resource (modified barn) associated with the San Luis Ranch
Complex on site. Further evaluation of the resource in 2018 identified additional information that altered
the previous eligibility findings that had been developed in connection with the FEIR.
The “spectator’s barn/viewing shed,” used since c1900 as a storage barn, was found to have significant
historical links to the beginnings of the San Luis Obispo County Mid-State Fair; was also found to be the
earliest surviving building constructed with funding from the State of California’s 16th District
Agricultural Association; and was identified as a rare building type – a late 19th-century grandstand
associated with a horseracing track. The grandstand was constructed in 1887 and remained in use for the
annual 16th District Agricultural Fair until 1900 when the new property owner, William Wood, plowed
up the race track to plant barley and moved the grandstand on log rollers to the west side of the parcel,
where the Wood residence and barn were also located.
The 2018 evaluation determined that the 1887 grandstand extant on the San Luis Ranch property is a
significant historic property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion
A, at the state and local levels, for its association with the 16th District Agricultural Association and for
its role in the development of San Luis Obispo county fair. Further evaluation also determined the
grandstand was eligible for listing under Criterion C, at the state and local levels, as a rare surviving
example of a scarce resource type – a nineteenth century racetrack grandstand.
As a result of this revised finding of significance and a revised period of significance, the treatment plan
for the grandstand was proposed to be modified to better demonstrate its connection to its racetrack
origins and to its revised period of significance (1887-1900), when it was an important, prominent, and
architecturally distinctive element of the racetrack grounds at the county fair.
Page 254 of 256
Addendum #2 to FEIR for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Project
3
1.2 CHANGED BASELINE CONDITIONS AND UPDATED PROJECT
ELEMENTS
The revised finding and the revised period of significance of the grandstand are proposed to supersede the
finding and period of significance stated in the 2017 Environmental Impact Report and are therefore
being evaluated in this 2nd Addendum.
The project originally proposed the adaptive reuse and relocation of the existing main residence and the
grandstand to new locations on the site within the Agricultural Heritage Center and proposed demolition
or off-site relocation of the remaining structures including the main barn. The following mitigation
measure was adopted in the 2017 FEIR to reduce impacts to identified historical resources to the greatest
extent feasible:
CR-1(a) Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan. In order to
implement Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction plan for the
former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, main residence, and main barn shall be
developed by a qualified historic architect. The plans shall include a
structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions and
include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity
is retained and that all identified character-defining features will be preserved.
In February 2019, a human-caused fire destroyed most of the grandstand. As a result, only the lower
portion of the north wall remains, and the entirety of the grandstand is no longer able to be restored and
relocated and reused within the proposed Agricultural Heritage Center as envisioned in the 2017 EIR and
CR-1(a). As a result of this newly discovered information and the change in conditions described above,
the proposed treatment plan for the grandstand has been modified to better demonstrate the grandstand’s
connection to the origins of the racetrack and its time period of significance (1887 to 1900) and to
recognize that only a small portion (a portion of the north wall) of the resource currently remains.
MINOR TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE FEIR
The project revisions noted above would result in minor changes to the proposed project and FEIR and
are therefore evaluated in this 2nd Addendum, below.
Aesthetic Resources. Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) includes preservation of the remaining grandstand
wall in the Agricultural Heritage Center, which would be located along the southeast side of Froom
Ranch Way, directly southwest of the proposed commercial land use. The Agricultural Heritage and
Learning Center would be visually compatible with design and other features of the Specific Plan. As a
result, preservation of the grandstand wall within the Agricultural Heritage Center would not block or
alter key views of the area beyond what was previously analyzed in the adopted FEIR based on
consistency with design, height, lighting, and other features of the Specific Plan. Therefore, no new or
more severe impacts would occur beyond what was previously analyzed in the FEIR.
Agricultural Resources. The FEIR determined that impacts to Agricultural Resources would be less than
significant with adopted mitigation measures, including requirements for conservation easements,
fencing, agricultural buffers, and other avoidance measures. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-1(a), the
Agricultural Heritage Center would include preservation of the remaining grandstand wall in the
Agricultural Heritage Center, which would be located within the proposed Agriculture land use
designation, adjacent to the proposed Neighborhood Commercial land use designation. Preservation of the
Page 255 of 256
Addendum #2 to FEIR for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Project
4
remaining grandstand wall would not result in interference with agricultural operations because it would
be subject to adopted agricultural mitigation measures for preserving agricultural resources within the
project area. In addition, preservation of the grandstand wall within the Agricultural Heritage Center
would be beneficial to preserving the agricultural heritage of the site because it would be an interpretive
element of City’s past agricultural setting and history. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would
occur beyond what was previously analyzed in the FEIR.
Cultural Resources, Threshold (a). The FEIR determined that impacts to Historical Resources are
significant and unavoidable; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would reduce
impacts to the greatest extent feasible by retaining the individual integrity and character-defining features
of the main residence, main barn, and grandstand. The changed baseline condition of the grandstand
would not change this determination. However, the remaining wall of the grandstand will be treated
differently through the implementation of CR-1(a), as the grandstand is now known to be a significant
resource for its connection to the 16th District Agricultural Association rather than its connection to the
San Luis Ranch Complex.
Although most of the grandstand was destroyed in the 2019 fire, there is still a considerable amount of
integrity retained in the remaining wall. The project now proposes to stabilize the remaining wall and
display it in the Agricultural Heritage Center.
Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would be consistent with the SOI Guidelines for the Rehabilitation and
Preservation of historic buildings and would be consistent with the adopted environmental determination
of the San Luis Ranch FEIR. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1(a), the project would
continue to reduce impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts
would occur beyond what was previously analyzed in the FEIR
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would not change the environmental determination of the
identified or other resource sections in the FEIR. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would occur
beyond what was previously analyzed in the FEIR.
DETERMINATION
In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has
determined that this Addendum to the adopted FEIR is necessary to document changes or additions that
have occurred since the FEIR was originally certified. The changes proposed are relatively minor in
nature and, as documented above, would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous FEIR was adopted has been identified. The City
has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Addendum and finds that the preparation
of subsequent CEQA analysis that would require public circulation is not necessary.
This Addendum does not require circulation because it does not provide significant new information that
changes the adopted FEIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon
a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an
effect. The City shall consider this Addendum with the adopted FEIR as part of the basis for potential
approval of the Agricultural Heritage portion of the San Luis Ranch Project.
Page 256 of 256
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
1
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
1035 Madonna Road
ARCH-0253-2021
Planning Commission Hearing for the
Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center
October 27, 2021
Applicant: Coastal Community Builders
Representative: Jacob Grossman
Recommendation
2
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) approving the
project design (Development Plan) and Addendum to the
Specific Plan Final EIR and Supplemental Final EIR,
based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
1
2
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
2
Project Site and Location
3
Project Description
4
Ag Heritage Learning
Center within 53.5-acre AG
zone of 131-acre SLRSP
Specific Plan guides land
use, circulation, parks and
open space, infrastructure,
and architecture/design
3
4
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
3
Project Site in Surrounding Context
5
Project Description
53-acre site; part of approved SLRSP
Designated and zoned AG (Agriculture) under
SLRSP
Currently vacant land
Surrounding Uses
East: Agriculture
West: Planned Residential
North: Planned Hotel and Commercial Retail
South: Agriculture
6
5
6
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
4
Project Components
7
Five main buildings, with a total area of 31,236 SF
Farm Market
Restaurant
Retail/Historic Barn (two buildings joined as one)
Agricultural Processing
Historic Wood Residence
Interpretative/Educational Displays
Ag Accessory Buildings
Community Garden
Project Features Related to Historic Resources
8
Adaptive Reuse and Rehabilitation of:
- Residence (Main Residence),
- Hay Barn (Main Barn), and
Remaining wall of former Spectators Barn/Viewing Stand
-positioned to overlook former racetrack area
All rehabilitation work overseen by qualified Historic
consultant
Incorporation of interpretive displays, exhibition areas,
memorabilia, educational components
7
8
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
5
Former San Luis Ranch Complex
9
Nine Structures:
Wood (Main) Residence
Two other residences
Garage/Shed
Shed #2
Hay Barn (Main Barn)
Equipment Storage Building
Warehouse
Spectators Barn/Viewing Stand
Project Plan View
10
9
10
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
6
Project Rendering
11
Historic Residence and Rehabilitation Concept
12
Development Concept showing
relocated main residence
Main residence before
relocation
11
12
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
7
Fire Damaged Racetrack Grandstand Wall
13
Barn and Grandstand Rehabilitation Concept
14
Development Concept showing
relocated barn and grandstand
wall
Hay barn before relocation
13
14
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
8
Previous Advisory Body Review
Architectural Review Commission (9-20-21)
Cultural Heritage Committee (9-27-21)
Both ARC and CHC unanimously recommended
approval without further direction or conditions
15
Consistency with City Regulations
SLRSP is consistent with General Plan; therefore, project
consistency with SLRSP is the benchmark
Chapter 3 of SLRSP - Neighborhood Form
Table 3-10. Agricultural Development Standards
Table 3-11. Sign Requirements
Section 3.7.3. Ag Heritage Facility and Learning
Center Design Guidelines
Section 3.8. Architectural Style Reference Guide
Section 3.9. Plant Palette
Chapter 3 of SLRSP - Neighborhood FormSLRSP – Section 7.3 – Historic Resource Preservation
16
15
16
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
9
Consistency with City Regulations
Building height and setbacks are consistent with AG
zone of the SLRSP
Project consistent with the intent of the Community
Design Guidelines
Signage concept appears consistent; City staff to
review formal sign program
Plant palette generally consistent, but not all plants
are on the SLRSP plant list
17
Policy Consistency: Historic-Related Policies
18
3.7.3. Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Design
Guidelines
Historic Structures integrated into site design
Project design is guided by Historical Structure Relocation Plan per
Mitigation Measure CR-1(a)
Archival Documentation conducted
Information Displays included in project design
Policy 2.5 and Program 2.5.1
Protect key structures and provide historic evaluation
Policy 7.1 and Program 7.1.1
Site design to reflect character and historic traditions of the area
17
18
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
10
Policy Consistency: SOI Standards
19
9 of 10 SOI Standards apply to project
CHC Agenda Report and attachments analyze consistency with
these standards; project is consistent
Key findings:
Structures currently not safe or habitable
Rehabilitation and proposed use reflects ag character,
provides education, and improves safety
Fire damaged grandstand can be integrated as a historical
and educational feature
CEQA Compliance
20
Final EIR Certified – July 2017
Significant Unavoidable Impact related to historic resourcesIncluded Mitigation Measures CR-1(a-c), which provided guidance
Relocation Plan, Archival Documentation, and Informational
DisplaysCHC Agenda Report describes post-fire approach to implementing
FEIR mitigation measures
EIR Addendum – July 2021
Provides updated information regarding the historic significance of
the grandstand structure, which was not identified in the FEIRNo new impacts or mitigation measures are requiredMitigation Measure CR-1(a) implements feasible protection of this
resource in the site designAddendum not required to be circulated
19
20
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
11
Recommendation
21
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) approving the
project design (Development Plan) and Addendum to the
Specific Plan Final EIR and Supplemental Final EIR,
based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Comments and Questions
22
21
22
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
12
Backup Slides
23
Market - Building Elevations
24
23
24
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
13
Market – Colors and Materials
25
Restaurant - Building Elevations
26
25
26
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
14
Restaurant – Colors and Materials
27
Ag Processing - Building Elevations
28
27
28
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
15
Ag Processing – Colors and Materials
29
Retail and Historic Barn - Building Elevations
30
29
30
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
16
Retail and Historic Barn – Colors and Materials
31
Historic Residence – Colors and Materials
32
31
32
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
17
Ag Accessory Structures – Colors and Materials
33
Signage
34
33
34
Staff Presentation 10/27/2021
18
Signage
35
35
Applicant Presentation 10/27/2021
1
CREATING
ENVIRONMENTS
PEOPLE
ENJOY®
rrmdesign.com
SAN LUIS RANCH
AG HERITAGE CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
NOVEMBER 2021
AGENDA
Site Overview
Specific Plan conformance
Circulation
Building Design
Landscape concept
Parking Needs
Next Steps
1
2
Applicant Presentation 10/27/2021
2
SITE PLAN
PROJECT MEETS ALL EIR/SP MITIGATION MEASURES,NO REQUESTED VARIANCES/EXCEPTIONS
HAY BARN
SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMANCE
8 previous hearings at the Planning
Commission
3
4
Applicant Presentation 10/27/2021
3
CIRCULATION:
Pedestrian, bikes, vehicular
PEDESTRIAN
BUS STOP
BIKE
PARKING
VECHICULAR
ENTRY
BUILDING
DESIGN
Agrarian nature
Engaging at Pedestrian level
Derived from traditional forms
Functional and aesthetically appropriate
5
6
Applicant Presentation 10/27/2021
4
BUILDING DESIGN
Iconic from the freeway
Flexible interior space
Relationship to Ag Fields
Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings
RETAIL AND HISTORIC BARN
•Clearly differentiate the historic from the new
•Recreate Massing/scale
•Preserve Materials
EXTERIOR
•Corrugated metal roof planes
•Large-dimension vertical wood siding
•Siding applied in “units”
•Doorways and door systems
•Weathered whitewash and lichen
INTERIOR
•Voluminous
•Filtered light
•Partitioning
•Hay fork track
•Structural system
GRANDSTAND WALL
HAY BARN
7
8
Applicant Presentation 10/27/2021
5
HISTORIC
HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCESS
•OPEN MULTIPLE DAYS A
WEEK
•EXHIBITS DESIGNED BY
SWCA
•FUNDED BY C.A.M.
•MAINTAINED BY OWERS
•CLASSROOM/
EDUCATIONAL USES
THE CONCEPT
RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRACK
GRANDSTAND WALL
HAY BARN
9
10
Applicant Presentation 10/27/2021
6
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
•Use of
fruiting
trees
•Native and
drought
tolerant
landscape
•Using
purple pipe
recycled
water
GATHERING SPACE
11
12
Applicant Presentation 10/27/2021
7
PARKING NEEDS
HAY BARN
•NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING
•ELECTRIC VECHICLES
•PRODUCE AND BULK
•BIKE / PEDESTRIAN
•EMPLOYEES
EV PARKING
EMPLOYEE PARKING
BIKE / PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIONS
OWNER PLOTS
BULK PRODUCE
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS?
13
14