Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-2000 ARC Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION June 19, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA PRESENT: Commissioners Zeljka Howard, Chairperson Charles Stevenson, Mark Chandler, Rob Schultz and Jim Lopes ABSENT: Mark Rawson, Jennifer Metz STAFF: Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Associate Planner Pam Ricci PROJECTS: 1. 0 Higuera Street. ARC 36-00; Appeal of Director's approval allowing new telecommunications equipment on an existing pole and modifications to existing Nextel equipment; C/OS-40 zone; Pacific Bell Wireless, applicant; Larry Stabler, appellant. Continued from June 5, 2000. Peggy Mandeville. Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission uphold the Community Development Director's decision and grant final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements, which she outlined. Commr. Schultz asked Pam Ricci for clarification regarding the number and sizes of antennae proposed. He reiterated from the staff report and Pam Ricci indicated that his summary was correct. Commr. Chandler asked for the authority in requiring additional landscaping on the hillside. Ron Whisenand responded that the Commission needed to keep in mind the particulars of this request, which is to add antennae to an approved monopole, rather than an entirely new request. He also noted that the equipment in the bunker will be screened. Commr. Lopes asked whether full visual analysis as required by the General Plan had been done. Pam Ricci pointed out the photo simulations submitted with the current application and noted that other similar analyses had been done with earlier approvals. The public hearing was opened. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 2 Roy Yonemoto, representative for Pacific Bell Wireless, explained that the City Council identified this site to minimize the proliferation of wireless sites. Landscaping is a problem because there is no irrigation system and large trees will block signals by causing interference. He noted that monopole height had been previously approved and proposed Nextel antennas will be fewer and smaller. Appellant Larry Stabler mentioned that health impacts were an additional issue with the antennae installation, but that his main concern was still aesthetics. He noted that he would like alternative sites explored, and mentioned speaking with Neil Havlik about various native tree species that might adapt well to the site. He suggested a beige- colored compound to blend better with the hillside. Commr. Lopes asked about moving the equipment lower on the pole. Mr. Yonemoto explained that Nextel needs height to get a clear signal and providers need to be adequately separated on the monopole. Ross Hightower indicated that this site is critical for customer coverage and he urged the ARC to approve the application. He suggested Melaleuca as a suitable tree planting on the hillside. Dave Spaur of Economic Vitality Corp. spoke in support of not delaying the application. He noted the gap in south San Luis Obispo for wireless service. Gayle Rosenburger of Sendero Court said that she was originally under the impression that the site was set aside for City emergency services. She understood that towers would be limited and would like to see some mitigation for the neighbors. Larry Kay said that he will be working with a third carrier on the pole and that the pole is already approved at the side. Commr. Lopes asked Larry Kay about other configurations for Nextel, and Mr. Kay said that the Nextel antenna configuration was designed to suit their needs. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Chandler said that he understands the limitations on the Commission's purview regarding the height of the monopole, but would also like to see additional landscaping installed if possible. Commr. Howard stated that she was interested in staff's suggestion to have the City Council review the General Plan policy regarding the potential need for further improvements to lessen aesthetic impacts. Commr. Shultz said that he agreed with Commr. Howard that the ARC's purview is ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 3 limited at this time and he also concurred with the staff recommendation. Commr. Lopes said that he felt that visual analysis is needed to address impacts from the other side of the hill. He said that full attention needs to be given to the General Plan policy and that a full analysis of visual impacts is important. He felt that the pole looked top-heavy and would like to have the arrays closer to the pole and mounted one above the other. He also suggested having improvements installed by one applicant who would be reimbursed by other users of the pole in the future. Commr. Stevenson said that he does not believe in further delaying this project. He commented that he was uncomfortable in finding a nexus for landscaping with this application and that he would like to explore the possibility for further screening as a separate motion before the Commission. He brought up some points made in a letter from Nextel regarding fewer antennae being needed with installation in the office zone on Mill Street (872 Morro). Ron Whisenand said that the City would require a zone reclassification for this purpose. On a motion by Commr. Schultz, and seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC denied the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director’s decision, and granted final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. The ARC did add a condition which required the applicant to explore with Nextel the possibility of having two arrays of antennas, one above the other, that results in the antennas being mounted more closely to the monopole than shown on submitted plans for ARC consideration. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Howard, Chandler, Stevenson, and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz The motion passed. Commr. Howard asked staff how the ARC could have the City Council revisit the General Plan policy regarding telecommunication facilities. Ron Whisenand replied that it would need to be made through a separate motion. The Commission also approved a second motion by Commr. Howard, and seconded by Commr. Chandler, which asked staff to prepare a memo to the City Council requesting that they reevaluate the General Plan policy regarding the consolidation of telecommunication facilities in a designated leasehold on the South Street hills. They specifically asked that the placement and screening of monopoles be further studied, as well as the appropriateness of locating new facilities on other sites within the City. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Chandler, Stevenson, Schultz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 4 The motion passed. 2. 3361 Broad Street. ARC 29-00; Review of 15 dwelling units (12 one-bedroom and 3 two-bedroom), parking, landscaping, and site improvements; R-2-S zone; George Palmer, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending continuation that the project be continued with direction. The Public Hearing was opened. Tim Woodle, applicant’s representative, said that the current project is a viable and desirable design solution given site constraints, which he reiterated. He explained that the units would be marketed to young professionals and that the project contains many upscale features and is a vast improvement over the previous project. He noted that the reduced street yard is critical, and felt that the project may be over-parked and suggested consideration of parking reduction. He indicated that the bike room would be modified to conform with standards, and that the applicant wanted a strong vertical presence to stand up to other commercial buildings in the vicinity. He explained that the intention of the design was to create a fortress architectural style, and he felt that individual private spaces are not necessary because of large amounts of common open space. He pointed out that the revised landscaping plan shows split rail fencing and berming, and that the retaining wall design, because it is set back from the property line, allows for planting. He suggested that the ARC grant the project schematic approval. The Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes asked Mr. Woodle about incorporating some features of Building D in the other buildings. He also asked about adding more storage spaces for the units. Mr. Woodle responded that the only storage areas planned were the garages and bike lockers. Commr. Stevenson said that he would like more screening between units and parking spaces to screen headlights. Commr. Howard complimented the architect on dealing with a difficult site and said that she supported the building’s verticality, liked the courtyard elevation and suggested that the architect look at longer windows to help address verticality concerns. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 5 Commr. Shultz was satisfied with the reduced setbacks for the buildings, but not the parking. He was concerned with lack of storage and suggested exploring balconies to provide open space areas for units. Commr. Lopes said that he liked the staff report and agreed with staff suggestions on page 6. He suggested considering more vertical articulation to create additional shadow lines. He did not support reduced setbacks and would like to see private outdoor spaces provided. He suggested looking at expanded balconies similar to those shown on Building D and also automatic ventilation systems for units facing Broad Street. Commr. Chandler said that he supported most of staff’s recommendations, and especially more vertical articulation in the east elevation. He also supported elimination of Parking Space #25 and allowing buildings in the setback. Commr. Stevenson said that he was in support of verticality of design (Teass House), but was concerned about storage. He suggested looking at shielding headlights into units. Commr. Lopes voiced issues after the motion with the heights of proposed buildings within Rockview Place street yard. First motion by Commr. Lopes fails (no relaxation of street yard setback). On motion by Commr. Schultz, and seconded by Commr. Chandler, the ARC continued action on the project to a date uncertain, with the following direction: 1. The Commission indicated their support for the extent of the requested building setback exceptions for Building D along Rockview Place (10 feet), but wanted the applicant to look at possible alternatives to have a more complying street yard setback (in excess of 10 feet) for Building C. 2. Redesign Parking Spaces 14 & 25 to have both the parking stalls and their back-up areas comply with the 10-foot street yard setback. 3. Increase the number of secured lockers within the bicycle storage building to 24, two spaces for each of the 12 units it serves. 4. Look at changes to building elevations to make them appear less boxy and looming including:  Additional vertical articulation in Buildings A, B & C, in particular in the elevations facing Broad Street;  Look at having entry doors for the bottom units in Buildings A, B & C in the walls facing the parking lot, possibly with a roof element above doors to provide additional depth and articulation. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 6  Set back upper levels from lower levels on the front elevations to minimize the mass of the wall planes.  Break up the roof planes of buildings further.  Look at providing deeper eaves. 5. Include private open space areas for units in Buildings A, B & C. 6. Add a split rail fence to the side of the creek closet to Broad Street to demarcate the riparian habitat area. 7. Use of 4-foot wide peninsular landscaped planters in the main parking lot is acceptable given site constraints. 8. Provide information with plans submitted for final architectural review regarding the amount of landscaping provided as a percentage of overall surface area of parking lots. 9. Clarify on the landscaping plan how berming is provided to be in compliance with the noise mitigation measure. 10. Add shielding landscaping and/or fencing in front of lower units of Buildings A, B & C facing the parking lot to screen headlights. 11. Look at pop-outs at the base or a more durable material, like pre-cast concrete. 12. Work with Planning staff to further evaluate the noise impacts created by the Broad Street and Rockview Place noise sources. Staff is to consider possible modifications to the Noise Section of the initial study. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Howard, Stevenson, Schultz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz The motion passed. 3. 696 Monterey Street. ARC 170-98; Review of a modification to an approved project to allow the removal of two Pittosporum trees; PF-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission allow the tree removals with the planting of three 24-inch box trees as compensatory planting with locations and species to the approval of the City’s Tree ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 7 Committee, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. The public hearing was opened. Bridget Fraser, the project manager, explained issues with trees and their location in relation to installation of a drainage system. She explained that the sewer line and the handicap ramp have already stressed the trees, and she showed photos demonstrating how large the trees have grown and how they detract from the building. She noted that these trees were not in existence in 1910, and appear as shrubs in earlier photos. Jim Horton, County Historical Society, agreed with the suggested solution and remediation measures. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Stevenson and Chandler supported the staff recommendation regarding the replacement of trees compatible with surroundings and historical context. Commr. Howard commented that the species and locations of the new trees should complement the building. On motion by Commr. Howard, and seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC granted approval for the removal of two Pittosporum trees located in the street yards of the Carnegie Library building with the condition that three 24-inch box trees be planted as compensatory planting, with the locations and species to the approval of the City’s Tree Committee. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Howard, Stevenson, Schultz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz The motion passed. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 8 4. 736 Marsh Street. ARC 72-00; Review of a new restroom and public art at City Parking Lot #2; C-C zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. John Shoals Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission grant final approval to the restroom and find that the public art piece meets the City’s Public Art Guidelines, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. The public hearing was opened. Bruce Fraser, applicant’s representative, had a design considerations meeting with the BIA to program building components. He noted that brick with a higher level of detail would be used, but kept as a backdrop for public art, and a full standard of brick used at the top of the planter to allow for seating. The design discourages skateboarders. Mark Jepson, project artist, explained the bas-relief concept with metal sculptures. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes asked about whether there would be further articulation of the Broad Street elevation. Bruce Fraser commented that a healthy Jacaranda tree located in the street yard would screen views. Commr. Lopes asked whether the building could be narrowed to continue the sidewalk around the building. Bruce Fraser responded that compact spaces could be created and moved toward the informal loading area to provide room for a walkway. Commr. Howard asked if it was customary to have a urinal and stall, and Mr. Fraser said that it was. Commr. Lopes suggested using a different brick coursework at the base of the building rather than the bulkhead. Mr. Fraser suggested that the Commissioners look at rollout course at the height of the planter box. Commr. Chandler asked about how the bench would be created and Mr. Fraser said that 7-1/2” brick top (rollout course) would be added. Commr. Stevenson liked the design and agreed with efforts to provide some seating. On motion by Commr. Chandler and seconded by Commr. Lopes, the ARC granted final ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 9 approval to the project, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions and modifications, complies with property development standards for the C-C zone. 2. The proposed scale and design of the building will be compatible with the existing commercial buildings in the downtown. Conditions 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. 2. The walkway, in front of the structure, shall be increased to 4.5 ft. (1.4m) to satisfy ADA requirements. Unless at grade, the driveway ramp shall be narrowed to accommodate the sidewalk. If necessary, the new planter wall shall be realigned to accommodate the additional 0.15m (0.5 ft.). 2. A rollout course shall be added to the base of the building to match the course proposed for the top of the planter. 3. Pedestrian seating shall be provided through the rollout course provided at the top of the planter. 4. The two parking spaces closest to the proposed building shall be modified to be compacts to create a pedestrian traffic route and to allow for more distance between parking spaces and the building. The ARC also found that the proposed artwork for the building meets the criteria for public art, and recommended its construction to the City Council. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Howard, Stevenson, Schultz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson and Metz The motion passed. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 10 5. 1317 Broad Street. ARC 50-00. Review of proposed demolition and construction of a new office building and parking lot improvements; O zone; M & M Company, applicant. Whitney McIlvaine Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final approval of the project, based on findings which she outlined. The public hearing was opened. Warren Hamrick, applicant’s representative, outlined the owner’s desire to minimize impacts to the street. He said that he feels that Mission style is appropriate on the edge of downtown and that recessing the entry is the best solution. He submitted a neon lighting example for the ARC’s review. Commr. Lopes asked why stucco, rather than wood siding, was used. Mr. Hamrick replied that it was to complement the adjacent building which shares a parking lot with the project. Commr. Stevenson asked about the style of roofing tiles, and remarked that the roof element was dissimilar from other building parts. Mr. Hamrick said that it was the owner’s desire to use Tuscan type roofing tiles after a trip to Italy. Ron Whisenand expressed concern that the proposed lighting fixture needs to be shielded. Mr. Hamrick said that the lighting can be adapted and shielded. Mr. Hamrick also said that the base material will match the color of the tower. Commr. Lopes asked if there was any way to add entrances that would be protected, but would face the street. Mr. Hamrick indicated that he would explore relocating the entry to the front office to face the street. Roland Maddalena said that he had removed a diseased avocado tree after checking with the City Arborist and that he took offense with the submitted letter and its allegations. He also said that he would like to keep the cypress tree, but that it was not an appropriate street tree. The public hearing was closed. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 11 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes said that he would prefer that the building have wood siding and follow the direction given in the letter by Peter Phillips. He felt that the details of Tuscan design window styles and rooflines needed to be studied further with the design. He supported the continuation of street tree planting established with A&R furniture in the parkway (London Plane). He suggested looking at having the building entry facing the street, and consider a lesser setback for the building. Commr. Howard said that she liked the building design and that it will coordinate with the existing building and the plans to upgrade it. Commr. Rawson suggested looking at Mediterranean details such as corbels. He said that he liked the project design and approach. Commr. Schultz agreed with the comments of Commr. Rawson regarding tying together the elements of design. Commr. Stevenson suggested attempting to bring in unifying design elements to the Tuscan architectural style, and said that he liked having the setback to match the other building on the adjacent site to the east. On motion by Commr. Rawson, and seconded by Commr. Howard, the ARC granted final approval to the project, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. The project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Section 15322 (Infill Development). 2. As conditioned, the project’s design is appropriate for the Office zone and will be compatible with surrounding development. Conditions 1. Plans submitted for a building permit shall list all conditions of architectural and use permit approval on a separate sheet (preferably sheet 2) and shall note on which plan sheets compliance is demonstrated. 2. The final parking lot layout shall include a peninsula planter and a motorcycle space. 3. The base of the building and the trash enclosure shall be finished with a darker stucco color or brick veneer. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 12 4. The main (side) entrance to the building shall be recessed. 5. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance for review and approval by the Community Development Director. 6. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade approved as part of this permit. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. 7. Building height, including any roof mounted mechanical equipment, shall not exceed 25 feet from average finish grade beneath the building footprint. 8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the location of all fire protection equipment, valves, connections, backflow prevention devices, sprinkler water laterals, and the distance to the closest two fire hydrants. The location of new fire protection equipment, etc. shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant must submit black and white photographic documentation of the building’s interior and exterior to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; and shall demonstrate compliance with the requirement that the building has been advertised for moving in a local newspaper on at least 3 occasions not less than 15 days apart, as available to any interested person to be moved. 10. Details shall be added to the building that further refine the Tuscan architectural style such as decorative corbels, use of wrought iron, and plant shelves. 11. The street tree species selected shall be consistent with trees already installed in the nearby vicinity along Broad Street and planted in the parkway. Code Requirements 1. Parking lot design must be consistent with City Parking and Driveway standards. 2. Water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter serving each parcel. 3. The applicant must provide motorcycle parking and both short- and long-term bicycle parking consistent with the Zoning Regulations. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 13 4. The project must comply with inclusionary housing requirements. The applicant has indicated he will be paying the in-lieu fee equal to 2% of building valuation as determined by the Chief Building Official prior to occupancy. 5. The project must comply with the California Fire Code to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Howard, Rawson, Stevenson, Schultz and Lopes NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Metz The motion passed. 6. 3550 Broad Street. ARC and ER 204-99; Review of a new, 150,000 square foot commercial building, and environmental review; C-S zone; Broad Street LLC, applicant. Whitney McIlvaine Commr. Rawson indicated that he would refrain from participating in the discussion of this item because his architectural firm was representing the applicant on this item. Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the Negative Declaration with mitigation measures, and granting final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. The public hearing was opened. Burt Caldwell, applicant’s representative, showed a visual simulation photo of the Broad Street perspective with landscaping and turf block. He explained how the visual analysis for the project from a moving vehicle was derived, and showed slides illustrating how existing vegetation obstructs many views of the hills given the viewing angle from a car. He said that it is impossible to believe that the project blocks views, and added that it is a quality project that will provide high-paying jobs for 24 to 36 people and is conveniently located in terms of cable facilities in streets so there will be less disruption to streets. He also mentioned that he does not expect a flood of other similar applications. Commr. Lopes said that he was looking at the cumulative impacts of establishing further similar facilities. Ron Whisenand explained the map graphic and potential locations for future facilities of a similar scale. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 14 Commr. Stevenson also indicated a concern for further similar uses with a small number of employees in the same geographical corridor. Ron Whisenand advised the ARC that the project design, rather than land use, is the main purview with this request. Commr. Rawson explained the map graphic and potential locations for future facilities of a similar scale. Commr. Stevenson brought out the ARC’s role in reviewing the CEQA document in regard to cumulative impacts, and said that there is a related concern with where in the community these sites should be located. Ron Whisenand said that C-S and M zones will allow these facilities and suggested that the ARC should look at the merits of the project design at this site. He explained the potential need for a future use permit based on employee characteristics of a particular tenant. Commr. Schultz said that he is concerned about the Aesthetics mitigation on page 14 of the initial study, postponing evaluation of an impact to the ARC’s review of the project. Ron Whisenand said that part of the ARC’s responsibility is to determine the adequacy of the environmental document. He said that he feels it is appropriate to allow the application to present a visual analysis. Commr. Howard asked Burt Caldwell about the proposed conditions of approval. Mr. Caldwell indicated that he was in agreement with the conditions except for the building setback. He said that he didn’t see a logical reason for the increased setback since the building as proposed already substantially exceeds the minimum requirements. Commr. Stevenson asked Mr. Caldwell if there were tenants for the entire building. Mr. Caldwell replied yes. Commr. Stevenson then asked why the building needed to be taller than Level III. Mr. Caldwell indicated that others would address the proposed building height. Commr. Schultz questioned the total number of parking spaces proposed. Mike Peachey responded that there would be an additional 20 spaces. Guy Ober asked why the whole facility could not be placed underground since it would provide better security. Dave Garth explained how telecommunications are linked to the future and appropriate types of industry in keeping with the Chamber of Commerce’s Economic Vision document. He noted that Economic development is a good type of growth and will support other industries locating here since it provides excellent communications. He mentioned that adding band width helps the environment by reducing trips. He added ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 15 that there will be very few employees, which will have less impact on traffic. Burt Forbes said that he was concerned about the e-mail generated by Commr. Lopes regarding the project. He noted that 150,000 square feet is a small size for this type of facility. He added that there will be people on-site working at the facility, and that he felt the project is aesthetically pleasing. James Caruso, resident of Lawrence Drive, said that the project is very fortress-like and looks like a prison rather than a business park. He commented that the city has not acted in responding to fiber optic businesses. He suggested looking at approving the project in phases as space is needed, and questioned the home basis of companies and how many local jobs will actually be created. Patricia Wilmore of the Chamber of Commerce said that the industry is important to San Luis Obispo and that she would love to see this project in place of what she is seeing now. Lori Atwater, a telecommunications expert and long-term San Luis Obispo resident, explained the variety of improvements installed by Level III with installation of this new facility. She also reiterated that new jobs will be created from the local market. In response to a question from Commr. Lopes regarding the 18-foot building height of Level III and whether there would be any problems, Ms. Atwater explained that there is a raised floor because circulation is very important for the equipment. With the new building there is a need for added height for a more efficient facility. John Mitchell said that he finds the building attractive, well-articulated and has lots of landscaping, and added that a campus of buildings will not lessen the visual impacts of the mountains beyond. Rob Strong, of Strong Planning Services, applicant’s representative, said that the City has an opportunity to approve an allowed use that exceeds zoning standards. He feels that the proposed use is superior to many allowed uses in terms of environmental impacts. He said that if the ARC does not like the project visually, it should turn it down, since it is a typical city requirement to have the ARC’s review of a project as mitigation to visual impacts. Greg Stafford explained other uses that had been considered on site that would have required much more parking and generated much more traffic. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Stevenson explained that the ARC’s charge was to review building design at this site. He noted that certain sites are more visible and developments warrant ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 16 particular attention. Commr. Schultz said that he liked the building, but had a problem with setbacks. He said that he felt that a greater setback could be achieved by relocating or eliminating parking spaces. He suggested a revision of Condition 3 to require an additional 15 to 20 feet of setback. Comm. Lopes said that he was concerned with view blockages of the hills being a significant impact under CEQA. He distributed copies of maps showing regional fiber optic projects. He commented that he felt that a decision to approve the project allowing view impacts could be precedent-setting and discussed the preparation of a visual analysis. He concluded that the submitted analysis does not provide all necessary information to evaluate visual impacts and said that he wanted to see mitigation measures that suggest ways that visual impacts can be reduced. Commr. Chandler said that regardless of the type of development, some view blockage will occur. He said that the staff recommendation is reasonable and that he could go along with Commr. Schultz’ suggestions to further increase setback. He also said that he would like to hear from applicant regarding potential impacts to their operation. Commr. Howard said that there is a need to recognize that form follows function and that she does find the design appealing. She commented that pushing the building too far back is contrary to other goals, and that she supported the staff recommendation, but not the 75 foot setback, which would hinder the building’s convertibility to other uses. Commr. Stevenson said that the architect has done a good job at scaling the building and that he feels fiber optic buildings on a main corridor should be limited to 50,000 square feet. He said that this project should not be located on a main thoroughfare and should be closer to the railroad tracks and grouped with other like facilities. He suggested that the building will block views and that 50% of view blockage would be an acceptable threshold. He said that the ARC should look at grading changes to lower the building height near the street. Ron Whisenand advised the ARC that they could add 20 feet to the front setback and allow fire access around the building without reducing square footage. Commr. Lopes said that he needed to see the actual project depicted in photo simulation to evaluate the view blockage. Commr. Stevenson said that a wide-angle lens is not appropriate for depicting the proposed building in terms of view blockage because it is not realistic, and that an 18 to 20 foot building height would preserve more of hillside views. Commr. Lopes suggested consideration of a sloping parapet like a mansard, and suggested adding windows, or articulation replicating windows, in the Broad Street ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 17 elevation. On motion by Commr. Schultz and seconded by Commr. Chandler the ARC adopted the mitigated negative declaration and granted final approval to the project, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. The project's Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Architectural Review Commission. 2. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City’s architectural review guidelines. 3. As conditioned, the project design complies with General Plan Circulation Element polices regarding protection of scenic views. Conditions 1. Provide at least one double compartment bike locker or some other lockable storage area (large enough for at least two bicycles) inside the structure. 2. Final project design shall be in substantial compliance with the plans, as conditioned and approved by the ARC. Any changes deemed to be not in substantial compliance shall be subject to review by the ARC upon payment of applicable fees. 3. Without modifying the proposed exterior elevation, building setbacks along the Broad Street frontage shall range from 75 feet to 175 feet to enable additional landscape screening, help reduce the apparent scale of the building, and retain more of the distant mountain views. 4. The sidewalk along Broad Street shall be mostly located within the 10-foot right-of- way easement to enable a larger parkway in areas which could accommodate bigger trees and additional landscape screening, as well as increase the buffer between pedestrians and street traffic. 5. Setbacks shall be increased along Capitolio way by recessing the central section of this elevation and providing berming similar to the treatment proposed for the Broad Street elevation. 6. The stacked appurtenances on the Broad street elevation shall be constructed to function as landscape planters. 7. All generators and mechanical equipment shall be housed within the footprint of the building in a covered mechanical equipment area at the rear of the building. The ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 18 location of mechanical equipment shall not interfere with emergency access and shall be adequately screened to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be prohibited. 8. A final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director and the Natural Resources Manager. Plans shall include Boston ivy and Ficus pumila to be grown on the concrete tilt-up walls. Parking lot planters shall be designed consistent with the City’s Parking and Driveway Standards. 9. Lighting and signs shall be compatible with the building’s colors and use of materials to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If either are deemed incompatible with the building design, review by the ARC will be required. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade approved as part of this permit. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. 10. Underlying lots shall be merged prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. Quercus Agrifolia must make up at least 50 percent of the street trees along Broad and Capitolio frontages. 12. Provide an additional setback of 10 to 15 feet in several locations along the southern elevation so that taller trees can be planted between the easement and the building. Show the trees and the adjusted setback on the revised landscaping plan. 13. The maximum building height measured from existing grade shall not exceed 24 feet. 14. Provide additional window treatment on the Broad Street elevation of the building to create a regular pattern at four wall planes facing the street. Environmental Mitigation Measures 1. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction. It shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 19 2. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 3. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the developer’s engineer shall evaluate surface run-off before and after development. Roof and storm water collection system calculations will be required. Although a large portion of the site is already covered by pavement, any additional run-off, as a direct result of these improvements shall be detained in accordance with City standards and policies and directed to an approved point of disposal, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 4. Prior to release of occupancy, the 20-foot setback from top of bank, required by city zoning regulations, shall be landscaped. The landscaping shall include native perennial grasses and other appropriate plants capable of providing a natural filter for storm water that flows directly into the creek to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. 5. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the owner shall obtain a General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Quality Control Board, and shall submit a copy of such permit together with the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to the Community Development Department. The plan shall show how all drain inlets will be protected from sedimentation during grading and construction to the approval of the Community Development Director. 6. The project shall include:  short- and long-term bicycle parking for employee use;  continued sidewalk along the property;  outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour;  extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; and  provision of bike lanes on Broad Street and Capitolio Way. 7. Lunchroom Facilities. The project shall include either protected outdoor areas or indoor space to enable project employees to eat mid-day meals on the site outside of their office spaces. 8. Bicycle Parking. Short- and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 9. Along Broad Street install a northbound right turn lane onto Capitolio Way. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 20 10. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Broad Street and Capitolio Way or the infrastructure to facilitate such installation in the near future to the satisfaction of Cal Trans and the City Public Works Director. 11. The curb alignment for Capitolio Way shall follow the alignment established with the Level 3 project to the east and per approved City plans. Capitolio shall maintain a 44 feet (13.4 m) curb-to-curb dimension between Broad and Sacramento. 12. The developer shall submit a street striping plan for Capitolio Way for review and approval by the Public Works Director to include a two-way left turn pocket; one entering and two exiting lanes at the intersection with Broad Street; and a bike lane along the northern side of Capitolio Way. 13. The developer shall pay a pro-rata share of the Sacramento Drive bridge (to be built at the northerly end of Sacramento Dr. under Tract 2134) prior to issuance of 00 building permits ($9,915.). 14. A City standard H/C ramp shall be constructed at the southeasterly corner of Broad & Capitolio Streets, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 15. The Broad Street entrance shall be a “street type” entrance, to the satisfaction of Caltrans and the Director of Public Works. 16. Frontage improvement shall be constructed in accordance with City and State Standards and Policies. New street pavement shall be placed between the existing structural street pavement and the new frontage improvements. Pavement design for Capitolio shall be based on a T.I. of 8.5. Broad Street shall comply with Caltrans standards. 17. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 18.The applicant shall submit a landscaping/creek restoration plan for final review and approval by the Natural Resource Manager prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 19. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:  Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;  Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;  Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and  Dual glazed windows. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 21 decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy-conserving features. 20. Any back up generators installed on site shall have built in noise attenuation not to exceed the noise levels specified in Table 2 of the Noise Element. Prior to final occupancy the applicant shall arrange for an acoustical engineer to demonstrate that noise attenuation meets this standard to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 21. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. 22. A recycling plan for shall be submitted with the demolition permit application. A plan for recycling demolition debris, as a result of removing the existing parking lot, and for recycling construction material waste shall be submitted with the building permit application. 23. Building design and siting shall not wall off views of the Santa Lucia Range to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. One week prior to the scheduled review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the applicant shall erect story boards at the proposed front building corners. The story boards shall be the same height as the proposed building and shall remain in place until the day following ARC review. 24. Proposed light standards shall be designed with light fixtures that direct light downward and prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties, consist with City Zoning Regulations and Architectural Guidelines. 25. The following shall be expressly noted on the building and grading plans: If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all construction activities that may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation based on a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Director shall approve, approve with changes, or reject the mitigation proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level). If the proposal is approved, the project sponsor shall implement mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director. A copy of the archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's decision will be forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee. Code Requirements include, but are not limited to: 1. All existing sewer laterals must be abandoned. If any existing lateral is proposed for reuse, the lateral must be video inspected and approved by the Utilities Engineer. 2. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City’s water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City’s Water Conservation division can help in determining the ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 22 needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project’s Water Impact Fees, at a rate of $150 per bathroom retrofitted. 3. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter. 4. Depending on the proposed uses at the site, industrial waste/wastewater pretreatment requirements may apply. The project shall be coordinated with the City’s Industrial Waste Coordinator, Dale Karnes, who can be reached at 781-7425. 5. Demolition of the existing parking lot warrants the need for a recycling plan for disposal of the demolition debris. The plan should demonstrate how the majority of the tonnage (typically concrete and asphalt) will be recycled. 6. The project is tributary to the Tank Farm/Rockview sewage lift station system. This system is at or very near capacity. However, the City has plans to construct a large trunk sewer to serve this area within the next 3-5 years. The project will be conditioned to pay lift station fees for the current Rockview/Tank Farm system, as determined by the Public Works & Utilities Directors. In addition, some modifications to one or both of the lift stations may be required, in order to provide the additional capacity needed for this project. 7. A path of travel is required from the right-of-way to building entrances. 8. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Fire Department access is inadequate. The two gates at the utility yard should be removed to allow for uninhibited access around the building. 9. Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. 10. Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. Onsite fire hydrants shall be required and existing hydrants along Broad St. may require relocation. Hydrants shall be installed and serviceable prior to combustible construction. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 23 11. Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. 12. Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. 13. Provide a code footprint that will record and map exiting features and provide key performance information for fire and life safety features throughout the building. For minimum requirements contact the Fire Prevention Bureau. 14. The project must comply with inclusionary housing requirements. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Stevenson, Schultz and Lopes NOES: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: Commr. Rawson ABSENT: Commr. Metz The motion passed. ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 24 7. 1050 Broad Street. ARC 39-00; Review of an awning with a sign; C-C-H zone; Pulse, Inc., applicant. Michael Codron Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the ARC deny the proposed awning design, based on findings, which she outlined. The public hearing was opened. David Montith, applicant’s representative, felt that he was working with staff on revising the design of the awning so that the awning identified and delineated his tenant space. He said that he wanted to resolve the issue. The public hearing was closed. On motion by Commr. Howard and seconded by Commr. Chandler, the Architectural Review Commission denied the request to allow the installed awning, based on the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed awning design is inconsistent with the criteria established by the ARC for downtown awnings because the design does not respond to major design elements on the building face. 2. The proposed awning material is inconsistent with the criteria established by the ARC for downtown awnings because it is a glossy vinyl that is translucent and capable of being backlit. 3. There are no special circumstances applying to the property involved that do not also apply to other buildings in the general vicinity that would justify a different standard or necessitate an alternative approach for the awning design. AYES: Commrs. NOES: Commrs. Rawson ABSENT: Commr. Metz The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review ARC Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 25 Commission, scheduled for Monday, July 3, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully Submitted, Pam Ricci Recording Secretary