HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. 1925 Santa Barbara St. (APPL-0232-2024) Appeal of Decision to Approve ARCH-0448-2022
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 1925 SANTA BARBARA AVENUE (APPL-0232-2024) – APPEAL OF
DECISION APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION ARCH-0448-2022
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: rcohen@slocity.org
APPELLANT: Wayne Terry
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the
Community Development Director approving the Minor Development Review application
ARCH-0448-2022.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
As provided by Zoning Regulations Section 17.126.040 (A), the Commission will consider
an appeal of the decision of the Community Development Director.
2.0 SUMMARY
Obispo Investments Inc. proposes to develop the property at 1925 Santa Barbara Avenue
with a mixed-use project comprised of four residential dwelling units and a small street -
fronting nonresidential space (see Attachments B and C, and Figure 2, below). The
project is subject to Minor Development Review1 and review by the City’s Cultural
Heritage Committee, as the project site is located within the Railroad Historic District.2
Accordingly, Minor Development Review application ARCH-0448-2022 was filed on
August 17, 2022. On April 22, 2024, the application was approved by the Community
Development Director, based in part on the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage
Committee, as to the consistency of the proposal with historical preservation policies,
standards, and guidelines (see Decision Letter, Attachment D).
Wayne Terry, owner and resident of the property at 1902 Chorro Street, situated
immediately southwest of the subject site, appealed the decision of the Director, providing
a narrative discussion of the reasons for the appeal (see Appeal Statement,
Attachment E).
1 Minor development review is a staff -level review process with public notice provided, with no public hearing
required (Zoning Regs. § 17.106.030 (B))
2 For each level of development review, an advisory body may provide a recommendation to the review
authority as applicable or required (Zoning Regs. § 17.106.040 (A)); The Cultural Heritage Committee shall
review and make recommendations to the Director on applications and development review projects which
include new construction located in historic districts.
Meeting Date: 6/26/2024
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes
Page 11 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
In the discussion, the appellant raises concerns with the conduct of the Cultural Heritage
Committee’s deliberations and questions the project’s consistency with the development
pattern in the Railroad Historic District and with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. This appeal is now before the Planning
Commission.
3.0 BACKGROUND
Site and Setting
The subject property is a rectangular parcel
measuring about 7,250 square feet in area,
on the west side of Santa Barbara Avenue,
225 feet south of Upham Street, in a Service
Commercial (C-S) Zone, and Historical
Preservation Overlay (H) Zone denoting its
location in the Railroad Historic District (see
Figure 1). It is developed with a small
commercial building installed in 1985 to serve
as an office for an auto sales lot, and most
recently used for personal services (The
Brow Shoppe).
Adjacent to the site, directly north and south,
are single-family dwellings (neither of which
are included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources). Also in the vicinity are the San
Luis Obispo Railroad Museum (a Master List Resource, the Southern Pacific
Warehouse), the Del Monte Café (a Contributing List Resource), a development
comprised of industrial sheds (formerly Flanders Bicycle Shop; 1951 Santa Barbara), and
a newer development of three mixed -use buildings, designed in an historical vernacular
style with false fronts (1957-1977 Santa Barbara). Behind the subject site are the Chapek
House (at 843 Upham) and the Bittick Residence (1902 Chorro), both Master List Historic
Resources within the adjacent Old Town Historic District.
Railroad District Plan
In 1998, the City Council adopted the Railroad District Plan (RDP),3 an “Area Plan”,
intended to implement General Plan policies within the Railroad Historic District. The plan
aims to retain and preserve the historic and architectural character of the District with
architectural standards to guide new development. The Architectural Guidelines provided
in the Plan (see Attachment F) help to ensure that new development is architecturally
compatible with adjacent buildings, and these guidelines are applied in reviewing new
development in the Railroad Historic District.
3 The Railroad District Plan may be accessed through the City’s website, at :
www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27524/637305754075300000
Figure 1: 1925 Santa Barbara
Page 12 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
Project Description
The proposed project is comprised of three new buildings accommodating four dwellings
and a nonresidential suite (see Project Description and Project Plans, Attachments B
and C, and Figure 2, below). The nonresidential space is provided at the Santa Barbara
Avenue street frontage and is intended for the range of uses and activities permitted in a
Service-Commercial Zone.4 The buildings are designed in a contemporary style, based
on rectangular forms, and having medium-sloped pitched roofs with eave overhangs.
Plaster and horizontally oriented cement fiber board siding are the predominant exterior
materials. Double-hung or divided lite windows are recessed into the building walls and
provided with wood trim and sill features.
Non-Residential Space 485 sq. ft. 1-story
Accessible Living Unit 825 sq. ft. 2-story
Tri-Plex (825 sq. ft. /ea.) 2,475 sq. ft. 2-story over under-building parking
area
4.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
Cultural Heritage Committee
The application was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee, over the course of two
public hearings, for their recommendation to the Community Development Director on the
application of architectural and historic preservation standards and guidelines to the
proposed project. Video record of each hearing, along with hearing agendas and staff
reports, is accessible from the Past Meetings section of the Public Meeting Agendas page
on the City’s website5, and Agenda Correspondence and Minutes for each hearing are
available in the City Clerk’s document archive.6
4 Uses permitted in various Zones are summarized in Zoning Regs. § 17.10.020 (A)
5 Public Meeting Agendas may be accessed through the City’s website at
www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-minutes
6 The City Clerk’s Documents Archive may be accessed at
opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=26291
Figure 2: Project Rendering, from Santa Barbara Avenue
Page 13 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
On January 22, 2024, the application was brought before the Cultural Heritage
Committee.7 After deliberation, the Committee continued review of the application to “a
date uncertain,” providing direction to staff and the applicant regarding building massing,
height, and placement, roof forms, and building details such as materials, finishes,
decorative elements, and window patterns.
Project plans were revised by the applicant and project architect in response to the
Committee’s direction, and the application was brought back to the Committee on
March 25th, 2024.8 Revisions included lowering the building height and modifying the roof
form, bringing its upper portion further away from the rear of the site. Fiber cement board
with the appearance of wood was employed for the exterior material of the larger triplex
building, and trim, decorative elements, and door and window recesses were refined to
enhance visual interest, as encouraged by the Architectural Guidelines of the Railroad
District Plan. The Committee considered the design revisions to be responsive to the
direction they provided and recommended that the Community Development Director find
the project to be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, including
architectural standards for construction in the Railroad Historic District.
Director Decision (Minor Development Review)
On April 22, 2024, the Community Development Director approved the project by
administrative action, based on findings of consistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and, following the recommendation of the CHC, historical preservation
policies, standards, and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, including consistency
with the Architectural Guidelines of the Railroad District Plan (Decision Letter,
Attachment D).
5.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
Public Comment at Hearings
In his appeal statement (Attachment E), the appellant states that his right to public
comment was hindered at the March 25th Cultural Heritage Committee hearing, by refusal
of a visual presentation to supplement his public comment, and as such, he could not
adequately provide important information to the Committee.
Immediately prior to the March 25th CHC hearing, Mr. Terry requested that the Deputy
City Clerk make a presentation available on the City’s computer netwo rk, from a personal
“flash drive” that he had brought to the hearing. The presentation is said to have included
images of buildings on Santa Barbara Avenue and excerpts of text from the Railroad
District Plan, germane to his comments regarding the scale, m assing, and pattern of
buildings on this street.
7 The Meeting Agenda, Video, and Staff Reports for the January 22 nd meeting may be accessed online at
pub-slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=092f5d9e-222d-4d65-8388-30e946288483
8 The Meeting Agenda, Video, and Staff Reports for the March 25th meeting may be accessed online at
pub-slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0fb2d569-cf24-478d-8a8d-d2e4a0dd4582
Page 14 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
The City’s Electronic Visual Aid Presentation policy9 encourages members of the public
who wish to utilize electronic visual aids as a supplement to their oral presentation to
provide those materials to the City Clerk by noon on the day of the hearing. The Clerk
follows this policy to ensure safe transfer of files to the City’s computer network (digital
files are subjected to a “virus scan”) and to allow for the timely commencement of public
hearings. In this case, the Deputy Clerk was not able to accommodate Mr. Terry’s request
immediately prior to the hearing, well past the noon deadline.
Nevertheless, many images of buildings along the west side of Santa Barbara Avenue
were provided to the Committee in the applicant’s project plans (see Sheet 7 of Project
Plans, Attachment C), including a study of the development pattern on this block), in staff
reports to the Commission, and with photographs displayed in the staff presentation.
These photographs were also displayed by staff during Mr. Terry’s public comment.
Staff reports also included evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project with
historical preservation policies, standards, and guidelines, including the consistency of
new buildings with the scale, massing, rhythm, and siting of historic structure s in the
district, along with specific architectural guidelines from the Railroad District Plan.
Furthermore, the matter of scale, pattern, and spacing of existing buildings on the west
side of the street were, before each Committee hearing, explicitly raised and discussed
directly in Mr. Terry’s correspondence and his public comment to the Committee, prior to,
and during, both hearings.
The record of agenda correspondence and public comment reflects that Mr. Terry was
not hindered in his ability to provide information and public comment to the Committee
regarding this item
Advisory Body Review Process
The appellant raises concern with the process by which the Cultural Heritage Committee
formed their recommendation; that the Committee failed to consider key elements of the
Railroad District Plan and inadequately deliberated about the pattern of development in
the vicinity of the project site. He notes that the project architect was not present at the
second (March 25th) Committee hearing, that the Committee Chair had professional
familiarity with the project architect, and that the Chair disclosed that he had met the
architect and discussed the project design.
It is not uncommon for architectural professionals active in the local community to be
familiar with each other and with their work, and ex parte communication between a
project proponent and individual Committee Members is permissible, where properly
disclosed. Under the Brown Act, if a majority of Committee members are present during
communication with a project proponent, generally such discussion could only take place
at a noticed public hearing unless an exception applied. Here, however, communication
with the applicant’s architect was limited to discussion with an individual Committee
Member, to share some conceptual ideas regarding potential design revisions, and this
9 This policy is described on the City’s website and on Public Meeting Agendas, see:
www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-minutes
Page 15 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
ex-parte communication was properly disclosed by the Committee Chair during the
hearing, immediately following staff’s presentation.
Staff notes, again, that all relevant elements of the City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines and the Railroad District Plan were fully evaluated in staff’s report and
presentation to the Committee, including the consistency of the proposed project with the
character of the Railroad District in terms of scale, massing, siting, and spacing of
buildings, and these matters were given full deliberation by the Committee. In addition,
these elements were directly raised and discussed in the appellant’s correspondence and
public comment to the Committee prior to, and during, both hearings.
The project architect was absent from the March 25th Committee hearing, due to an
unintentional scheduling error (mistaking the hearing start time). Although it is customary
for an applicant or their representative to be present at public hearings, there is no formal
applicant attendance requirement that would constrain the Committee from deliberating
and acting on an item under consideration. In this case, the hearing was the second
hearing on the item, to consider revisions made in response to Committee direction. Staff
advised the Committee that they could proceed with the hearing or, if necessary, further
continue consideration of the item to a futu re date. The Committee elected to proceed
with deliberations, having sufficient information available in the project plans and
materials, staff reports and presentations, and public correspondence and comments, on
which to base their recommendation to the Director.
Pattern of Development
The pattern of development in the vicinity of the project site and along the west side of
Santa Barbara Avenue are further discussed in the appellant’s statement. The appellant
notes that the Railroad District Plan makes n o explicit distinction between portions of
Santa Barbara Avenue that are north and south of Upham Street, though they lie within
different Zones and are subject to different development standards. The predominant
building type and pattern of massing and spacing south of Upham is described in the
appellant statement, and it is suggested that projects adjacent to historic resources
should provide deep rear setbacks and concentrate building height at their west (Santa
Barbara Avenue) side, as more appropriate and consistent with the area.
The Railroad District Plan explicitly refers to the City’s Zoning Regulations for descriptions
of applicable property development standards (see Plan, pg. 33) and provides no specific
standards for building setbacks or height for new development. Guidance on building
setbacks is limited to encouraging new residential buildings to generally maintain the
prevailing setbacks of older houses and apartments along Osos, Santa Barbara, and
Church streets (Plan, pg. 82), an area that lies north of Upham Street, in a Medium-High
Residential (R-3) Zone.
Page 16 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
The project was found by the Community Development Director to conform to the
development standards applicable to the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone in which it is
located, including standards for building height and setbacks, lot coverage, and parking
requirements. Zoning Regulations set no rear setback standard within the C-S Zone, but
require that, where a site is adjacent to a zone with minimum setback requirements, a
setback be provided as in the zone of the adjacent property.10 In this case, the site is
adjacent to a Medium-Density (R-2) Zone, and therefore a minimum setback ranging from
five feet (at the ground floor) to ten feet (at the upper levels of the building) must be
provided.11 Furthermore, the project is subject to “Edge Condition” provisions in the
Zoning Regulations,12 to provide a buffer between commercial zones and adjacent lower
intensity residential zones. An enhanced building setback ranging from ten feet (at the
ground level) to twelve feet (at the upper levels of the building) is required at the rear of
the site, adjacent to the residential uses behind it. This project exceeds this requirement,
providing a twelve-foot rear setback for the whole building, from the ground to its upper
levels.
At just over 25 feet above existing grade to the peak of a single roof gable feature, t he
height of the tallest building in the project is considered to be consistent with the height
of existing residential structures in the adjacent Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone,
including listed historic resources, and well below the maximum 35 -foot building height
allowed in both the C-S Zone and the adjacent R-2 Zone.
Given these facts, neither the project’s building height nor setback from the adjacent
residential zone would provide a basis under the City’s applicable development standards
or historical preservation standards to require modification of the project design or to deny
the Architectural Review application.
10 See Zoning Regulations § 17.36.020 (B): sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/17.36.020
11 See Zoning Regulations § 17.18.020 (B): sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/17.18.020
12 See Zoning Regulations § 17.70.050: sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/17.70.095
Figure 3: Pattern Study (from Project Plans), West Side of Santa Barbara Avenue
Page 17 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
Negative Impacts
The appellant’s statement concludes that the project, due to building height and se tbacks,
will negatively impact Master List Historical resources near the project site.
The Guidelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA Guidelines) provide guidance
about determining the significance of
impacts to historical resources: “A project
with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource is a project that may
have a significant effect on the
environment.” (CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5(b)). Substantial adverse change
in the significance of an historical resource
means physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or
its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of an historical resource
would be materially impaired.” As to “materially impaired,” CEQA Guidelines describe this
as involving demolition or material alteration of physical characteristics of a historic
resource that convey its significance. 13
In the case of the Master List “Bittick Residence” at 1902 Chorro (Figure 4, above), the
property was found to be eligible for listing as a historic resource due to its Colonial Dutch
Barn Style, rarity of its single-story Gambrel Roof style, architectural integrity,
attractiveness of design, and association with John Chapek, an early local builder and
Town Council member (see Council Resolution No. 9310, Attachment G). Construction
of the proposed project on an adjacent site, in conformance to the height limits and
enhanced setbacks required under the City’s development standards, involves no
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the features identified as important to
the significance of the Bittick Residence , nor would the project development to the rear
of the Bittick Residence compromise its ability to convey its significance.
Summary
In summary response to the appellant’s discussion, staff maintains that the Director took
into consideration all relevant matters, including the development pattern of the Railroad
Historic District, the City’s historical preservation policies, standards, and guidelines, and
any potential for negative impacts to historic resources, in deciding to approve the Minor
Development Review application for the proposed mixed -use project. The Director’s
decision was informed by correspondence received from interested parties, and by the
recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), whose duties include
13 See CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 (b), available online (Thomson Reuters Westlaw):
govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I87D9F3AA5B4D11EC976B000D3A7C4BC3
Figure 4: Bittick Residence, 1902 Chorro
Page 18 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
application of historical preservation standards and guidelines, as set out in the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC § 14.01.030 (B)). The CHC deliberated and
formulated their recommendation over the course of two duly noticed and conducted
public hearings, following review of all relevant information in staff reports and
presentations, along with public correspondence and in-person comment provided at the
hearings.
As there is no basis presented with this appeal on which to deny the Minor Development
Review application ARCH-0448-2022, for development of the subject property with a
mixed-use development, staff recommends that the Commission deny the appeal and
uphold the decision of the Community Development Director approving the application.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It consists of Infill Development consistent with the Services and
Manufacturing land use designation and applicable policies described in the Cit y’s
General Plan, consistent with standards and limitations described in Zoning Regulations
for the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone, occurs on a project site of less than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses with no value as habitat for endanger ed, rare or
threatened species, would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15332. Furthermore, development of the
proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any
historical resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 (f)) since the project has been found
consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance provisions for compatible
development in historic districts; is not located on a listed historic property; and would not
have the potential to result in adverse impacts to adjacent and nearby historic resources.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal and direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Minor
Development Review application ARCH-0448-2022, regarding development of a
proposed mixed-use project at 1925 Santa Barbara Avenue.
This action is not recommended since the appeal provides no justification for
denying the Minor Development Review application or for finding that the proposed
project is inconsistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, including those regarding architectural
compatibility for new construction in historic districts. Furthermore, this project is a
“housing development project” pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act and
therefore can only be denied or conditioned in a manner that reduces density if a
“specific adverse impact” (a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable
impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions) is identified. Facts and evidence based on the City’s
historical preservation policies, standards, and guidelines, as set out in the
Historical Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01), along with specific adverse
Page 19 of 98
Item 4a
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Planning Commission Report – June 26, 2024
impacts to public health or safety, as described by the Housing Accountability Act,
would have to be provided with any consideration to uphold the appeal as the basis
for this alternative.
2. Continue consideration of the item to a future date, with relevant guidance to staff
and applicant.
This alternative is not recommended, as continued consideration beyond the three
public hearings that will have already been held on the item is unlikely to uncover
additional considerations relevant to the action taken on this application.
Furthermore, the Housing Crisis Act limits an agency to conduct of no more than
five hearings on a proposed housing development that complies with objective
standards (Govt. Code § 65905.5 (a)).
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Planning Commission Resolution (APPL-0232-2024)
B - Project Description: Santa Barbara Lofts
C - Approved Project Plans Santa Barbara Lofts
D - Decision Letter (ARCH-0448-2022)
E - Appeal Statement (Wayne Terry)
F - Architectural Guidelines (Railroad District Plan)
G - Council Resolution No. 9310 (2002)
Page 20 of 98
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S
DECISION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPLICATION ARCH-0448-2022 REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A
MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 1925 SANTA BARBARA AVENUE
(APPL-0232-2024)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 22, 2024, for the purpose of reviewing a proposed mixed-use development
comprised of four residential dwellings and a nonresidential suite located at 1925 Santa Barbara
Avenue, under Minor Development Review application ARCH 0448 2024; Obispo Investments
Inc., applicant, and continued consideration of the application to a date uncertain with direction to
staff and the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on March 25, 2024, for the purpose of reviewing revised plans for the proposed mixed-
use development, and recommended that the Community Development Director find the project
to be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, including architectural standards
for new construction in the Railroad Historic District; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2024 the Community Development Director approved the
proposed mixed-use project, under Minor Development Review application ARCH-0448-2024;
and
WHEREAS, On May 2, 2024, Wayne Terry filed an appeal of the Community
Development Director’s decision to approve the Minor Development Review application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on June 26, 2024, to consider the
appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Page 21 of 98
Resolution No. _____ (2024 Series) Page 2
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land
Use Element (LUE) of the City’s General Plan applicable to development in a Services and
Manufacturing area, and with goals and policies of the General Plan’s Conservation and
Open Space Policies (COSE) for Cultural Heritage (COSE § 3). Mixed uses are encouraged
in commercial districts (LUE §3.8.5). The project’s residential component is situated at the
west side of the site, at the boundary with an adjacent residential neighborhood to the west
and provides enhanced building setbacks such that the residential atmosphere of the
adjacent neighborhood is protected (LUE §2.3.3). New construction reflects the form,
spacing, and materials of nearby historic structures and does not affect the street
appearance of buildings which contribute to the neighborhood’s architectural character,
consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.4. Fiber cement board
and plaster are employed as the predominant exterior materials, which are visually
compatible with the exterior materials of buildings in the vicinity.
2. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with standards and limitations set out in
the City’s Zoning Regulations. The site is within a Service Commercial (C-S) Zone, and
Mixed-Use Development is a permitted use in the Zone (§ 17.10.020). The project and
proposed new structures conform to applicable development standards for the zone
(Ch. 17.70), including enhanced Edge Condition setbacks at the boundary of the adjacent
residential neighborhood to the west (§17.70.050) and with standards for Mixed-Use
Development (§17.70.130).
3. According to the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee made on
March 25, 2024, the project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
(SLOMC Ch. 14.01) and the supporting Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
(HPPG), in particular with guidelines related to architectural compatibility (HPPG §§ 3.2.1
& 3.3.2). The proposed new buildings are based on simple rectangular forms and exhibit
horizontal massing, sloping roof forms, grouped horizontal window patterns, fiber cement
board (simulating wood appearance) and plaster exterior materials, and trim and roof
detailing, consistent with Architectural Guidelines provided in the Railroad District Plan,
complementing the District’s historic character.
4. According to the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee made on
March 25, 2024, the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties. The proposed new construction has been designed to
be compatible in form, massing, color, and materials with the historic character of the
Railroad Historic District.
5. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines. It is designed in
an attractive and environmentally sensitive manner that responds to the character and
constraints of the site, fits in with site design and architecture in the vicinity, and logically
locates site elements for efficient operation (§ 2.1). The new building exhibits proper
proportion, harmony, simplicity, rhythm, balance, and is designed to coordinate with
existing structures on the site (§ 2.2) and is compatible with adjacent buildings and those
in the immediate neighborhood (§ 5.3).
Page 22 of 98
Resolution No. _____ (2024 Series) Page 3
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It consists of Infill Development
consistent with the Services and Manufacturing land use designation and applicable policies
described in the City’s General Plan, consistent with standards and limitations described in Zoning
Regulations for the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone, occurs on a project site of less than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses with no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species, would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, as described in
CEQA Guidelines § 15332. Furthermore, development of the proposed project will not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of any historical resources (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15300.2 (f)) since the project has been found consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance
provisions for compatible development in historic districts; the property is not located on a historic
property; and the project would not have the potential to result in adverse impacts to adjacent and
nearby historic resources.
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the subject appeal
filed by Wayne Terry, and upholds the Community Development Director’s decision to approve
development of 1925 Santa Barbara Avenue with a mixed-use development project, under Minor
Development Review application ARCH-0448-2022, based on the above findings, and subject to
the following conditions:
1. Conformance to approved plans and conditions. Final project design and construction
drawings submitted for building permits shall be in substantial compliance with approved
plans, as revised according to the direction provided by the Cultural Heritage Committee,
and with the conditions of approval herein. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in
plans submitted for permits, listing all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be
made in the margin of the listed conditions as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of
approval must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director.
2. Colors and materials. Plan submitted for permits to complete this project shall clearly
depict and describe all materials and colors, including siding, roofing, windows, and
decorative trim, and the dimensions of windows, including window frames and mullions,
lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, trim, and other related window features, shall be clearly
indicated, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Page 23 of 98
Resolution No. _____ (2024 Series) Page 4
3. Night Sky Preservation. Plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project
shall include information about exterior lighting, including building-mounted lighting,
sufficient to verify conformance to Night Sky Preservation regulations (Zoning
Regulations Ch. 17.23).
Upon motion of _______________, seconded by ________________, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSED:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 26th day of June 2024.
____________________________________
Rachel Cohen, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 24 of 98
1925 Santa Barbara Avenue Project Description
Note: All section numbers called out as reference are from the City of San Luis Obispo, Title 17 Zoning
Regulations, unless noted differently. Words in italics have been taken directly from the zoning
ordinance for clarification and support of the proposal.
Project Use Concept –The premise of this project is to create a mixed-use development that will provide
a commercial space on the street frontage and living spaces behind, similar to current developments on
Santa Barbara Ave.
Zone – C-S-H
Lot size – 7257 SF (.166 AC)
Max. Dwelling units = 24/AC = .166 x 43560 = 3.998
Proposed dwelling units = 4 - 1-bedroom units = 2.64< 3.98
Additional Use 1 commercial space 485 SF
Lot coverage – Max = 75%
Units including South balconies = 2630 SF
Elevated walkways and stairs = 429 SF
Commercial space = 485 SF
Total = 3544 SF
Coverage = 4740 / 7257 = 48.8%
FAR – C-S zone 1.5
Allowable 1.5 site area = 1.5 x 7257 = 10885 SF
3 housing unit = 3 x 895 = 2685 SF
Accessible unit = 1 x 768 = 768 SF
Commercial = 485 SF
Total = 3938 SF
Parking requirements
1 space for 1 bedroom = 4
1 space per 300 SF = 2
Total required =6
Proposed parking
Standard parking space =6
Van accessible =1
Total provided =7
Page 25 of 98
Bicycle parking
8 Long-term bicycle parking spaces have been provided in lockers in the sub-terranean parking
area.
Motorcycle parking
Not required
Existing structures – The current development on the site was built in 1985, on what was at that time a
vacant lot. The site was developed as a used car lot with a small office with restroom (257 SF +/-) and a
carport (220 SF+/-) for auto detailing. The site was paved, curbs were added, parking lot lights, and
signage were added. A drainage easement was secure through the rear property. All that work is to be
removed to the sub-grade.
Structures to be removed - All structures, pavement, etc., as existing above are to be removed to the
sub-grade.
Adjacent uses – Single family dwellings exist to the North and South of the site. In the C-S zone this is a
use that is no longer on the approved list. To the West are residences that are in the R-2 zone. As per
SLO Municipal Code 17.36.20 Table 2-20 C-S Zone Development Standards “No setback unless adjacent
to zone with minimum setback requirement, in which case the adjoining setback shall be as provided in
zone of adjacent lot.” These set back lines are shown on Sheet 8 - Sections
New land use proposal – Mixed Use – as allowed by 17.10.020 Table 2-1 Uses allowed in C-S zone
Allowed Uses. A mixed-use project requires a combination of residential units with any other use or
multiple uses allowed in the applicable zone by Section 17.10.020
Proposed Uses - A Mixed use, residential with a small commercial space. The project consists of three
1-bedroom residential units over a sub-terranean garage, an accessible 1 bedroom unit and a small
commercial space.
From 17.70.130 - Mixed Use Development
Mixed-use projects provide an opportunity to locate housing, jobs, recreation, and other daily needs in
close proximity to one another, thereby enhancing vitality and street life in San Luis Obispo and
forwarding the city’s sustainability goals.
A. Purpose – See above.
B. Allowable uses – See above.
C. Maximum density - See above.
D. Site layout and project design standards
1. Location of Units –
a. Ground Floor Limitations - In all other zones, residential units shall not occupy more than fifty
percent of the ground floor space within the first fifty feet of floor area measured from each
Page 26 of 98
building face adjacent to a street toward the rear of the building, with no more than thirty
percent of the building frontage to be occupied by residential uses.
Proposed location – The residential units are 45’-4” from the street property line and occupy
approximately 9% of the front of the site as required above. The street frontage is primarily
occupied by the small commercial use.
3. Trash and Recycling Areas.
Areas for the collection and storage of trash and recyclable materials shall be located on the site
in locations that are convenient for both the residential and nonresidential uses. The location
and design of trash enclosures shall reduce nuisances from odors and noise when
residential uses might be impacted.
Proposed location – The location is conveniently located outside the front yard setback at the
side of the commercial space. The garbage and recycling bins are in a lockable enclosure that is
screened from the street and neighboring property. We have worked with San Luis Garbage
Company, and they have provided a will-serve letter for this location.
E. Design standards - The following is written to address the various parts of this section.
The design concept is to continue the commercial street frontage while adding more permanent
residences. The commercial space continues the pattern of small commercial spaces along this side of
the avenue in this block. The residential units have been designed in a residential character with the
living area on the ground floor and the bedrooms above, in a loft type configuration.
The proposal has a potential impact on the single-family residences to the north and south. These uses,
if proposed today, would not be allowed. Like much of the rest of the area to the south the old
residences were removed and new mixed-use developments have replaced them. The overall area is a
mix of commercial and multi-family residential. The individual uses in the residences are located such
that the major living spaces are on the south allowing for a natural controlled light. Each living unit has a
personal outdoor space.
F. Performance Standards
1. Lighting – The commercial space is located on the street frontage. Landscape lighting will be
used along the walks. A downlight for signage will be used. There are no other lights purposed
that will have an effect on the residential uses on site or off.
2. Noise – With the small commercial space being located at ground level and on the streetside
of the property there should not be any adverse impact on the residential units on site or off.
3. Air quality and odors – all heating / cooling units will be individual residential electric heat
pumps.
4. Hours of operation – the commercial component of the project will adhere to city standards
5. Residential noise notice – all residences of the project will be provided in writing that they will
be living in an urban-like environment and that the noise levels may be higher tha a strictly
residential area.
Page 27 of 98
G. Pedestrian access - the project meets is designed to meet all code requirements for pedestrian access
and circulation.
H. Objective design criteria – the project has taken these points as well as those of the Railroad District
Plan into consideration in the design.
Railroad District Plan (RDP)
Under Land Use Developing trends the Mixed use Live / work development is identified as a developing
trend.
The RDP identifies a wide range of structures in size, architectural style and materials that are present in
the District. In addition, the most recent developments go along this direction. In particular the 3
buildings at 1957, 1965, & 1957 Santa Barbara Ave. erected approximately 15 years ago take on a
pseudo-historic character with the false front, gabled roof behind, and wood cladding. The more recent
development at 2120 Santa Barbara Ave. while much larger, is more cubic in appearance with the bulk
of the building having a flat roof. A saw tooth roof at the street facade works more with the RDP
objectives. The building facades are composed of multiple building materials: stucco, metal siding,
composite siding, and wood.
Our proposal is a similar approach to the 2120 Santa Barbara Ave. See Sheet 7 – Photo Essay
The project at 2120 Santa Barbara is the latest development on this stretch of Santa Barbara Ave. It too
is a mixed-use project with residential and commercial. Although 2021 is a much larger project, in part
due to parcel size, and taller project this proposal uses similar materials and to some extent building
profile.
Page 28 of 98
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</ :,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&
%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(&
7
$,152),/$&)2
(7$
7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632
,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
(
5
6
3
(
&
7
,
9
(
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
3
+
2
7
2
6
7
$
7
,
6
7
,
&
6
(;,67,1*9,(:)5206$17$%$5%$5$$9(
6+((7,1'(;6,7('(9(/230(176800$5<
=21(&6+
/276,=(
;
6)25$&
0$;':(//,1* $& ':(//,1*81,76
352326('%('522081,76 ; 81,76
$'',7,21$/86$*(&200(5&,$/63$&( 6)
3$5.,1*5(48,5(0(17 3(5%('522081,7
3(56)2)&200(5&,$/
727$/5(4
'
3$5.,1*63$&(6352326('
$&&(667$1'$5'
/27&29(5$*( 0$;
352326('/27&29(5$*( 81,76:%$/&21,(6 6)
(/(9$7(':$/.:$<6$1'67$,56 6)
&200(5&,$/ 75$6+ 6)
727$/ 6)
)$5$//2:(' ; 6)
%('522081,76# 6)81,7 6)
%('522081,7#6)
&200(5&,$/#6) 6)
727$/ 6)
*(1(5$/,1)250$7,21
2:1(5
2%,632,19(670(176//&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%,632
$31
&855(1786$*(
6,7($5($
6) $&
=21,1*
6$17$%$5%$5$$9(18(
6%/,9(:25.81,76
6$1/8,62%,632&$
352326('86$*(
&200(5&,$/
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
/,9(:25.63$&(6$1'60$//&200(5&,$/
&6+
7+,60,;('86(352-(&7352326(6%('522081,76:,7+$60$//&200(5&,$/
63$&($77+(675((7)5217$*(21($&&(66,%/(81,7$63(5&%&6(&7,21$
,63529,'('$7*5281'/(9(/1(;772$1$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*63$&($///,9,1*
81,76$5('(6,*1('$6/2)767</(81,760$7(5,$/6+$9(%((16(/(&7('72
+$5021,=(:,7+7+26(2)7+(,00(',$7($5($$1'$668**(67(',17+(*8,'(/,1(6
)257+(+,6725,&$/5$,/52$'',675,&7'(7$,/6:+(135$&7,&$/$1'$335235,$7(
$/625(63(&77+(*8,'(/,1(6)257+(',675,&7
3(63(&7,9()5206$17$%$5%$5$$9(18(
9,&,1,7<0$3
6$17$
%$5%$5$$9(
83+$0
&$/,)251,$%8,/',1*&2'(
6$1/8,62%,632081,&,3$/&2'(
&$/,)251,$(1(5*<&2'(
&$/,)251,$*5((1%8,/',1*&2'(
&0&
&3&
&(&
&$/,)251,$),5(&2'(
&/,0$7(=21( &=
6(,60,&&$7(*25<(
&2'($1$/<6,6
6% /,9(:25.0,;('86(
635,1./(' \HV1)3$
$OORZDEOH$UHDDQG+HLJKW&DOFXODWLRQV
2FFXSDQF\
*URXS
'HVFULSWLRQ
&KDSWHU
5
%
6
1RWHV DOODUHDVDQGKHLJKWVDUHZLWKRXWLQFUHDVHV
$UHD6WRU\DQG+HLJKW0RGLILFDWLRQV1RWH 6HHVHFWLRQ
1RQUHTXLUHG
0L[HG8VHDQG2FFXSDQF\&DOFXODWLRQ6HFWLRQ
2FFXSDQF\
*URXS
$FWXDO$UHD3HU6WRU\
5
%
6
6XPRIUDWLR¶V
2FFXSDQF\6HSDUDWLRQ1RWH 6HH7DEOHIRURFFXSDQF\VHSDUDWLRQ
2FFXSDQF\*URXS
5
2FFXSDQF\*URXS
6
6
5
%
%
5HTXLUHG6HSDUDWLRQRI2FFXSDQFLHV
+5
+5
+5
1RWHV
6((
7RWDO$OORZDEOH$UHD3HU6WRU\
5DWLR $FWXDO$UHD7RWDO$OORZDEOH$UHD
5(6,'(17,$/
%86,1(66
/2:+$=$5'
&RQVW7\SH
6HFWLRQ
9%
9%
,,%
$OORZDEOHDUHD
7DEOH
VP
VP
$FWXDODUHD
%/:$
-$1
$OORZDEOH+HLJKW
7DEOH
$OORZDEOH6WRULHV
7DEOH
)LUH5HVLVWDQFH5DWLQJIRU%XLOGLQJ(OHPHQWV1RWH 6HH7DEOHIRUUDWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVDQG7DEOHIRUUDWHGFRQVWUXFWLRQ
%XLOGLQJ(OHPHQW
([WHULRUZDOOVEHDULQJ
,QWHULRUZDOOVEHDULQJ
([WZDOOVQRQEHDULQJ 7DEOH
6WUXFWXUDOIUDPH
3DUWLWLRQVSHUPDQHQW
6KDIWHQFORVXUHV 6HFWLRQ
)ORRU IORRUFHLOLQJ
5RRI URRIFHLOLQJ
1RWHV
)LUH5HVLVWDQFH5DWLQJ)RU([WHULRU:DOOV%DVHGRQ)LUH6HSDUDWLRQ'LVWDQFH 7DEOH
2FFXSDQF\
*URXS
&RQVW7\SH
6HFWLRQ
5
%
6
1RWHV &23(13$5.,1**$5$*(6&203/<,1*:,7+6+$//127%(5(4
'72+$9($),5(5(6,67,9(5$7,1*
0D[LPXP$UHDRI([WHULRU:DOO2SHQLQJV6HFWLRQ
:DOO )LUH6HSDUDWLRQ
'LVWDQFH
1RUWK
6RXWK
(DVW
:HVW
!
$UHDRIZDOO
$OORZDEOH
3URWHFWHG
1$
1$
1RWH ,IVSULQNOHGXVHDOORZDEOHSURWHFWHGRSHQLQJVIRUXQSURWHFWHGRSHQLQJV
1RWHV
XSSHUIORRU
(JUHVV 2FFXSDQF\ 5HIHUWR&KDSWHUIRURWKHUH[LWUHTXLUHPHQWV±FRUULGRUVKRUL]RQWDODQGYHUWLFDOH[LWVWUDYHOGLVWDQFHHWF
)XQFWLRQRI6SDFH
7DEOH
'HVFULSWLRQ
5HVLGHQWLDO
5HVLGHQWLDO
%XVLQHVV
*DUDJH
,QGLYLGXDOXQLW
7ULSOH[3HU8QLW
&RPPHUFLDO
)ORRU$UHDSHU2FF
7DEOH $R
$FWXDO6) $V
2FFXSDQW
/RDG
$V$R
([LW:LGWK LQ
7DEOH
([LWVUHT¶G
7DEOH
$OORZDEOH
8Q3URWHFWHG
$FWXDO
3URWHFWHG
6)
1$
1$
$FWXDO
8Q3URWHFWHG
6)
5DWLR(TXDWLRQ
9%
9%
9%
; ¶
·; ·
·; · ;·
5HTXLUHG
)LUH5DWLQJ
5DWHG$VVHPEO\
1XPEHU'HVFULSWLRQ
1$
1$
1$
1$
1$
1$
1$
1$
$33/,&$%/(&2'(6
&%&&2'($1$/<6,6
5(48,5('6(7%$&.6
)5217
)253$5.,1*$1'6,*16
)25%8,/',1*6/(667+$125(48$/72
,1+(,*+7
)25%8,/',1*6*5($7(57+$1
6,'( 5($5<$5'6126(7%$&.5(48,5('81/(66$'-$&(1772=21(:,7+0,1,0806(7%$&.5(48,5(0(17,1:+,&+&$6(7+(
$'-2,1,1*6(7%$&.6+$//%(3529,'(',1=21(2)$'-$&(17/27
3523(57,(6727+(1257+$1'6287+$5(,17+(&6+=21(3523(57<727+(:(67,6,17+(5=21(
$'',7,21$/6(7%$&.6$63(57,7/(6/2=21,1*5(*8/$7,216&6=21(7$%/(
+$9(%((1$'+(5('72
6((6+((76
0$;+(,*+7
63(&,),&6
1223(1,1*6
52&&/2$' 7+(5()25((;,75(48,5('(;,7',67$1&(
6((&%& $1'7$%/(
6+((7'(6&5,37,21
3(563(&7,9(3+272$1'67$7,67,&6
6,7(6859(<'(02/,7,21 *5$',1*3/$16
6,7(,03529(0(17 *5281'/(9(/3/$16
1' 522)/(9(/3/$16
62/,':$67(3/$1 '(7$,/6
$5&+,7(&785$/(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
$5&+,7(&785$/(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
3+2726859(<2)6$17$%$5%$5$$9(
$5&+,7(&785$/6(&7,216
67250:$7(5&21752/3/$1
/$1'6&$3(3/$1
Page 29 of 98
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</:,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&
%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(&
7
$,152),/$&)2
(7$
7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632
,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
&3;7&
%&(*
(3$&
(*
7&)%2&(3$&%2&(3$&7&)
%2&$&
7&)
(*7&)
%2&$&
%2&$&7&)(*
(*
%2&$&
%2&$&
7&)
(* (* 7&) %8&$&
$&
%2&$&
7&)
)(:&25(*
%2//$5'
(*
7&)
6:%
6:%
7&)(1'
%2&$&
%2&$&
7&)
(*
(*
7&)
%2&$&
%2&$&
7&)&25(*
(*$76,*1 (*$76,*1
%2//$5'
7&)':
7&)
)/
/,3
36:
1
:
1
:
1
(
1
(
6$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6:%
(*(*
(*
1
0
0
:
$
7
(
5
/
,
1
(
00&8
(
6
(
:
(
5
33
29(5+($'
(/(&7
29(5+($'(/(&7 32/(7%5
6,7(*5$',1*6&$/(
(;,67,1*6,7(7232*5$3+,&32,176 '(02/,7,21127(6 6&$/(
$&3$9,1*72%(5(029('
'5,9(:$<$3521
72%(5(3/$&('
72&855(173:
67$1'$5'6
(;,67,1*%8,/',1*$1'
&$5325772%(5(029('
6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$
&,9,/'(6,*1
62/87,216
7RSR
$SULO
6DQWD%DUEDUD$YH
5(029(6,*1
5(029($//)(1&,1*
5(029($//)(1&,1*
5($5)(1&(725(0$,1'85,1*
&21678&7,21
5(029($//216,7(&21&&85%,1*
5(029(3$5.,1*/27/,*+76
5(029(67(36:22'
'(&.$1'68332576$1'
5$,/6
*(1(5$/127(
(17,5(6,7(,672%(675,33('2)$//0$7(5,$/6'2:1
721$785$/62,/)5203523(57</,1(723523(57</,1(
6,
7
(
6
8
5
9
(
<
'
(
0
2
/
,
7
,
2
1
*
5
$
'
,
1
*
3
/
$
1
6
),5(+<'5$17/2&$7,216
6$17$%$5%$5$$9(
),5(+<'5$1721:(67
6,'(2)675((7
),5(+<'5$1721($67
6,'(2)675((7
127( %8,/',1*,621
3,(56123(5,0(7(5
)281'$7,21&216,'(5('
3(50($%/(
$&3$9,1*72%(5(029('
:$7(50(7(5 (
72%(5(029('
39&:$7(5/,1( (
7%5:22')(1&( ( 7%5
:22')(1&( ( 7%5
(;,6,7,1*+286((;,67,1*6+('
(;,67,1**$5$*(
1257+
1257+
$1<6,'(:$/.5(3/$&(0(17,672%(&216758&7('$63(5(1*67'
,17(*5$/6,'(:$/.
6((6+((7)256,7(,03529(0(17'(6&5,37,216
6((6+((7 )2567250:$7(5&21752/0($685(6
6/((9(,1&21&)25'52352'
7<3 &/26('326,7,21
3$,5'28%/(
*$7(6(48$/
6758&785$/:$//2)&200(5&,$/
63$&(
75$6+(1&/2685(6&$/(
127( *$7(623(1G
)81&7,21$/3/$1
6758&785$/3/$1
6,1*/(
*$7(
;;67/
&2/
*$/ *$/ *$/ *$/ *$/
6/
2
3
(
;;&21&%/2&.:,1*
:$//6:
3/$67(5),1,6+
2
6((3/$1)2523(1,1*
0$6215<:3257&(03/$67(5 0
),1)/5
%
$
$
127(
$//67((/72%(3$,17('
75$6+(1&/2685(6&$/(
/$7&+
(/(9$7,21
a+2/()253$'/2&.
6(&7,21
_[[B67/$1*/(
;67/78%(6
_[[B[/21*
[[B3/
)5$0( 0,7(5 :(/'
%
*$7(67233(5
(/(9$7,21
$
%
6(&7,21
:$6+(5:(/'7252'723
a[67'3,3(,172
3$9(0(17 ,167$//3,3(6$7
&/26('$1'23(1326,7,21
2)*$7(
2)3$9(0(17
)5$0( 0,7(5 :(/'
a52'%27+6,'(6
3/$7(
%
58%%(5:+((/21635,1*
3,6721 7<3($*$7(/($)
-$0%&211(&7,21
$
&217+,1*(:(/'('72-$0%
7278%()5$0(%<0,6&,521
67/68%&2175+,1*(6+$//
&216,672)7+.67/3/$7(
%
:a[$1&+256
[[67/78%()5$0(
0$6215<:3257&(03/$67(5
_[[B67/
$1*/()5$0(
#)520723
2&
&/5
127( &855(172))6,7(
'5$,1$*(($6(0(1772%(
$%$1'21
5(7$,1,1*:$//6&$/(
3/
#
6
2
8
7
+
6
,
'
(
3$9(5625$&3$9,1*
21&203$&7('%$6($6
3(562,/6(1*
&08%/2&.:$//
72%((1*,1((5('
,03(59,286$5($ 6)
/$1'6&$3( ',57$5($ 6)
:,//6(59(/(77(5
KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϯ͕ϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌƌLJtŝůůŝĂŵƐ͕ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ
>tƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ
ϭϭϬϯ ůůĂ^ƚ
^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽ͕ϵϯϰϬϭ
ϴϬϱͲϰϱϵͲϳϯϱϯ
ZĞ͗ϭϵϮϱ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂǀĞʹ ŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞWůĂŶƐĨŽƌD&hʹZĞǀŝƐĞĚtŝůůͲ^ĞƌǀĞ>ĞƚƚĞƌ
dŚŝƐůĞƚƚĞƌŝƐƚŽĂĐƚĂƐĂtŝůůͲ^ĞƌǀĞůĞƚƚĞƌĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƐŽůŝĚǁĂƐƚĞ͕ƌĞĐLJĐůŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚŽƌŐĂŶŝĐǁĂƐƚĞĂƚ͗
ϭϵϮϱ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂǀĞ͕^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽ͕͕ϵϯϰϬϭ
WĞƌƉĂŐĞƐϮĂŶĚϯŽĨƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂů^ŝƚĞWůĂŶƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŽŶϭϬͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
/ŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĨƌĂŶĐŚŝƐĞĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽ͕^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐ'ĂƌďĂŐĞŽŵƉĂŶLJǁŝůů
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůŝŶͲLJĂƌĚĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƚŚƌĞĞǁĂƐƚĞƐƚƌĞĂŵƐĂƚƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƉĞƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞ͗
^ŽůŝĚtĂƐƚĞ͗ϮϵϱͲŐĂůůŽŶƚƌĂƐŚĐĂŶƐ͕ϭdžǁĞĞŬůLJ
ZĞĐLJĐůŝŶŐ͗
KƌŐĂŶŝĐtĂƐƚĞ͗ϭϲϱ'ĐĂŶ͕ϭdžǁĞĞŬůLJ
EŽƚĞ͗^ĞƌǀŝĐĞůĞǀĞůƐŵĂLJĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶǀŽůƵŵĞƐ͘
/ƚǁŝůůďĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌ͛ƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŽŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĂůůĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌƐĂƌĞĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞďLJϲ͗ϬϬDŽŶƚŚĞ
ĚĂLJ;ƐͿŽĨĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘
ĂƐĞĚŽŶŵLJƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂŶĚƉůĂŶƐĞƚ͕ƚŚĞƐƉĂĐĞĂůůŽƚƚĞĚĨŽƌǁĂƐƚĞƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞŝƐ
ƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚ͘
ĂƐĞĚŽŶŵLJƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂŶĚƉůĂŶƐĞƚ͕ƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĐĂŶƐĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚĨŽƌƵƐĞĂƚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ
ŝƐƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚ͘
/ƚŝƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌ͛ƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽƌǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽ
DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽĚĞ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϴ͘Ϭϰ͘ϬϳϬ; Ϳ͘
EŽƚĞƐZĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͗
dŚŝƐD&hĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĂĐĐŽƵŶƚǁŝůůƐŚĂƌĞĨŝǀĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƐƚLJůĞĐĂŶƐ͘/ŶͲLJĂƌĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƚŽďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĂĐĐŽƵŶƚ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĐĂŶƐŵĂLJĂůƐŽďĞƌŽůůĞĚŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚďLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŽďĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĚĐƵƌďƐŝĚĞ͘
/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽƌŶĞĞĚĂŶLJĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĂƚĞƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŵĞ͘
<ƌŝƐDĂnjƵƌĞŬ
KƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌ
ϯϲϬͲϳϴϵͲϬϵϵϭĞůů
ϰϯϴϴKůĚ^ĂŶƚĂ&ĞZĚ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽ͕ϵϯϰϬϭϴϬϱͲϱϰϯͲϬϴϳϱ
ϮϵϱͲŐĂůůŽŶƌĞĐLJĐůĞĐĂŶƐ͕ϭdžǁĞĞŬůLJ
(*(*
(*
(*
(* (*
)(:&25(*
(*
7&)
6:%
6:%
(*
(*
(*
6:%
(*
(*
))
6:%
6/23(
6/
2
3
(
0
$
;
)) 2
9(57,&$/&859($6
3(53:67'
0$;$&&(66,%/(6/23(:25$03
),1)/51(('672%(
0,1$%29(),1
*5$'(
6/23(
0$;$&&(66,%/(6/23(:25$03
$&&(66,%/(3$7+
2)75$9(/
+$7&+('
Page 30 of 98
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</:,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&
%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(&
7
$,152),/$&)2
(7$
7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632
,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
*5281'/(9(/3/$1
6&$/(
6&/$(
6,
7
(
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
*
5
2
8
1
'
/
(
9
(
/
3
/
$
1
6
9$1
$&&(66,%/(
3$5.,1*
&&
1257+
&6=21(
5=21(
9$13$5.,1*5HIHUHQFH
$'$6WDQGDUGVIRU$FFHVVLEOH
'HVLJQ &)53DUW
$OWHUDWLRQV
$FFHVVLEOH6LWHVDQG([WHULRU)DFLOLWLHV 1HZ&RQVWUXFWLRQ
DQG
3DUNLQJDQG3DVVHQJHU
/RDGLQJ=RQHV
$
$
%
%
),5(%$&.)/2:35(9(17,21'(9,&($1')'&
6((6+((7)25),5(+<'5$17/2&$7,216
6,7(,03529(0(173/$1
1(:'5,9(:$<$3352$&+
6/2(1*67'
:$7(50(7(56
75$6+
(1&/2685(
3(59,2863$9(56
,03(59,286$5($ 6)
/$1'6&$3($5($ 6)
3(59,286$5($ 6)
1(,*+%255(6,'(1&(*$5$*(
*$5$*(
1(,*+%255(6,'(1&(
&6=21(
&6=21(
5=21(
:+((/6723
68%7(55$1($13$5.,1*
9,75(286&+,1$%$7+52206,1.9((5.
9,75(286&+,1$%$7+52206,1.9((5.9,75(286&+,1$%$7+52206,1.9((5.9,75(286&+,1$%$7+52206,1.9((5.
1257+
3(59,2863$9(56
%(1&+
%(1&+
/$1'&$3(
/$1'&$3(
+,*+
&08:$//
3/$67(5('
(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21
/(*(1'
6(7%$&.
3(59,2863$9(56
/$1'&$3(
$
$
'%&$
(
120,1$/6,=( 0$7(5,$/ +($'
:,1'2:'(6&5,37,21 )5$0( '(7$,/6 127(6
:,1'2:$1'*/$=,1*6&+('8/(
7<3( */$66 ),1,6+ 6,//-$0%
$
%
&
/(*(1'
7<3(
)*),;('*/$66
6/6/,'(5
6+6,1*/(+81*
$:1$:1,1*
&607&$6(0(17
*/$66
'*'8$/*/$=('
'*7'8$/*/$=('7(03(5('
6*6,1*/(*/$=('
6*76,1*/(*/$=('7(03(5('
6*/6,1*/(*/$=('/$0,1$7('
0$7(5,$/
$/$/80,180
919,1</
:':22'
)*),%(5*/$66
67/67((/
)5$0(),1,6+
$12$12',=('
3&32:'(5&2$7('
373$,17('
6767$,1('
),5(
'
:$'9$1&('/2:(*/$66 0,18)$&7256+*&
;
35'+'*
;
6/'*7
)*'*7
;
1$
1$
1$
6./7 6.</,*+7
(
)
;
;
)*'*1$
$:1 '*1$
0,/*$5'6(5,(675,16,&6(5,(69%/$&.&$3672&.
;
35'+$/3&'*1$
*
+
,
;
;
6+'*1$
'*1$
;
)*'*1$
6/
-
;
'+'*1(('6720((7(*5(665(48,5(0(17
:,1'2:6&+('8/(
0$,/%2;(6(/(&75,&
0(7(56
(/(&75,&
0(7(56
5(&(66(':':$73/$67(5 6&$/(
:,1'2:5(&(66('
6,//(;7(1'6%(<21'),1,6+:$//6(('7/
$//685)$&(660227+3/$67(5:(/$6720(5,&3$,17
:':75,0$7+25,=6,',1*6&$/(
[:22'75,0$5281':,1'2:6,'(6
6+$3(';:22'6,//
0$,/%2;(6
),5(5,6(5
5220
6(7%$&.
83
%,.(
/2&.(5
%('522081,76
29(53$5.,1*
&200(5&,$/$&&(66,%/(5(6,'(1&(/,)7
(;,75287(
Page 31 of 98
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</:,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&
%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(&
7
$,152),/$&)2
(7$
7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632
,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
1'/(9(/3/$1 6&/$(
9,75(286&+,1$% $ 7+5 2206 ,1.9((5.9,75(286&+,1$% $ 7+5 2206 ,1.9((5.9,75(286&+,1$% $ 7+5 2206 ,1.9((5.9,75(286&+,1$%$7+52206,1.9((5.
6&/$(
1
'
5
2
2
)
/
(
9
(
/
3
/
$
1
6
1257+
522)3/$1 6&/$(
35,9$7('(&.
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)621
6/23(:3+27292/7$,&
3$1(/6$77$&+('7<32)
81,7
81,7
81,7
23(172%(/2:
121'/(9(/$7
&200(5&,$/
23(172%(/2: 23(172%(/2:
35,9$7('(&. 35,9$7('(&.
&
&
$
$
%
%
&
&
$
$
%
%
1257+
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)621
6/23(
81,7
/2::$//
&/
&/&/&/
23(172%(/2:
23(15$,/%(/2:
:,1'2:6
()
**
%++,,
%++,
(;73/$67(56,//
%/$&.$/80,180:,1'2:6
60227+(;7(5,253/$67(5:(/$6720(5,&
&2$7,1*
&$8/.%7:,1'2:$1'6,//
;'%/3/
;'%/3/
;6758&7:$//
3257,&2(175<$775,3/(;81,76
(;326('5$)7(57$,/63$,17('&8772;',0(16,21:
3$,17(')$6&,$
+$5',(%2$5'&(0(176,',1*(;32685(
;%(//<%$1'
67((/3,3(5$,/,1*
&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*:,7+&$3
3$5.,1*%(/2:
(175<3257,&2:,7+5$,/,1*386+('287)25%(1&+
&21&(37723527(&7(175<$1'72352027(',1)250$/
&219(56$7,21$5($6
'28%/(+81*:,1'2:6::22'75,06855281'
+$5',(%2$5'&(0(176,',1*(;32685($/7(51$7(3/$67(5/2:(5)/225
Page 32 of 98
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</:,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&
%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(&
7
$,152),/$&)2
(7$
7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632
,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
(;
7
(
5
,
2
5
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
6
6287+(/(9$7,21
6&$/(
6&$/(
*5((16&5((1:)2/,$*(720$6.
68%7(55$1($13$5.,1*
3523(57</,1(
$12',=(':,1'2:6%/$&.),1,6+7<3
3,3(5$,/7235$,/,1*32:'(5&2$7('
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
3523(57</,1(
$12',=(':,1'2:6%/$&.),1,6+
3,3(5$,/7235$,/,1*32:'(5
&2$7('$775,3/(;%(<21'
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
($67(/(9$7,216$17$%$5%$5$675((7)5217$*(
/(9(/2)68%7(55$,1,$13$5.,1*%(/2:
*5281'/(9(/$7675((7
3523(57</,1(
127(6
6((6+((7)256(7%$&.6$753523(57<727+(:(67
$///,*+7,1*,672%('2:1/,*+7,1*/2&$7(',162))(725&(,/,1*625:$///,*+76
:,7+$'2:1:$5'',5(&7,21
67$,5672*$5$*(
),1,6+*5$'($73523(57</,1(&21&6233257&2/6
7<32)
+25,=217$/&(0(17%2$5'6,',1*
3$,17('%(<21'$&&(66,%/(81,7
+25,=217$/&(0(17%2$5'6,',1*
3$,17('
3+27292/7$,&3$1(/6267$1',1*6($00(7$/
522),1*7<32)
6,*1$*(
60227+(;7(5,253/$67(5:
(/$6720(5,&),1,6+
6&$/(
($67(/(9$7,212)5(6,'(1&(6%(+,1'&200(5&,$/
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
3+27292/7$,&3$1(/6267$1',1*6($00(7$/
522),1*
5(':22')(1&($73523(57</,1(
5(':22')(1&($73523(57</,1(
/2::$//3/$67(5('2&08:$''5(66
)'&
%(1&+(6
3+27292/7$,&3$1(/6267$1',1*
6($00(7$/522),1*
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
3,3(5$,/7235$,/,1*32:'(5&2$7('
60227+(;7(5,253/$67(5:(/$6720(5,&),1,6+
/(9(/2)68%7(55$,1,$13$5.,1*%(/2:
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
3,3(5$,/7235$,/,1*32:'(5&2$7('
3$,17(')$6&,$6:0(7$/)/$6+,1*720$7&+
522)7<33$,17(')$6&,$6:0(7$/)/$6+,1*72
0$7&+522)7<3
+25,=217$/&(0(17%2$5'6,',1*
3$,17('
3$,17(')$6&,$6:0(7$/)/$6+,1*72
0$7&+522)7<3
5(':22')(1&($73523(57</,1(
5(029(')259,(:2)81,7
29(5+$1*
1257+
6287+
:(67
1257+
6287+
5(&(66('(175<
1$785$/:22''22567$,1('
:,7+75$16/8&(17/,7(6
2175,3/(;%(<21'
$&&(66,%/(%('522081,7 &200(5&,$/81,7
7<3
;(;7(5,25&251(567<3
;%(//<%$1'
&29(5('(175,(6
60227+(;7(5,253/$67(5:(/$6720(5,&),1,6+
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)
1$552:5,%215(6,'(17,$/
7<3
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)
:,'(5,%21&200(5&,$/
;*$%/((1'63$,17('
+25,=217$/&(0(17%2$5'6,',1*
3$,17('
;*$%/((1'63$,17('
60227+(;7(5,253/$67(5:(/$6720(5,&),1,6+
Page 33 of 98
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</:,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&
%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(&
7
$,152),/$&)2
(7$
7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632
,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
:(67(/(9$7,212)&200(5&,$/
6&/$(
6&/$(
(;
7
(
5
,
2
5
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
6
3523(57</,1(
$12',=(':,1'2:6%/$&.),1,6+7<3
3,3(5$,/7235$,/,1*32:'(5
&2$7('
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
1257+(/(9$7,21
/(9(/2)68%7(55$,1,$13$5.,1*%(/2:
*5((16&5((1$/21*3523(57<
/,1(720$6.3$5.,1*
3+27292/7$,&
3$1(/62
67$1',1*6($0
0(7$/522),1*
/$1'6&$3(675,3
0$7(5,$/61(:352326$/
6$/6%85<860$,/
*5((16&5((1%(<21'$/21*:(67
3523(57</,1(720$6.3$5.,1*
&086833257
:$//
3,3(5$,/7235$,/,1*32:'(5
&2$7('
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
),5(
5,6(5
'5,9(:$<
0$,/%2;(6
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)
7<3
67$1',1*6($00(7$/
522)7<3
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)
1$552:5,%215(6,'(17,$/
7<3
*$&2558*$7('0(7$/6,',1*
75$6+(1&/2685($&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*3$66(1*(5/2$',1*
$&&(66,%/(/,9,1*81,7
:(67(/(9$7,21
&21&6233257&2/6
7<32)
5(':22')(1&($7:(67
3523(57</,1(
5(':22')(1&($7
3523(57</,1(
(;&(37$76287+(1'
:,7+*5((16&5((1
1$785$/*5$'($73523(57</,1(
6$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
6
7
5
(
(
7
5
2
:
+25,=217$/&(0(17%2$5'6,',1*
3$,17('
:;75,0
;&251(575,07<3
&29(5('(175,(67<3
833(5)/2253233('28721(1'6
.1((%5$&(6
0$,/%2;(6
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)
1$552:5,%215(6,'(17,$/
7<3
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)
:,'(5,%21&200(5&,$/
60227+(;7(5,253/$67(5:(/$6720(5,&),1,6+
$12',=(':,1'2:6%/$&.),1,6+
5(&(66(',1:$//:,7+352758',1*6,//
7<3
;:22'%$1'
;%$1'
+25,=217$/&(0(17%2$5'6,',1*
3$,17('
;:22'%$1'
60227+(;7(5,253/$67(5:(/$6720(5,&),1,6+
Page 34 of 98
7+(6(7+5((352-(&76:(5($//%8,/7$5281'7+(<$5(&200(5&,$/5(6,'(17,$/7+(
$5&+,7(&785(7$.(6)5207+()$/6()52172)7+('(/0217(:,7+620(025(
&217(0325$5<728&+(6
7+,62/'&63523(57<+$66(59(',10$1<&$3$&,7,(6$6$
&200(5&,$/6(59,&(3523(57<,7$/21*:,7+7+(3523(57,(6
727+(1257+$5(%281'72%(5('(9(/23('
7+,6,621(2)7+(/$67
5(0$,1,1*6,1*/()$0,/<
5(6,'(1&(6216$17$
%$5%$5$$9(
7+,66,7(:$6$9$&$17/27
817,/ :+(17+(
25,*,1$/0F&$57+<
686('
&$5/27:$63/$&('21,7
6,1&(,7+$6+$'$&283/(2)
27+(5&200(5&,$/86(6
7+,66,1*/()$0,/<
5(6,'(1&(6:,7+$&283/(2)
287%8,/',1*6+286,1*
5(6,'(1&(6+$6+$'$
&283/(2)5('(9(/230(17
352326$/6
7+('(/0217(&$)(+$6%((1$/$1'0$5.6,1&(7+(
6:+(17+(2/'9$&$170$5.(7:$67851(',172
$5(67$85$17
7+,6(&/(&7,&%8,/',1*+$66(59('$6$+$5':$5(6725($1'12:$0(17$/+($/7+
)$&,/,7<
,521+256(2)),&(%8,/',1*%8,/7,1 '2(6$*22'-2%$786,1*,1'8675,$/0$7(5,$/6
7+$721(0,*+7),1'$/21*$5$,/52$'52:
352326('675((7(/(9$7,21
352326('
)22735,17
3$5.,1*
6$17$%$5%$5$675((7
6$17$%$5%$5$$9(5$,/52$'648$5(
7+(25,*,1$/5$,/52$'648$5(%8,/',1*.12:1$67+(&+$11(/%8,/',1*:$6%$'/<'$0$*(',1$),5(,1
$/7+28*+
6:22'$'',7,216:(5('(6752<('7+(25,*,1$/%5,&.%8,/',1*:$6$%/(72%(
6$/9$*('&217(0325$5<$'',72160267/<,167((/&/$'',1*(5($''('72($&+(1'%22.(1',1*7+(
25,*,1$/6758&785($1'$//2:,1*,77267$1'2877+,6,6$*5($7(;$03/(2)$&217(0325$5<
$5&+,7(&785$/,17(59(17,21+$5021,=,1*12775<,1*725(3/,&$7(25&203(7(:,7+$:21'(5)8/
+,6725,&$/6758&785(
&,5&8067$1&(681,48(727+,6352-(&7 7$.(1)5202$6,6:(%3$*(
5(+$%,/,7$7,21$1'$'$37,9(5(86(2)$1+,6725,&$/6758&785(
68%67$17,$/38%/,&2875($&+$1'&20081,7<,192/9(0(17
),5('$0$*(5(6725$7,21
815(,1)25&('0$6215<6(,60,&5(752),7
7+(02675(&(17352-(&7&203/(7('216$17$%$5%$5$$9(,6$0,;2)&200(5&,$/$1'
5(6,'(17,$/7+(675((7)5217$*(,686,1*6+('522)6,1$6$:7227+25,(17$7,217+(
0$7(5,$/6$5($&20%,1$7,212)&(0(17%2$5'6,',1*(;7(5,253/$67(5$1'9$5,286
352),/(62)0(7$/3$1(/6
6$17$%$5%$5$$9(18(52:
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</:,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(
&
7
$,152),/$&)2
(7$
7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632
,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
Page 35 of 98
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</:,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&
%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(&
7
$,152),/$&)2
(7$
7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632
,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
6(&7,21&&
6&$/(
6&$/(
6(&7,21$$%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
6
(
&
7
,
2
1
6
&200(5&,$/63$&(
81,7
6(&7,21%%
1$785$/*5$'( (
0$;$//2:$%/(3523(57<'(9(/230(17287/,1(
127( 3523(57<727+(:(67,6=21('5
$63(5=21,1*5(*8/$7,216
81,7
81,7
81,7
0$;$//2:$%/(3523(57<'(9(/230(17287/,1(0$;$//2:$%/(3523(57<'(9(/230(17287/,1(
(175<:$/.:$<81,7
81,7
75,3/(;%(<21'
68%7(55$1($13$5.,1*/(9(/
%(<21'
+5),5(5$7,1*5(4
'
6((6+((7&%&&2'($1$/<6,6
+5),5(5$7,1*5(4
'
6((6+((7&%&&2'($1$/<6,6
35,9$7('(&.
($81,7
3$7,2
0$
;
+
7
$
/
/
2
:
(
'
5
3$5.,1*
+5),5(5$7,1*5(4
'
6((6+((7&%&&2'($1$/<6,6
+5),5(5$7,1*5(4
'
6((6+((7&%&&2'($1$/<6,6
('*(&21',7216$33/<6((6/2=21,1*25',1$1&(6(&7,21
$$*
$(*
$(*
$(*
$$*
HJ
$&78$/%8,/',1*6(7%$&.
9(57,&$/&859($63(53:67'
,17(532/$7('$6
581
'5,9($668%0,77('
'5,9($60$;,080'(&(17
&(
1
7
(
5
2
)
3
5
2
3
(
5
7
<
Page 36 of 98
1
:
1
:
1
(
1
(
6$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
,03(59,286$5($6)(;,67,1*6,7(
,03(59,286$5($6)
352326('6,7(/$1'6&$3($5($6)
3(59,2863$9(56 1$785$/$5($ 6)
/$1'6&$3($1'1$785$/$5($6)
6$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
727$/$5($
127( (;,67,1*6758&785(,621
&$,66216$1'5$,6('2))2'
7+(*5281'
6$1/8,62%,632&$
(//$675((7
$UFKLWHFW'HYHORSHU
%$55</:,//,$06
5(1(:$/
1R&
%$55</:,//,$06
$5&+,7(&
7
$,152),/$&)2(7$7
6
/,&(1 6 ('
EOZD#FKDUWHUQHW
EOZ
6
$
1
7
$
%
$
5
%
$
5
$
$
9
(
6
/
2
&
$
6%
0
,
;
(
'
8
6
(
2%,632,19(670(176,1&
&$/,)251,$%/9'67(&
6$1/8,62%6,32&$
Page 37 of 98
48$17
PLANT SYMBOL LEGEND
6<0%2/6,=(:$7(586(
3/$17:$7(586(3(5:8&2/6=21(
GROUND COVERS LEGEND
3/$171$0(
LS. AREA CALCULATION & HYDROZONES
BUILDING
PROPOSED
LP
LP
LP
LP
(1st fl GARAGE)
BUILDING
PROPOSED
³
LANDSCAPE DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS
GREEN CODE REQUIRMENTS :
LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BUILDING
PROPOSED
CASEY J PATTERSONLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1 10 /11 /23
LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENTPLAN
3/16" = 1'-0"
SB-LIVE-WORK STUDIOS1925 SANTA BARBARA STREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
:$7(5%8'*(7&$/&8/$7,21
WZK: d͗ ^ƚĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂ^ƚDŝdžĞĚhƐĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚ
Dtс; dŽͿdž;Ϭ͘ϲϮͿdž;Ϭ͘ϱϱdž>Ϳн;Ϭ͘ϯdž^>Ϳ
^>с Ϭ
Dtс ϭϬ͕Ϭϲϲ͘ϳ
dthс; ƚŽͿdž;Ϭ͘ϲϮͿdž;W&dž,ͬ/ Ϳн^>
^ŝƚĞ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽ
^ŝƚĞΖƐ dŽ͗ ϰϯ͘ϴ
/ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ͗ Ϭ͘ϴϭ K͘,с͘ϳϱŵĂdž
ƌŝƉс͘ϴϭ
WůĂŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌƐ
>Žǁ ϬͲϬ͘ϯ
DĞĚŝƵŵ Ϭ͘ϰͲϬ͘ϲ
,ŝŐŚ Ϭ͘ϳͲϭ͘Ϭ
d&с Ϭ͘ϱϱ Z ^͘сϬ͘ϰϱ
KD͘сϬ͘ϱϱ
WůĂŶƚŝŶŐ WůĂŶƚ ,LJĚƌŽnjŽŶĞ
,LJĚƌŽnjŽŶĞ dLJƉĞ &ĂĐƚŽƌ ƌĞĂ W&dž,;&d^YͿ dth >Kd/KE
ϭ >Žǁ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϲϳϰ ϭϯϱ ϰ͕ϱϭϵ ŶƚŝƌĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ
^Ƶŵ͗ ϲϳϰ ϭϯϱ ϰ͕ϱϭϵ dKd>
>ŽǁǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞĂƌĞĂƐ͗ ϲϳϰ
DĞĚŝƵŵǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞĂƌĞĂ͗ Ϭ
;h' dͿ ; ^d/Dd Ϳ
Dtс ϭϬ͕Ϭϲϳ dthс ϰ͕ϱϭϵ
;DĂdž͘ůůŽǁĞĚtĂƚĞƌůůŽƚŵĞŶƚͿ WƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚDt >K
;ĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚŝƐůŽǁĞƌƚŚĂƚďƵĚŐĞƚͿ
PLANT IMAGES
Page 38 of 98
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
April 22, 2024
Obispo Investments Inc
c/o Barry Williams
1103 Ella St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Application ARCH-0448-2022 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Architectural review of a new mixed-use development of three buildings, with
four residential units and street-fronting nonresidential, in the Railroad Historic
District
Dear Mr. Williams:
On April 22, 2024, I reviewed your client’s Architectural Review application regarding a new
mixed-use project within the Railroad Historic District. After reviewing the plans, I determined
that the project is minor and will not require review by the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC). Your plans are approved, based on findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land
Use Element (LUE) of the City’s General Plan applicable to development in a Services
and Manufacturing area, and with goals and policies of the General Plan’s Conservation
and Open Space Policies (COSE) for Cultural Heritage (COSE § 3). Mixed uses are
encouraged in commercial districts (LUE §3.8.5). The project’s residential component is
situated at the west side of the site, at the boundary with an adjacent residential
neighborhood to the west and provides enhanced building setbacks such that the
residential atmosphere of the adjacent neighborhood is protected (LUE §2.3.3). New
construction reflects the form, spacing, and materials of nearby historic structures and
does not affect the street appearance of buildings which contribute to the neighborhood’s
architectural character, consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy
3.3.4. Fiber cement board and plaster are employed as the predominant exterior materials,
which are visually compatible with the exterior materials of buildings in the vicinity.
2. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with standards and limitations set out in
the City’s Zoning Regulations. The site is within a Service Commercial (C-S) Zone, and
Mixed-Use Development is a permitted use in the Zone (§ 17.10.020). The project and
proposed new structures conform to applicable development standards for the zone
(Ch. 17.70), including enhanced Edge Condition setbacks at the boundary of the adjacent
residential neighborhood to the west (§17.70.050) and with standards for Mixed-Use
Development (§17.70.130).
3. According to the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee made on
Page 39 of 98
ARCH-0448-2022 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Page 2
March 25, 2024, the project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
(SLOMC Ch. 14.01) and the supporting Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
(HPPG), in particular with guidelines related to architectural compatibility (HPPG
§§ 3.2.1 & 3.3.2). The proposed new buildings are based on simple rectangular forms
and exhibit horizontal massing, sloping roof forms, grouped horizontal window patterns,
fiber cement board (simulating wood appearance) and plaster exterior materials, and trim
and roof detailing, consistent with Architectural Guidelines provided in the Railroad
District Plan, complementing the District’s historic character.
4. According to the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee made on
March 25, 2024, the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The proposed new construction has been
designed to be compatible in form, massing, color, and materials with the historic
character of the Railroad Historic District.
5. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines. It is designed in
an attractive and environmentally sensitive manner that responds to the character and
constraints of the site, fits in with site design and architecture in the vicinity, and logically
locates site elements for efficient operation (§ 2.1). The new building exhibits proper
proportion, harmony, simplicity, rhythm, balance, and is designed to coordinate with
existing structures on the site (§ 2.2) and is compatible with adjacent buildings and those
in the immediate neighborhood (§ 5.3).
6. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review, as Infill
Development (CEQA Guidelines §15332). The proposed development is consistent with
the Services and Manufacturing designation of the property, applicable General Plan
policies, and with the standards and land use limitations set out in Zoning Regulations
for the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone with Historic Overlay. The site measures less
than five acres in area, is located within City limits, substantially surrounded by urban
uses, and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Approval of
the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality,
or water quality, and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. The project does not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or
alteration of any historical resource or its immediate surroundings, and therefore does
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any such resource (CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5(b)). The historical resources nearest to the property are located on
separate parcels apart from the subject site, physically removed from, and not impacted
by, the proposed project. As described in Findings 3 and 4, the project has been found to
be architecturally compatible with adjacent and nearby historic resources and with the
character of the Railroad Historic District.
Conditions:
Please note the project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements.
Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional
requirements applicable to your project.
Page 40 of 98
ARCH-0448-2022 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Page 3
Planning
1. Conformance to approved plans and conditions. Final project design and construction
drawings submitted for building permits shall be in substantial compliance with approved
plans, as revised according to the direction provided by the Cultural Heritage Committee,
and with the conditions of approval herein. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in
plans submitted for permits, listing all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be
made in the margin of the listed conditions as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of
approval must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director.
2. Colors and materials. Plan submitted for permits to complete this project shall clearly
depict and describe all materials and colors, including siding, roofing, windows, and
decorative trim, and the dimensions of windows, including window frames and mullions,
lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, trim, and other related window features, shall be clearly
indicated, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
3. Night Sky Preservation. Plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project
shall include information about exterior lighting, including building-mounted lighting,
sufficient to verify conformance to Night Sky Preservation regulations (Zoning
Regulations Ch. 17.23).
Code Compliance Notes:
Engineering
1. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed public or private
easements for reference. Any required on-site or off-site easements shall be recorded prior
to building permit issuance.
2. Complete frontage improvements will be required as a condition of the building permit
including new curb, gutter, sidewalk and street paveout. The improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with the Engineering Standards in effect at the time of
encroachment permit issuance.
3. The building plan submittal shall note or dimension the street right-of-way width on the
site plan. The plan shall show the dimensions of the centerline to property line, centerline
to face of curb, and face of curb to property line for reference.
4. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle
parking to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include details
and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities. The building
plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all dimensions and clearances
to obstructions per city standard. The Title Sheet of plans shall include a parking
calculation describing the required and proposed bicycle parking for the project.
5. Final plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall be
accompanied by written confirmation of solid waste service by the City’s Franchise Waste
Hauler (San Luis Garbage).
6. Final plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall depict the
location of the proposed mail receptacles or mailbox unit (MBU) serving the project, to the
satisfaction of the Postmaster and the City Engineer. MBU’s shall not be located within
Page 41 of 98
ARCH-0448-2022 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Page 4
the public right-of-way or public sidewalk area, unless specifically approved by the City
Engineer.
Fire
7. Final plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall depict fire
sprinkler riser rooms with direct exterior access for each building with direct exterior
access, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
8. Proposed structures of Construction type “VB” and Occupancy Type “R-2,” as depicted in
final plans submitted for permits to complete this project, shall be provided with a full
NFPA 13-standard fire sprinkler system.
9. Plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall demonstrate
compliance with minimum fire separation distance standards (i.e., 10 feet from the exterior
edge of stairways and landings to adjacent lot lines and to other buildings on the same lot)
set out in applicable building and fire safety codes, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
10. Plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall depict fire
department ladder access from driveways to bedroom windows and roofs, compliant with
applicable building and fire safety codes. Distances from accessible ground up shall be
indicated, and any obstruction by support beams clearly noted.
11. Plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall show exit travel
distances from units to the public way from exterior exit stairs for the residential buildings.
Utilities
12. Final plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall include a site
utility plan showing the size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. The
construction plans for sewer and water services shall be in accordance with the engineering
design standards in effect at the time the building permit is approved. The project’s
commercial and residential uses shall be metered separately. All residential units are to be
individually metered. The sewer lateral serving the property shall be made with HDPE
material and shall be installed per the City’s engineering design standards.
13. Final plans submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall demonstrate
compliance with fire flow and fire sprinkler requirements for all floors of the proposed
project, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director and Chief Building Official. Design
plans shall be supported by engineering calculations, to be submitted with the building
permit.
14. The project is located within a capacity constrained area and shall satisfy the wastewater
flow offset requirements described in Municipal Code Section 13.08.396, prior to issuance
of construction permits to complete the project.
15. The building permit submittal shall include a final landscape design plan and irrigation
plan that includes all the criteria required in the City Engineering Standards Uniform
Design Criteria for Landscaping and Irrigation.
16. The project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) to support new ornamental landscaping
shall not exceed the project’s maximum applied water allowance (MAWA). Final plans
submitted for construction permits to complete this project shall include calculation and
information for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a
Page 42 of 98
ARCH-0448-2022 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Page 5
building permit to support required water demand of the project’s proposed landscaping.
17. Where commercial uses in the project may include food preparation, final plans submitted
for construction permits to complete this project shall depict provisions for grease
interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s). Such
commercial facilities shall be subject to issuance of an Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Survey and Permit Application prior to issuance of occupancy permit, and an area must be
provided to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans that is located inside, and drained
to the sanitary sewer.
18. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and
dust control. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit
program.
Building
19. The design of the under-building parking garage depicted in final plans submitted for
construction permits to complete this project must demonstrate compliance with building
and fire codes applicable to parking garages, including, but not limited to California
Building Code Sections 406 (Motor-Vehicle-Related Occupancies) and 705 (Fire and
Smoke Protection Features), and where electric vehicle charging facilities are provided,
California Fire Code Section 1207.
Housing
20. The project is subject to Inclusionary Housing Requirements described in Municipal Code
Chapter 17.138. Final plans for construction permits must be accompanied by a statement
describing the project’s inclusionary housing plan, as described in Zoning Regulations
Section 17.138.070(A).
21. The project is subject to the Commercial Linkage Fee described by Municipal Code
Chapter 4.60. The fee must be paid in full prior to the issuance of the first building permit
for the commercial development project.
Indemnification
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers
or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and
all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified
Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being
presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an
Indemnified Claim.
My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of the decision. Anyone
may appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department
within the time specified. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal
documentation. Appeals will be scheduled for the first available Planning Commission meeting
date. If an appeal is filed, you will be notified by mail of the date and time of the hearing.
The Community Development Director’s approval of this project will automatically expire in
one year, unless plans for a building permit have been submitted, or unless a different
Page 43 of 98
ARCH-0448-2022 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Page 6
expiration date or unlimited expiration is stipulated at the time of approval, per Municipal Code
section 2.48.070. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single, one-
year extension, provided, that approval not exceed a maximum of two years from the date of
original approval.
Included with this letter is an invoice for the Completion Fee associated with this planning
application, which is now due. Completion Fees are to be paid within six months of the final
action taken on planning services provided or prior to the acceptance of a building permit to
construct the project. Please note that building permit applications will not be accepted prior
to payment of the Completion Fee. Payment of this fee may be made in person, online, by mail
or by phone.
In Person Payment: Please visit the Community Development Department at 919 Palm Street,
Monday and Wednesday between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., and Tuesday and Thursday between
9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. In person payments can be made in cash, check, or credit/debit card.
Payment Online: The online payment portal has launched. Please visit the link:
https://infoslo.slocity.org/EnerGov_Prod/selfservice#/home to pay the invoice online.
Payment by Mail: Mailed payments must be check, payable to City of San Luis Obispo, with
the application number from the subject line of this letter included, and sent to:
CDD Planning Fees
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Payment by Phone: Call our main line 805-781-7170, please press option #6 to speak with a
staff member to process credit card payment.
If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, please contact Walter Oetzell,
Assistant Planner at (805) 781-7593, or by email at: woetzell@slocity.org
Sincerely,
Tyler Corey
Deputy Director
Community Development
Page 44 of 98
Page 45 of 98
Page 46 of 98
railroad district plan
page
architectural guidelines
Architectural Guidelines for the Railroad District
San Luis Obispo has adopted citywide architectural guidelines which apply to new buildings, significant remodels, site improvements, and public area im-
provements. The Railroad District Architectural Guidelines are to supplement the citywide architectural guidelines and are to be applied in a similar manner,
except that they apply only to the Railroad District as shown in Figure 4. Within this area, new development, remodels and additions, site improvements,
and publicly-funded projects should follow these guidelines. Property owners, developers, designers, City staff and advisory bodies, such as the Cultural
Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission will use these guidelines to review development projects, consistent
with Municipal Code Chapter 2.48.
Many of the older buildings in the Railroad District are generally described as “Railroad Vernacular” buildings. A variety of architectural styles fall under this
category. Some of the more common architectural elements exemplifying this architectural style are illustrated in this document. These examples provide a
“menu” of architectural elements which can be incorporated into new development projects in the Railroad District. New buildings need not include all of these
elements, nor be designed to be a replica of a historic building. The Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission interpret the guidelines
and will consider contemporary architectural styles which are consistent with these guidelines and which complement the District’s historic character.
Examples of different architectural styles that may generally be referred to as Railroad Vernacular.
Page 47 of 98
railroad district plan
page
architectural guidelines
1. Simple, rectilinear building forms should
predominate.
2. Lower building level (ground floor) massing
should be horizontal with equal or lesser volume
on upper levels.
3. Use medium-sloping roofs, generally 4:12 - 8:12
pitch.
4. False-front buildings with shed roofs and parapets
may be used.
5. Gable, hip, and shed roof forms are typical, with
some combinations and minor variations.
6. Deep roof overhangs are common, particularly
for commercial buildings, at ground floor level.
7. Roof overhangs are typically supported with
exposed, diagonal support braces or decorative
brackets.
8. Simple gable, hipped, or Dutch hipped dormers
can be used for light or ventilation.
Building Form, Massing, and
Roof Lines
Shed roofed buildings help increase light and ventilation in
industrial buildings and contribute to the character of the
District.
Roof lines and details.Simple, rectilinear building forms.
Page 48 of 98
railroad district plan
page
Doors and Windows
1. Doors and windows should emphasize
symmetry and be vertically oriented.
2. Doors should typically be single or multi-
panel, occasionally with glazing and transom
windows above doors.
3. Windows are typically fixed, or double hung,
often with divided lites.
4. Windows are often grouped in multiples of
two or three, side by side.
5. Horizontal windows may be used with
divided lites and may be grouped.
6. Doors and windows should generally have
wood or plaster trim.
7. Windows in plaster buildings may be arched
and recessed, sometimes with wood trim.
architectural guidelines
Single and multi-panel doors emphasizing
symmetry.
Various windows, single and grouped, with
divided lites.
This rendering shows many of the elements which
contribute to the Railroad Vernacular style, including eaves
with exposed rafters, a single panel door, and recessed
windows with divided lites.
Page 49 of 98
railroad district plan
page
architectural guidelines
Surface Treatment and Colors
Wood Buildings
1. Horizontal and vertical shiplap, “V-rustic” siding, or board and batten siding are common.
2. Shingles are often used as infill siding for gable ends or above doors and windows, away
from people contact areas.
3. Wood trim is commonly used to create decorative patterns.
4. Siding may change direction in the same plane to provide variety in surface pattern and
texture.
5. Horizontal trim may be used to separate board patterns or to create a wainscot effect.
6. Emphasize lighter earthtones such as tan and ochre, with contrasting trim and roof colors.
Accent colors are generally low chroma and relatively neutral colors.
7. Common roof materials include composition shingle, rolled asphalt roofing, built-up roofing,
low profile corrugated metal, and barrel tile. Barrel tile is occasionally used to accent ridges
on composition shingle roofs.
8. If chimneys are used, they are generally of brick with simple ornamentation at the cap.
9. Foundations are commonly emphasized with brick, stone, or plaster wainscot.
Plaster/Masonry Buildings
1. Brick is commonly used as an exterior building material.
2. Plaster should have a smooth, hand-finished appearance. Stucco or heavily-troweled finishes
should be avoided.
3. Plaster buildings are usually white or off-white with accent plaster colors at wainscot or in
accent areas. Accent colors should be pastel or low chroma.
4. Plaster building wainscots at lower walls may be flush and painted simply, or dimensional.
5. Roof material is generally barrel tile, or sometimes “diamond pattern” or similar decorative
composition shingle roofing with accent tiles. Built-up roofing is also common.
Auxiliary Buildings
1. Auxiliary buildings may be sided with the same material as adjacent principle buildings on
the same lot; or if solitary, wood or unpainted corrugated metal panel siding is common.
2. Roofs should generally consist of composition shingles or corrugated metal panels.
Wood or corrugated metal panel siding, or plaster are
common surfaces. Stucco should be avoided.
Page 50 of 98
railroad district plan
page
Architectural Details
1. Commercial buildings generally have simple detailing with little decoration or ornamentation.
2. Some carved shapes are used for rafter tiles, brackets, roof eave bracing, and roof gutters.
3. More elaborate ornamentation is common on masonry buildings, including parapet details, towers or decorative cornices or quoins.
4. Finials and decorative wood work is sometimes used at roof ridges.
5. Plaster corners are typically rounded.
6. Connection details, particularly for large structures, are visually emphasized, sometimes with timber connectors, bolts, brackets or other similar
hardware.
7. Linear raised decks or platforms common with structures with raised floors.
8. Exterior-mounted mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, fire suppression equipment, and antennas should be architecturally
screened.
Signs and Awnings
1. Signage should generally be non-illuminated. Spot lighting should be used where lighting is needed.
2. Signs should either be monument type, or painted or applied individual letters directly on building walls.
3. The City will consider exceptions to Sign Regulations to encourage historic sign designs and placement.
4. Signs within the Railroad right-of-way should be simple, clearly legible, and reflect historical railroad graphic standards and colors.
architectural guidelines
Elaborate ornamentation is common on masonry buildings. The City will consider exceptions to the Sign Regulations to encourage historic sign designs.
Page 51 of 98
railroad district plan
page 0
architectural guidelines
Site and Public Area Improvements
1. Site improvements, such as seating areas, bollards, stairs, ramps and
walkways should be designed to complement the railroad architectural
character. Public improvements such as, but not limited to, traffic controls,
street lights, signs, benches and trash containers should be designed
in a historic character similar to styles prevalent in the Railroad District
before 1950, and they shall be approved by the Architectural Review
Commission before the final design is completed.
2. Lighting in the depot area should closely resemble the design of the
railroad era downlights used in the passenger platform area. All lighting
should be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties.
3. Pole lights, bollards, information signs, trees and other vertical landscape
features should be used to create repetitive, linear, rhythmic elements along
the railroad corridor to complement the District’s historic character.
4. In the passenger depot and other high traffic areas, an open-style,
decorative fencing and/or rails should be used. In non-traffic areas
abutting the railroad right-of-way, storage areas, construction yards and
similar uses should be visually screened from the railroad right-of-way.
Appropriate fencing materials include vinyl-clad chainlink, steel picket,
wrought iron and other similar, low-maintenance open fences which
discourage graffiti. Combination wood and metal rails may also be
appropriate. Solid, plain masonry and concrete, walls; and residential-style
wood fencing should generally be avoided or accompanied by climbing
vines to discourage graffiti.
5. Security fencing, such as barbed or concertina wire, should be minimized
where visible from the railroad yard or a public way. The Architectural
Review Commission may approve the use of security fencing when
such materials are visually compatible with their surroundings and used
sparingly.
6. Public sidewalks along portions of Osos, Santa Barbara, Church, Emily,
High, and Roundhouse streets within the Railroad District should be a
City-approved wood boardwalk design.
7. Decorative paving using patterns or integral color is encouraged in specific
areas to define or clarify circulation or activity areas.
8. Pedestrian bridges, underpasses and other transportation- or rail-related
structures should use historic materials and design elements. Possible
elements include: metal and heavy timber structural supports with
exposed connectors; local stone or brick foundations or bases; and use
of spur track, railroad ties or other railroad equipment and materials.
Figure 26: Railroad District
pedestrian lighting, typical
Page 52 of 98
railroad district plan
page 1
Landscape Design
1. Planting areas should be provided: 1)
in or adjacent to outdoor public use
areas; 2) along the railroad right-of-way
to screen storage yards, solid walls or
fences, or unsightly views; and along
public street parkways.
2. Planting should be used sparingly to
define pedestrian use areas, waiting
areas, and other high visibility/high traffic
areas that can be regularly maintained.
3. Planting within the railroad right-of-way
should be low-profile, generally not over
12-15 feet tall, to provide screening and
color.
4. Tree planting within or immediately
adjacent to the railroad right-of-way
should emphasize open, medium-
height canopy trees; and trees should
be selected and placed to preserve and
frame scenic vistas of the Morros and
surrounding hillsides. Within the historic
Railroad Yard, Canary Island Date Palms
or equal should be used to extend the
Southern Pacific theme as an entry
statement for the Railroad District.
architectural guidelines
Railroad District boardwalk.
Page 53 of 98
railroad district plan
page 2
Residential Buildings
1. New residential buildings should generally maintain the prevailing
spacing, scale, setbacks and character of older houses and
apartments along Osos, Santa Barbara, and Church streets.
2. New houses and apartments should generally reflect the District’s
predominant architectural styles, which include, but are not limited
to California Bungalow, Spanish Revival, Italianate, and Victorian.
New development should include architectural features common to
the particular architectural style.
3. Raised foundations, covered front porches, and recessed front entries
are common residential architectural features.
4. Architectural detailing at roof gable ends, roof eaves, windows, doors,
railings, foundations, and chimneys should be emphasized, and be
used consistently on all building elevations.
5. Site features such as exterior lighting, paving, walls, fences, railings
and landscaping should be selected for ease of maintenance and for
compatibility with traditional designs and materials.
6. Utility areas, trash enclosures, and uncovered parking spaces (except
in driveways) should generally be screened with landscaping and/or
low walls or fencing.
Remodels and Additions
1. Remodels and additions should be sensitive to the building’s original
character and to the character of adjacent buildings. Roof pitch,
building form and materials, windows and doors, and architectural
detailing should, where possible, match existing building features
and be compatible with the scale, spacing, setbacks and massing
of adjacent buildings within the Railroad Historic District.
2. Building colors and materials should complement the building’s
historic character. When remodeling designated historic structures,
materials and details should be used honestly such as wood sash
windows to replace existing wood windows. Simulated or veneer
products should generally be avoided.
3. When remodeling or adding on to designated historic structures,
property owners and designers are encouraged to follow the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
architectural guidelines
Figure 27: Residential Remodel and Addition
Above: This rendering shows the potential for remodelling and expanding residential structures while
maintaining the architectural character of the Railroad District. Below: A photograph of the structure.
Page 54 of 98
RECORDING REQUESTED
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
JULIE RODE ii
San Luis Obispo County— ClerklRecorder
Recorded at the request of
Public
uoc #: 2002039415
RESOLUTION NO. 9310 (2002 SERIES)
SR
5/10/2002
11:42 AM
Titles: 1 Pages: 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES TO INCLUDE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1902 CHORRC STREET
WHEREAS, in 1983 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5197 establishing the
Master List of Historic Resources," along with procedures for adding properties to the listing; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2002 the Cultural Heritage Committee held an advertised public
hearing to consider recommending to the City Council the addition of 1902 Chorro Street to the
Master List of Historic Resources due to its historical and/or architectural significance to the
community; and
WHEREAS, at said meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the historical
documentation on the property and recommended that the City Council add the property to the
Master List of Historic Resources; and;.
WHEREAS, this City Council considered this recommendation during a public hearing on
May 7, 2002 pursuant to historic preservation guidelines established by Council Resolution No.
6157 (1987 Series);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that based on the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation, documentation as described in
the Historical Resource Inventory for the property, on file in the Community Development
Department, public testimony, the staff report, and on the City's Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines the following:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. The building located at 1902 Chorro Street meets the Historic Resource Criteria For
Building Evaluation and Recommendations as listed in the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, under the following categories:
R9310
Fees 0.00
Taxes 0.00
Others 0.00
PAID 0.00
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES TO INCLUDE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1902 CHORRC STREET
WHEREAS, in 1983 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5197 establishing the
Master List of Historic Resources," along with procedures for adding properties to the listing; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2002 the Cultural Heritage Committee held an advertised public
hearing to consider recommending to the City Council the addition of 1902 Chorro Street to the
Master List of Historic Resources due to its historical and/or architectural significance to the
community; and
WHEREAS, at said meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the historical
documentation on the property and recommended that the City Council add the property to the
Master List of Historic Resources; and;.
WHEREAS, this City Council considered this recommendation during a public hearing on
May 7, 2002 pursuant to historic preservation guidelines established by Council Resolution No.
6157 (1987 Series);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that based on the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation, documentation as described in
the Historical Resource Inventory for the property, on file in the Community Development
Department, public testimony, the staff report, and on the City's Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines the following:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. The building located at 1902 Chorro Street meets the Historic Resource Criteria For
Building Evaluation and Recommendations as listed in the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, under the following categories:
R9310
Page 55 of 98
o
Resolution No. 9310 (2002 Series)
Page 2
I. Architectural Criteria
1. Relative purity of a traditional style: Colonial Dutch Barn Style.
2. Rarity of existence of the single -story, Gambrel Roof style structure.
4. Degree to which the structure has maintained its architectural integrity.
Ii. Design
2. Overall attractiveness because of craftsmanship and aesthetic value, though not
necessarily unique. -
IV. Architect/Builder
1. The house was designed and built by John Chapek, a designer/builder who, in
terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo.
VI. History- Person
3. The house is associated with John Chapek, an early San Luis Obispo builder and
Town Council member who made early, unique or outstanding contributions to
important local affairs or institutions.
B. Historic designation does not constitute a "project" as defined under Section 15378 of Title
14, Ch. 3 Califomia Code of Regulations and therefore is not subject to review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 2. Addition to Master List of Historic Resources. The building located at
1902 Chorro Street (Exhibit A) is hereby added to the Master List of Historic Resources as the
historic `Bittick Residence" with the numeric historic ranking as a Type #5 historic property
historically significant at a local level but not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places),
as further described in the Documentation of Historical Significance and Historic Resources
Inventory for the property, on file in the Community Development Department.
SECTION 3. Publish Revised Master List. The Community Development Director is
hereby directed to amend the Master List of Historic Resources to include the property listed above,
and to publish a revised Master List for public distribution.
SECTION 4. Recording of Historic Properties. The City Clerk is hereby directed to
record the properties' historic designation with the County Recorder, pursuant to State Law.
On motion of Vice Mayor Marx, seconded by Council Member Mulholland and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ewan, Mulholland, Schwartz, Vice Mayor Marx and
Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Page 56 of 98
Resolution No. 9310 (2002 Series)
Page 3
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of May 2002.
Mayor Allen K. Seth
A'
ee Price, City Clf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
51 3
I ff nor ense , City tort}
Page 57 of 98
V
Resolution No. 9310 (2002 Series)
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LISTED HISTORIC PROPERTY
Following is the legal description of the property added to the City of San Luis Obispo's Master List
of Historic Resources, by City Council Resolution No. 9310 (2002 Series):
1902 Chorro Street. (Historic Name: `Bittick Residence ")
City of San Luis Obispo, Ingleside Homestead Tract, Block 186, Lot 3 (Assessor's Parcel
Number (APN #) 003 -647 -002). Owners: Wayne and Leslie Terry.
END OF DOCUMENTPage 58 of 98
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve application ARCH-
0448-2022, regarding a mixed-use development at 1925 Santa Barbara Avenue
Cultural Heritage Committee
The Committee shall review and make recommendations to the Director on
applications and development review projects which include new construction
located in historic districts (Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030(C)(4))
January 22, 2024: Review continued to “a date uncertain;” with
direction (building massing, height, placement, roof forms, details)
March 25th, 2024: Recommended that the Director find the project
consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, considering:
Conformance to Historic Preservation Ordinance, supporting Guidelines, and
guidance from Railroad District Plan
Correspondence to the Cultural Heritage Committee from the public
(including the appellant), over the course of two public hearings
Public comment provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee (including
comment by the applicant), over two public hearings
Prior Review
Prior Review
Community Development Director
April 22, 2024: Approved, based on findings and subject to conditions
Director’s Decision took into consideration:
Conformance to applicable General Plan policies
Conformance to Development Standards (Zoning Regulations)
Consistency with Community Design Guidelines
Conformance to Historic Preservation Ordinance, supporting Guidelines,
and guidance from Railroad District Plan
Correspondence to the Cultural Heritage Committee from the public
(including the appellant), over the course of two public hearings
Public comment provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee (including
comment by the applicant), over two public hearings
Correspondence provided directly to the Community Development Director
from the public (including the appellant)
Recommendation
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Community
Development Director approving application ARCH-0448-2022
Review Framework
Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5)
Limits the city's ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing
development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards and
contribute to meeting housing need absent a finding of a specific, adverse impact.
Housing Crisis Act (Government Code § 66300)
Provides that a city may not impose or enforce design standards established on or after
January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards.
“Objective design standard” means a design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a
public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before
submittal of an application.
Appeal
The appellant claims his right to public comment was hindered at the
March 25th Cultural Heritage Committee hearing, by refusal of a visual
presentation to supplement public comment; could not adequately provide
important information to the Committee
Requests to utilize visual aids immediately prior to hearing often cannot be
accommodated (Electronic Visual Aid Policy)
Photographs of properties in vicinity were available and were displayed during
appellant’s public comment; pattern study and photographs also provided in
project plans
Substantial information provided to the Committee by appellant, through
agenda correspondence and public comment provided over the course of two
public hearings
Correspondence sent to the Community Development Director prior to the
decision on the application
Appeal
The appellant claims that the process by which the Cultural Heritage
Committee formed their recommendation was inadequate and
inappropriate, and hampered the ability of the Director to make an informed
decision…
All relevant policies, standards, and guidelines were fully evaluated, including
those directly raised and discussed in the appellant’s correspondence and
public comment to the Committee during two public hearings
Ex-parte discussions and familiarity with the project architect were properly
disclosed during Committee hearings
Applicant’s absence from second hearing was inadvertent scheduling error;
Committee may still deliberate and act, and had sufficient information to do so
at second hearing
Appeal
The appellant claims that no delineation is made between portions of
Railroad District north and south of Upham Street; Project does not follow
area’s development pattern (height, massing, spacing) or mimic other
mixed-use developments in the area
Development standards from Zoning Regulations apply (Railroad Plan provides
no height or setback standards)
Project conforms to all applicable development standards, including enhanced
rear setbacks (Edge Conditions)
Height, just over 25 feet from ground level, consistent with surrounding
development, and with 35-foot height limit applicable to development in the
Service Commercial (C-S) Zone and in the adjacent Medium Density
Residential (R-2) Zone
The appellant claims the project will negatively impact Master List Historical
Resources
The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any
historical resource
Substantial adverse change requires material impairment to the significance of an
historic resource
A resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in
an adverse manner the physical characteristics of a resource that convey its
historical significance and that justify its inclusion in the Register (Guidelines §
15064(b))
There is no evidence in the record that the project may result in a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource by effectuating a
physical change to the resource itself
Appeal
APPL-0232-2024 (1925 Santa Barbara)
Appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve application ARCH-
0448-2022, regarding a mixed-use development at 1925 Santa Barbara Avenue
Recommended Action
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Community Development Director
approving Minor Development Review application ARCH-0448-2022
ARCH-0448-2022
1925 Santa Barbara
Mixed Use Development
Requesting rejection of the Community Director’s findings regarding
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code (Historic Preservation Ordinance,
Historic Preservation Guideline, the Railroad District Plan, the San Luis
Obispo Community Design Guidelines and Title 17)
Return to applicant for modifications
Natural Grade
Conflicts
Spacing Scale Setbacks
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Historic Preservation Guideline
Railroad District Plan
San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
Title 17 City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Return to applicant for modifications
19
2
5
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
–
MI
X
E
D
U
S
E
19
2
5
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
–
MI
X
E
D
U
S
E
19
2
5
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
–
MI
X
E
D
U
S
E
19
2
5
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
–
MI
X
E
D
U
S
E
19
2
5
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
–
MI
X
E
D
U
S
E
19
2
5
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
–
MI
X
E
D
U
S
E
EX
I
S
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
19
2
5
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
– MI
X
E
D
U
S
E
PERSPECTIVE AND SCALE -1951 SANTA BARBARA PERSPECTIVE AND SCALE 1925 SANTA BARBARA