The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20250514 1321 Garden Emails1 From:Tami Simpson <violaconstructioninc@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 25, 2025 3:23 PM To:LaFreniere, Matt Subject:Re: 1321 & 1323 Garden St Thank you! On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 9:54 AM LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tami, Attached are the utility grid maps. Thank you, Matt LaFreniere pronouns he/him/his Engineering Technician III Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mlafreni@slocity.org T 805.781.7015 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tami Simpson <violaconstructioninc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:02 AM To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: 1321 & 1323 Garden St This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 2 Matt, Just checking in on these maps ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tami Simpson <violaconstructioninc@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:46 AM Subject: 1321 & 1323 Garden St To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Matt, Hope all is well with you! Can you send me over the utility maps for the above address when you get a chance? -- Sincerely, Tami Simpson Viola Construction, Inc. P.O Box 198 Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 Phone (805)474-9745 Fax (805) 474-1522 -- Sincerely, Tami Simpson 3 Viola Construction, Inc. P.O Box 198 Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 Phone (805)474-9745 Fax (805) 474-1522 -- Sincerely, Tami Simpson Viola Construction, Inc. P.O Box 198 Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 Phone (805)474-9745 Fax (805) 474-1522 1 From:cknauer243@aol.com Sent:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 9:24 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Re: tree protection garden 1 Thanks Walter.. Chris On Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at 08:35:01 AM PST, Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Chris, Thanks for providing the photos. The tree protection fencing is a step in the right direction. The fencing is very close to the trunks of the trees and based on its location and the signs of grading in the critical root zone, I’m concerned about the impact to the trees. How they respond will need to be monitored. As a reminder, there is no exception from submitting a tree removal application and obtaining approval to remove trees on your property. This includes dead trees. Please follow protocol in the future. It is imperative that there is clarity regarding tree trimming and removal during construction activities. Thank you, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: cknauer243@aol.com <cknauer243@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 1:20 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: tree protection garden 1 2 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Walter, As discussed, here are some pictures with installed tree protection fencing. Call me with questions. Thanks Chris Knauer 1323 Garden 805-801-5251 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: CHRIS KNAUER <cknauer243@aol.com> To: chris knauer <cknauer243@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 01:18:06 PM PST Subject: tree protection garden 1 Sent from my iPhone 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Monday, April 29, 2024 2:06 PM To:building Subject:BLDG-0330-2022 PC#3 Response for 1321 & 1323 Garden Street Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V3_khA Rspn.docx; BLDG-0330-2022_BV_BLDG_REVIEW_V3_khA Rspn_ 2024-04-16.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. This is our Plan Check Review Response for the 3 rd review of BLDG-0330-2022… 1. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS (files aƩached to this email) a. For response to the Community Development PC#3 Comment List see… BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V3_khA Rspn.docx b. For response to the Bureau Veritas PC#3 Comment List see … BLDG-0330-2022_BV_BLDG_REVIEW_V3_khA Rspn_2024-04-16.pdf 2. 24 x 36 PLAN SET : Link to the plans… hƩps://www.dropbox.com/ Best regards, Keith Hall khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 Date: April 8, 2024 Plan Check Review # 3 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: _____yes __X____no Print Name: Keith Hall If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: Project Address 1333 Garden St. Project Name Lofts on Garden Application Number BLDG-0330-2022 Review of New 3- Story SFR w/ attached ADU Occupancy Class R-3 Construction Type VB Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text. Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 2 Planning Division Graham Bultema gbultema@slocity.org 805-781-7111 ☒ Ready for Action ☐ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) 1. Payment of the completion fee (invoice #00022883) 2. Provide an explanation for changes made from approved project plans ARCH-0543-2019 - Conditions of Approval (dated Nov. 20, 2020)  Condition #1 –  Condition #4 –  Condition #5 –  Condition #6 Engineering Development Review Richard Avila Phil Dowty ravila@slocity.org Pdowty@slocity.org Mobile: 949.283.2270 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: These plans are considered incomplete and additional comments may apply when all minimum plan information and/or supporting documentation is provided through the plan review process. Provide responses to each comment, as appropriate, and note on what page(s) in the plan set each item is addressed. Include the name and phone # of the person(s) providing responses. The following items are required prior to building permit issuance: 3. The project shall show and document compliance with the 2014 Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building permit application shall include the required PCR checklist to show compliance with any pertinent standards. The checklist is available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5190 . Correct the Stormwater Control Plan section (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area does not include replaced area. This number seems to be high. Section (e) should not be 0 (2nd P/C) The PCR checklist has been received, however please complete the Project Information in Step 1: Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 3 4. If the PCR checklist triggers water quality requirements, then provide a Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) on a form provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Add this to cover sheet 5. Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the coversheet that identifies Stormwater Plan BMPs used for compliance for Performance Requirements 1-4 and required inspection by EOR during construction. Fill in the blank with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Refer to the project’s Post Construction Stormwater Plan. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: Project is subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Project is Exempt: _(yes or no)___ If no, Project meets: Performance Req. 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Performance Req. 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of _____________. Performance Req. 3 Runoff Retention through use of _____________ Performance Req. 4 Peak Management through use of _____________. The following items need correction on the draft construction plans : General 6. Verify address of 1333 Garden. City maps show property as 1321 Garden. (2nd P/C) Based on Owner’s response it seems that the address on plans should be revised to 1321 Garden Street, if not, please provide additional explanation for leaving the address for the Main residence. 7. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 8. The building plans shall clearly note if existing frontage improvements meet current compliance with city standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA driveway, etc. 9. Include reference on the cover sheet of the plans to the project soils report. Include reference to the Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 4 soils engineering firm, report number, and report date. 10. Provide an update and/or final review letter from the soils engineer stating that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report. (2nd P/C) Architect’s response acknowledged, however review letter not found. Please resubmit, or email pdf to: pdowty@slocity.org Sheet C-2 11. Clarify on this sheet if Building C or any of the utilities were ever installed? Site Plan A-0.1 12. Provide a legend to show what different hatching patterns represent. Utilities 13. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). (2nd P/C) Utility sheet has been added. Please include the following information (see image below for reference): o Show size and material for existing sewer and water mains in Garden St. (6” VCP Sewer, and 8” PVC Water). o Show existing water service and reference size of meter and lateral (3/4” mtr. With ¾” lateral). o Identify size and material for new sewer lateral. o See minor drafting comments below: Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 5 14. No plumbing system, drainage system, building sewer, private sewage disposal system, or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities. CPC 307.1 15. The plan shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 16. Sewer laterals shall be protected with a backwater valve where in finish floor of the structure is located less than 1’ above the BFE at the next upstream sewer manhole [SLOMC 15.04.020.LL] Grading 17. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 6 (2nd P/C) The Engineer’s response does not address the entire comment; please show existing buildings within 15 feet of this property (existing bldg. adjacent to north-west PL is not shown, or existing drainage in the same area). (2nd P/C) Drainage is directed to existing inlet, please show existing drain pipe and how the run-off discharges to street or other downstream facility.  (3RD P/C) Engineer’s response acknowledged, however for common ownership a “Reservation” for future dedication will be required for drainage, access or any appropriate reciprocal easements on adjacent lots with common ownership. A clear boxed note may be added to the plan indicating “Reservation for reciprocal drainage, access….. to be recorded prior to final inspection”, however the linework and identification of the reservations must be shown on the plan. Please contact Phil Dowty, 949.283.2270 with questions or to discuss further. RESPONSE: See response in Red below from civil engineer Above Grade Engineering. Refer to updated sheet C-2.1 for existing storm drain lines and existing easements associated with them. (2nd P/C) CBC 1804.4 required 2%minimum slope on earth swale within 10’ of property, some slopes shown are less than the minimum.  (3rd P/C) Engineer’s response acknowledged, however the issues mentioned may be addressed with area drain inlets/pipe using minimum slopes, or concrete swale, or possibly raised pad elevation. Or, have soils engineer provide a memo supporting slopes shown or alternate criteria. Please contact Phil Dowty, 949.283.2270 with questions or to discuss further. RESPONSE: See response in Red below from civil engineer Above Grade Engineering. Refer to updated sheet C-1.1. Site Drainage 18. Clarify the proposed drainage strategy. Provide complete details of all proposed drainage features. Show drainage arrows existing and proposed contours to clearly indicate the altered drainage. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed across property lines. The improved drainage may be retained/detained on site with a controlled outlet to mimic pre-construction historic run-off. Indicate if there is a specific location of the historic outlet. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17 19. Show the finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grades adjacent to building, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. CRC 300.2 20. Show drainage on site plan – slopes & direction of flow. The ground adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 7 diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2%. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17, the area below does not have adequate slope: 21. Provide a detail of the Drainage Swale. Show drainage swale flowline grades, high points and low points of the swales and drainage arrows, for reference, if applicable. 22. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. [§406.3.3 CBC] Show compliance 23. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas or swale. Induce sheet flow at outlet of swale to mimic historic sheet flows. Flood Zone Requirements: 24. Include a note on the cover sheet of the plans and/or at the project data defining the flood zone designation, depth or BFE, and ordinance requirements for minimum FF height or the height of floodproofing, wet floodproofing, and/or floodgates if applicable. Include any additional notes regarding the protection of any building service equipment 25. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The new garage structure must be raised or may be “wet” floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. See FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93 for “wet” floodproofing requirements. The building construction materials located below the elevation of the BFE plus one foot of freeboard shall be constructed with flood-resistant materials in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08 and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Floodproofing of the office spaces located at the first floor is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. (2nd P/C) Applicant’s response reference a new note 01 11 B1 on sheet F-1.0, however the note was not found. Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 8 27. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 28. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and office spaces located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 29. Provide venting for all of the “wet” floodproofed areas. Venting shall be provided at the rate of 1 square inch per 1 square foot of floor area. Vents shall be located with the bottom of the opening located not more than 12” above grade. A minimum of two vents shall be provided. 30. The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer: (2nd P/C) The following notes have been added to Sheet T-1, however please add a signature block specifically for “Flood Zone Notes”, to be signed by Engineer or Architect. (2nd P/C) Due to updated FEMA forms and City requirements the following notes have been updated as shown in red:  The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations.  Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.  Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate for “dry” water proofing (FEMA form FF- 206-FY-22-153, or most current version) and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. At a minimum, supporting documentation shall include a comprehensive Maintenance Plan to include the following items: 1) Photographs of labeled flood gates installed at each location. 2) Reduced floor plan showing location of flood gate storage area/room and all flood protected openings with labels to match the corresponding labeled flood gate. 3) Instructions and details for installation of floodgates, gaskets and hardware. 4) Instructions for annual maintenance/inspection of building envelope, flood gates, gaskets, hardware and utility conduit/pipe seals In the case of the AO zone, the architect of record may complete the elevation certificate.  Prior to final inspection approval the contractor or owner shall provide documentation to the City Engineer certifying “wet” floodproofing per F.E.M.A. Technical Bulletin 7-93, page 4. This certification to be signed by Contractor or Engineer clearly stating the water proofing Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 9 and venting conforms to FEMA requirements (Technical Bulletin 7-93) – also see comment #30 for additional certification requirements.  A non-conversion agreement for the garage shall be recorded prior to occupancy or final inspection approval in accordance with MC Section 17.84.040.B.10. (2nd P/C) Flood gate sections have been added to sheet F-1.0, also include the required elastomeric waterproof membrane on all floodproofing section details to protect construction assemblies. Note the specific gasketing proposed for the floodgates. Show and label the existing and/or proposed floodgate storage room(s) on the floor plans for reference. Also please show how the flood panels mount to the building. 31. The contractor, architect, or owner responsible for construction and compliance with the approved plans, codes, and ordinances shall summarize in writing that the minimum following “wet” floodproofing requirements have been achieved: a. The portion of the structure located below the BFE + 1’ of freeboard has been constructed of flood-resistant materials meeting the requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08. b. The structure has been designed for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters or has otherwise been designed to resist the appropriate hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. c. Mechanical and utility equipment have been elevated to 1’ above the BFE or have been floodproofed. d. The structure meets the wet floodproofing requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93. e. Statement that the architect observed the construction of the building to ensure it is in compliance with the above requirements. f. Include pictures of the flood-resistant construction, utility service equipment, and flood openings. Fees / Addressing Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org Phone (805) 781-7588 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: 1. APN reflects the address to be 1321 Garden Street. Please update all plan sheet accordingly. Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 10 2. Please clearly note the square footage of the new residence and ADU. Please breakdown the square footages for each dwelling and accessory spaces. 3. Address assigned to ADU is 1321 A Garden Street. Please add the newly assigned address to the plans. 4. The Civil sheets in the plan set that are stamped approved from 2010 need to be removed and replaced with updated plan sheets. 5. Updated Building Address: Building Address: Main Residence: 1323 Garden Street ADU: 1321 Garden Street RESPONSE: The addresses as listed above are included in the Project information on Title Sheet T-1. Additionally, 1321 & 1323 are included in the project title block of the plan set. Please update the plans to reflect the above assigned addressing. 6. Final fees pending other department reviews. RESPONSE: The Owner will pay fees prior to permit issuance. City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 3 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 1333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the THIRD plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS • This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list. • These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicabl e codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation. • The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer. • All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval. • The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed. • For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals. • Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section. • Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Plans Examiner Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com Mildred Renteria Plan Check Engineer Mildred.Renteria@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 Aleta Francis Plans Examiner/Building Inspector Aleta.FRANCIS@bureauveritas.com (818) 335-8463 City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 3 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS • Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A - 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one -half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been ob tained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] 3rd Review: No response found in submission. Comment remains. RESPONSE________________________________________________________________________________ City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 3 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS -0"51 2"51 2" 19'-0"3'-0"512"512"27'-1"8'-912"11'-0"512"31'-0"31 2"17'-612"4'-212"2024-04-15/Loft Area Clarify 10128 EX-01.1 Loft-Mezanine Floor Area Exhibit.dwg E X -0 1 .1 BLDG-0330-2022Loft-Mezanine Floor Area Exhibit 1321 Garden St Lofts 1321 & 1323 Garden St San Luis Obispo , Ca 93401 1 From:Bancroft, Dustin Sent:Monday, April 7, 2025 8:32 AM To:Tnesterconstruction@gmail.com Cc:Nelson, Trevor Subject:1323 Garden St. - CPC Section 710.1 Attachments:SewerLateralBackwaterValves.pdf; IMG_2793.jpg Hello Taylor, Please see attached commentaries and code reference below. Code Reference CPC Section 710.1: "Fixtures installed on a floor level that is lower than the next upstream manhole cover of the public, or private sewer shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type of backwater valve. Fixtures on such floor level that are not below the next upstream manhole cover shall not be required to be protected by a backwater valve. Fixtures on floor levels above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve." Dustin Bancroft Building Inspector I To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E DBancrof@slocity.org T 805.781.7293 C 805.534.3544 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications Sewer Lateral Backwater Prevention Backwater Valves California Plumbing Code Section 710.1: “Drainage piping serving fixtures on a floor, where the floor level is located BELOW the elevation of the next upstream manhole cover of the public/private sewer system, shall be protected from the backflow of sewage by installing an approved Backwater Valve.” Section 710.1 CPC Public sewer Building sewer To public sewer Important! Flow from plumbing fixtures above connects downstream from backwater valve Manhole cover Floor ABOVE manhole Floor BELOW manhole Backwater valve Cleanout To building Backwater device Cleanout Finish grade No water in building sewer, flap opens by gravity, rests against ledge Discharge from building into building sewer, flaw swings upward, discharge flows through into sewer Sewage backflow into building sewer is stopped by flap directing sewage flow into device, building is protected NOTE! Top of backwater device MUST be below the lowest floor in structure Illustrations by Paddy Morrissey courtesy of Code Check ©2013* * No copying, reproduction or publishing without the written permission of Code Check. Inquires to: paddy@codecheck.com 1 From:Stanley, Erin Sent:Thursday, April 3, 2025 10:10 AM To:CHRIS KNAUER Subject:1321 Garden - PLREV-0206-2025 Attachments:PLREV-0206-2025_STAMPED REVISED PLANS.pdf Hi Chris! Attached are your stamped revised plans. If you need anything else, please let me know. Have a great rest of your week! সহ঺঻ Erin Stanley Permit Technician I Community Development E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7159 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -2"7'-3"24'-0"8'-0"19'-0"1'-8"2'-0"7'-0"1'-0"6'-0"1'-0"3'-0"9'-0"2'-0"1'-0"3'-5"1'-2"3'-5"1'-0"1'-0" 4'-4"1'-0"4'-0" 4'-4"5'-4"3'-4"2'-8" Up to 2nd Story 15T@11"=13'-9" Run 16R@7.5"=10'-0" Rise 7'-2"SolidWasteStorageArea3' x 8'4'-11" 4'-7"2'-0"7'-3"4"1112"11'-10" 4'-0"6'-6"3'-4"3'-912"3'-212"2'-9"5'-7"3'-0"4'-5"4'-8"3'-0"16"2'-8"2'-6"1B1C1E1F1G01 11 F1 typ01 11 W208 14 D301 11 W108 14 D201 11 A101 11 W422 41 B122 41 D122 41 C122 41 C101 11 A122 41 D101 11 W508 14 D114 24 F114 24 F201 11 A122 41 A707 71 D107 71 D107 71 G207 71 G207 71 G207 71 G207 71 G201 11 W723 01 A2typ23 01 A2 typ08 50 A22x4 Wd Stud @ 16" o.c. w/ 58" gypsum both sides w/fiberglasssound attenuation batts (SAB) @ all interior walls for sounddampening; refer to structural for wall anchorage2x6 Wd Stud @ 16" o.c.; refer to structural for wallanchoragexInterior - 58" gypsum ea. side w/fiberglass soundattenuation batts (SAB) @ all interior walls for sounddampening. See to 1.1/A-4.1 for STC 50 1hr fire ratedwallxExterior - 78" Stucco, smooth trowled finish on self furringmetal lath over TYVEK Stucco Wrap over plywoodwhere indicated by structural (extend plywd or furringstrips over openings & to corners & as required to avoidsurface offsets) with 58" gypsum interior side andR-21batt insulation. Refer to A-2.1-A-2.4 Elevations forlocation of Brick Veneer over Stucco base. Refer todetails 1.2/A-4.1 for STC rating & 1.3/A-4.1 for fire rating.Wall assembly separating dwelling from garage shall have >12" gypsum (or equal) applied to the garage side.1 hr Fire rated wall assembly, 1 hr rated floor & ceilingassemblyA-1.1First Floor Plan10128a-1.1 first floor plan.dwg----Lofts on Garden750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401bldg-0330-2022--------1321 & 1323 Garden StSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202511/4" = 1'-0"1st Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2022-01-28 / Building Permit SubmittalWALL LEGEND2023-09-25 / Bldg Pmt PC Respn2024-03-12 / Bldg Pmt PC#2 Respn2025-03-19/Rev Office to Br Suites, omitgarage opngs., Enlarge Entrance FoyerR1R1R1REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 A1 -FLOOR & CEILING ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS INTWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC302.3, SEE 2.1/A-4.1 TYP.; SUPPORTING STRUCTURE FOR THESEASSEMBLIES SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL OR GREATERFIRE-RESISTANCE RATING, SEE 1.1&1.2/A-4.1 TYP.01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 L1 -44" LANDING IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL, 1/2" MAX BELOWDOOR THRESHOLD01 11 W1 -WALL ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS IN TWO-FAMILYDWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC 302.3, ANDSHALL HAVE AN STC RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 50 TYP.01 11 W2 -WALL ASSEMBLIE SEPERATING DWELLING FROM GARAGE SHALLBE NOT LESS THAN 1/2-INCH GYPSUM BOARD OR EQUIVALENTAPPLIED TO THE GARAGE SIDE PER CRC R302.5 & R302.601 11 W4 -LINE OF WALL ABOVE, TYP01 11 W5 -ELEVATOR SHAFT WALL ASSEMBLIES CONNECTING LESS THAN 4STORIES SHALL BE 1 HOUR FIRE RATED PER CBC 713.401 11 W7 -MAINTAIN CONTINUITY OF FIRE RATING AT PORTIONS OF WALLABOVE/BEYOND THE EXTENT OF THE ALCOVE, TYP.DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 71 D1 -26 GA GALV METAL RECTANGULAR 2 X 3 RAINWATERDOWNSPOUT PAINTED BLACK, TYP.07 71 G2 -26GA GALVANIZED STEEL ROUND DOWNSPOUT PAINTED TOMATCH EXTERIORDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 14 D1 -1 HOUR RATED SELF-CLOSING OR AUTOMATIC CLOSING DOORAND OPENING08 14 D2 -20 MIN. FIRE RATED, SELF CLOSING, TIGHT FITTING DOOR08 14 D3 -FIRE RATING EQUAL TO WALL ASSEMBLIE, SELF CLOSING, TIGHTFITTING DOOR08 50 A2 -WINDOW SHALL MEET EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PERCBC SECTION 310.2. PROVIDE MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING OF 5.7SQ FT WITH 24" MIN CLEAR HT. AND 20" MIN CLR. WIDTH WITH THEBOTTOM OF OPENING @ 44" MAX. HT. ABOVE THE FLOOR.DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING EQUIPMENT14 24 F1 -ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE BFE(200.79') AND SHAL COMPLY WITH FEMA TECHNICAL BULLETIN 4.EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON A CONCRETE PEDESTAL ANDPER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS14 24 F2 -ELEVATOR TO COMPLY WITH FEMA TECHNICAL BULLETIN 4DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING22 41 A7 -SHOWERS OR SHOWER-TUB, INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OFTHE PRESSURE BALANCE, THERMOSTATIC, OR COMBINATIONPRESSURE BALANCE/THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE THATPROVIDE SCALD AND THERMAL SHOCK PROTECTION22 41 B1 -SHOWERHEAD & CONTROLS AS SELECTED BY OWNER, THECOMBINED FLOW RATE OF ALL SHOWERHEADS AND OTHEROUTLETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.8 GAL PER MINUTE AT 80 PSI22 41 C1 -WATER CLOSET AS SELECTED BY OWNER: THE EFFECTIVE FLUSHVOLUME SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.28 GAL PER FLUSH; TANK TYPEWATER CLOSETS SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO THE PERFORMANCECRITERIA OF THE US EPA WATERSENSE SPECIFICATION FOR TANKTYPE TOILETS22 41 D1 -LAVATORY, UNDER COUNTER MOUNT; 1.2 GPM AT 60 PSI MAXAND 0.8 GPM AT 20 PSI MIN. FLOW FAUCET; COORDINATEW/OWNER ON SELECTIONDIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING (HVAC)23 01 A2 -WALL MOUNT HVAC UNITS, REFER TO ELECTRICAL/MECHANICALPLANS April 3, 2025November 1, 201 November 2, 201 November 6, 201 November 8, 201 REVIEWED AS REVISEDCity of San Luis ObispoBuilding & Safety Division C11:48 (14"/Ft)07 50 C11:48 (14"/Ft)07 50 C11:48 (14"/Ft)07 50 C11:48 (14"/Ft)07 50 C1 1:48 (14"/Ft)07 50 C1 1:48 (14"/Ft)07 50 C107 71 D107 71 D107 71 G207 71 G207 71 G207 71 G207 71 G207 71 A307 24 D112"12"3'-0"3'-0"2'-2"1'-5"3'-0"2'-0"1'-0"4'-3"2'-0"1'-2"6'-8"2'-8"22 41 A806 41 A12'-0"1'-6"2'-6"2'-0"4'-0"4'-6"4'-0"5'-1" min. clr.Elevator Hoistway EQ20'-8"REFDWWine Stor.2A2B2C2D2E2F2AE2AF2AG2T2AK2AL2Z2AC2O2AM2AB2AAabv.abv.9'-0"23'-0"2'-0"3'-4"5'-0"4'-0"6'-0" 31'-0"6'-0"3'-0" 1'-61 2" 12t @ 11" = 11'-0"5'-9"6'-3"01 11 W1Dn to 2nd Flr 13R@7.38"=8.0' 18'-0" 10'-0"6'-51 2"2Y1'-0" 3'-81 2"2'-9"3'-3"6'-0"22 41 D111 31 V122 41 C122 41 B13'-31 2"2Z2'-4"8'-4"9'-61 2"01 11 W11'-51 2"2'-0"08 50 A222 41 A72'-8"9'-0"4'-0"2AC11 31 L14'-0"07 71 G2, typ.07 71 D107 71 G22x4 Wd Stud @ 16" o.c. w/ 58" gypsum both sides w/fiberglasssound attenuation batts (SAB) @ all interior walls for sounddampening; refer to structural for wall anchorage2x6 Wd Stud @ 16" o.c.; refer to structural for wallanchoragexInterior - 58" gypsum ea. side w/fiberglass soundattenuation batts (SAB) @ all interior walls for sounddampening. See to 1.1/A-4.1 for STC 50 1hr fire ratedwallxExterior - 78" Stucco, smooth trowled finish on self furringmetal lath over TYVEK Stucco Wrap over plywoodwhere indicated by structural (extend plywd or furringstrips over openings & to corners & as required to avoidsurface offsets) with 58" gypsum interior side andR-21batt insulation. Refer to A-2.1-A-2.4 Elevations forlocation of Brick Veneer over Stucco base. Refer todetails 1.2/A-4.1 for STC rating & 1.3/A-4.1 for fire rating.Wall assembly separating dwelling from garage shall have >12" gypsum (or equal) applied to the garage side.1 hr Fire rated wall assembly, 1 hr rated floor & ceilingassemblyA-1.2Second FloorPlan10128a-1.2 second floor plan.dwg----Lofts on Garden750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401bldg-0330-2022--------1321 & 1323 Garden StSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202521/4" = 1'-0"2nd Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'11/4" = 1'-0"2nd Floor LoftSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2022-01-28 / Building Permit SubmittalWALL LEGEND2023-09-25 / Bldg Pmt PC Respn2024-03-12 / Bldg Pmt PC#2 Respn2024-04-16/ Bldg Pmt PC#3Clarify Loft sf11R1R12025-03-19/Rev Kit, Pantry, Wine Stor,Loft LaundR1R1REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 D3 -WHERE BALCONIES OR OTHER ELEVATED WALKING SURFACESARE EXPOSED TO WATER FROM DIRECT OR BLOWING RAIN,SNOW, OR IRRIGATION, AND THE STRUCTURAL FRAMING ISREQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED BY AN IMPERVIOUS MOISTUREBARRIER, ALL ELEMENTS OF THE IMPERVIOUS MOISTURE BARRIERSHALL NOT BE CONCELED UNTIL INSPECTED AND APPROVED01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 R1 -LINE OF ROOF ABOVE01 11 W1 -WALL ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS IN TWO-FAMILYDWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC 302.3, ANDSHALL HAVE AN STC RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 50 TYP.01 11 W3 -LINE OF WALL BELOW, TYP.01 11 W5 -ELEVATOR SHAFT WALL ASSEMBLIES CONNECTING LESS THAN 4STORIES SHALL BE 1 HOUR FIRE RATED PER CBC 713.4DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES06 13 B1 -EXPOSED ROOF BEAM (SHOWN DASHED WHERE OCCURS ABOVEOR BEYOND), SEE STRUCTURAL, TYP.06 41 A1 -BASE CABINET (DASH LINE), 36"H (INCLUDING COUNTERTOP) X24"D. UNLESS DIMENSIONED OTHERWISE, TYP.06 41 A2 -OVERHEAD CABINET (DASH DBL DASH LINE); PROVIDE SHOPDRAWINGS FOR OWNNER APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION,TYP.06 41 A3 -BOOK CASE, CONTINUOUS FROM FLOOR TO CEILING.DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 24 D1 -DRAIN TEC DRAINAGE GRATE BY EUROTEC, INSTALL PERMANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS07 50 C1 -ROOF-DECK DRAINAGE 1/4" PER FOOT MIN. FLOW DIRECTIONINDICATED BY ARROW07 71 A3 -26 GA GALV ROUND DOWNSPOUT, FINISH TO MATCH ROOF, TYP.07 71 D1 -26 GA GALV METAL RECTANGULAR 2 X 3 RAINWATERDOWNSPOUT PAINTED BLACK, TYP.07 71 G2 -26GA GALVANIZED STEEL ROUND DOWNSPOUT PAINTED TOMATCH EXTERIORDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 14 D1 -1 HOUR RATED SELF-CLOSING OR AUTOMATIC CLOSING DOORAND OPENING08 14 D3 -FIRE RATING EQUAL TO WALL ASSEMBLIE, SELF CLOSING, TIGHTFITTING DOOR08 50 A2 -WINDOW SHALL MEET EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PERCBC SECTION 310.2. PROVIDE MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING OF 5.7SQ FT WITH 24" MIN CLEAR HT. AND 20" MIN CLR. WIDTH WITH THEBOTTOM OF OPENING @ 44" MAX. HT. ABOVE THE FLOOR.DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 31 A1 -FACTORY BUILT GAS FIREPLACE SHALL BE DIRECT VENTSEALED-COMBUSTION TYPE, XX" PROVIDE CLEARANCES ANDINSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT11 31 A1 -48" CLEAR REFRIGERATOR SPACE, PROVIDE COLD WATER LINEWITH VALVE FOR ICE MAKER AND OR CHILLED WATER AT +42"AFF.11 31 A4 -RANGE AS SELECTED BY OWNER AND INSTALLED PERMANUFATURER'S INSTRUCTIONS11 31 A5 -XX" BUILT IN DISHWASHER AS SELECTED BY OWNER ANDINSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.11 31 D1 -DRYER AS SELECTED BY OWNER11 31 L1 -STACKING WASHER & DRYER AS SELECTED BY OWNER11 31 V1 -PROVIDE CLOTHES DRYER EXHAUST VENT TO EXTERIORCONFORMING TO NOTE 2 ON MECHANICAL SHEET M-3.0; TOTALCOMBINED VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL VENT LENGTH SHALL NOTEXCEED 14' INCLUDING (2) 90 DEG ELBOWS ( A LENGTH OF 2'SHALL BE DEDUCTED FOR EVERY 90 DEG ELBOW IN EXCESS OF (2);THE EXHAUST DUCT SHALL TERMINATE NOT LESS THAN 3' FROM APROPERTY LINE, 10' FROM A FORCED AIR INLET, 10' ABOVE PUBLICWALKWAY, AND 3' FROM OPENINGS INTO THE BUILDING, TYP.11 31 W1 -WASHER AS SELECTED BY OWNERDIVISION 22 - PLUMBING22 41 A4 -LAUNDRY SINK, UNDERCOUNTER MOUNT, COORDINATE SIZEW/OWNER.22 41 A7 -SHOWERS OR SHOWER-TUB, INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OFTHE PRESSURE BALANCE, THERMOSTATIC, OR COMBINATIONPRESSURE BALANCE/THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE THATPROVIDE SCALD AND THERMAL SHOCK PROTECTION22 41 A8 -KITCHEN SINK WITH GARBAGE DISPOSAL AS SELECTED BY OWNER22 41 B1 -SHOWERHEAD & CONTROLS AS SELECTED BY OWNER, THECOMBINED FLOW RATE OF ALL SHOWERHEADS AND OTHEROUTLETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.8 GAL PER MINUTE AT 80 PSI22 41 C1 -WATER CLOSET AS SELECTED BY OWNER: THE EFFECTIVE FLUSHVOLUME SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.28 GAL PER FLUSH; TANK TYPEWATER CLOSETS SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO THE PERFORMANCECRITERIA OF THE US EPA WATERSENSE SPECIFICATION FOR TANKTYPE TOILETS22 41 D1 -LAVATORY, UNDER COUNTER MOUNT; 1.2 GPM AT 60 PSI MAXAND 0.8 GPM AT 20 PSI MIN. FLOW FAUCET; COORDINATEW/OWNER ON SELECTION April 3, 2025November 1, 201 November 2, 201 November 6, 201 November 8, 201 REVIEWED AS REVISEDCity of San Luis ObispoBuilding & Safety Division -7"4'-0"6'-5"1'-0"9'-0"1'-0" 75 8"1'-6"1'-10" 5'-3"3'-0" 6'-0" 3'-6"13'-1"4'-1"3'-8"2'-4"1'-9"2'-0"3'-6"4'-0"3'-8"4'-6"2'-3"22 41 A522 41 A722 41 B110 41 D210 28 N122 41 A122 41 A122 41 D122 41 A701 11 S12'-1" 32'-0" 3'-3"08 50 A29"01 11 S101 11 S101 11 W508 14 D122 41 A78'-0"7'-10"6'-2"6'-0"6'-0" 29'-0"07 71 G207 71 G22x4 Wd Stud @ 16" o.c. w/ 58" gypsum both sides w/fiberglasssound attenuation batts (SAB) @ all interior walls for sounddampening; refer to structural for wall anchorage2x6 Wd Stud @ 16" o.c.; refer to structural for wallanchoragexInterior - 58" gypsum ea. side w/fiberglass soundattenuation batts (SAB) @ all interior walls for sounddampening. See to 1.1/A-4.1 for STC 50 1hr fire ratedwallxExterior - 78" Stucco, smooth trowled finish on self furringmetal lath over TYVEK Stucco Wrap over plywoodwhere indicated by structural (extend plywd or furringstrips over openings & to corners & as required to avoidsurface offsets) with 58" gypsum interior side andR-21batt insulation. Refer to A-2.1-A-2.4 Elevations forlocation of Brick Veneer over Stucco base. Refer todetails 1.2/A-4.1 for STC rating & 1.3/A-4.1 for fire rating.Wall assembly separating dwelling from garage shall have >12" gypsum (or equal) applied to the garage side.1 hr Fire rated wall assembly, 1 hr rated floor & ceilingassemblyA-1.3Third Floor Plan10128a-1.3 third floor plan.dwg----Lofts on Garden750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401bldg-0330-2022--------1321 & 1323 Garden StSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202511/4" = 1'-0"3rd Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2022-01-28 / Building Permit SubmittalWALL LEGEND2023-09-25 / Bldg Pmt PC Respn2024-03-12 / Bldg Pmt PC#2 Respn2025-03-19/Rev smaller elevator &larger closet, call out downspoutsR1R1REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW01 11 R3 -2ND FLOOR ROOF01 11 S1 -LINE OF SKYLIGHT ABOVE01 11 W5 -ELEVATOR SHAFT WALL ASSEMBLIES CONNECTING LESS THAN 4STORIES SHALL BE 1 HOUR FIRE RATED PER CBC 713.4DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES06 41 A1 -BASE CABINET (DASH LINE), 36"H (INCLUDING COUNTERTOP) X24"D. UNLESS DIMENSIONED OTHERWISE, TYP.06 41 A7 -OVERSIZED BASE CABINET, 36" DEEP; PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGSFOR OWNER APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION, TYPO.DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 71 G2 -26GA GALVANIZED STEEL ROUND DOWNSPOUT PAINTED TOMATCH EXTERIORDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 14 D1 -1 HOUR RATED SELF-CLOSING OR AUTOMATIC CLOSING DOORAND OPENING08 50 A2 -WINDOW SHALL MEET EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PERCBC SECTION 310.2. PROVIDE MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING OF 5.7SQ FT WITH 24" MIN CLEAR HT. AND 20" MIN CLR. WIDTH WITH THEBOTTOM OF OPENING @ 44" MAX. HT. ABOVE THE FLOOR.DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 21 G1 -FROSTED GLASS PARTITION AND DOOR10 21 G2 -CLEAR GLASS SHOWER ENCLOSURE10 28 N1 -WALL NICHEDIVISION 22 - PLUMBING10 41 D2 -LINEAR DRAIN S-TIF 65 BY INFINITY OR EQUAL22 41 A1 -WATER CLOSET, 1.5 GAL PER FLUSH.22 41 A5 -BATHTUB22 41 A7 -SHOWERS OR SHOWER-TUB, INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OFTHE PRESSURE BALANCE, THERMOSTATIC, OR COMBINATIONPRESSURE BALANCE/THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE THATPROVIDE SCALD AND THERMAL SHOCK PROTECTION22 41 B1 -SHOWERHEAD & CONTROLS AS SELECTED BY OWNER, THECOMBINED FLOW RATE OF ALL SHOWERHEADS AND OTHEROUTLETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.8 GAL PER MINUTE AT 80 PSI22 41 D1 -LAVATORY, UNDER COUNTER MOUNT; 1.2 GPM AT 60 PSI MAXAND 0.8 GPM AT 20 PSI MIN. FLOW FAUCET; COORDINATEW/OWNER ON SELECTIONR1 April 3, 2025November 1, 201 November 2, 201 November 6, 201 November 8, 201 REVIEWED AS REVISEDCity of San Luis ObispoBuilding & Safety Division 11'-0"4'-0" 2'-0" 5'-3" 4'-6"5'-9"9'-0"5'-9"7'-0"4'-0"2'-0"1'-0"6'-0"12'-0" 5'-0" 8'-0"6'-0"3'-3"1'-9"12" 2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"17'-9"19'-0"14'-0"5'-0"5'-0"3'-512"4'-0"5'-1"1'-512"6'-7"7'-4"5'-1" 19'-0" 29'-0" 3'-0"26'-0" 3'-0" 32'-0"1'-0"1'-0"2x4 Wd Stud @ 16" o.c. w/ 58" gypsum both sides w/fiberglasssound attenuation batts (SAB) @ all interior walls for sounddampening; refer to structural for wall anchorage2x6 Wd Stud @ 16" o.c.; refer to structural for wallanchoragexInterior - 58" gypsum ea. side w/fiberglass soundattenuation batts (SAB) @ all interior walls for sounddampening. See to 1.1/A-4.1 for STC 50 1hr fire ratedwallxExterior - 78" Stucco, smooth trowled finish on self furringmetal lath over TYVEK Stucco Wrap over plywoodwhere indicated by structural (extend plywd or furringstrips over openings & to corners & as required to avoidsurface offsets) with 58" gypsum interior side andR-21batt insulation. Refer to A-2.1-A-2.4 Elevations forlocation of Brick Veneer over Stucco base. Refer todetails 1.2/A-4.1 for STC rating & 1.3/A-4.1 for fire rating.Wall assembly separating dwelling from garage shall have >12" gypsum (or equal) applied to the garage side.1 hr Fire rated wall assembly, 1 hr rated floor & ceilingassembly4C07 21 A6 typ1:48 (14"/Ft)1:48 (14"/Ft)07 21 A61:48 (14"/Ft)07 71 G31:48 (14"/Ft)07 21 A61:48 (14"/Ft)1:48 (14"/Ft)07 21 A6 1:48(14"/Ft)07 21 A6 typA-1.4Roof Deck10128a-1.4 roof deck.dwg----Lofts on Garden750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401bldg-0330-2022--------1321 & 1323 Garden StSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202511/4" = 1'-0"Roof DeckSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2022-01-28 / Building Permit SubmittalWALL LEGEND2023-09-25 / Bldg Pmt PC Respn2024-03-12 / Bldg Pmt PC#2 RespnR12025-03-19/Rev remove skylightsR1R1R1REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 D2 -UNCOVERED 2ND FLOOR DECK01 11 D3 -WHERE BALCONIES OR OTHER ELEVATED WALKING SURFACESARE EXPOSED TO WATER FROM DIRECT OR BLOWING RAIN,SNOW, OR IRRIGATION, AND THE STRUCTURAL FRAMING ISREQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED BY AN IMPERVIOUS MOISTUREBARRIER, ALL ELEMENTS OF THE IMPERVIOUS MOISTURE BARRIERSHALL NOT BE CONCELED UNTIL INSPECTED AND APPROVED01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW01 11 R1 -LINE OF ROOF ABOVE01 11 R3 -2ND FLOOR ROOF01 11 W5 -ELEVATOR SHAFT WALL ASSEMBLIES CONNECTING LESS THAN 4STORIES SHALL BE 1 HOUR FIRE RATED PER CBC 713.4DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 21 A6 -CLOSED CELL AIR IMPERMEABLE POLYISO RIGID FOAMINSULATION INSTALLED DIRECTLY ABOVE THE STRUCTURAL ROOFSHEATHING; ACHIEVE ROOF SLOPE WITH TAPPERED BOARDSYSTEM, PROVIDE A MIN R-5 VALUE AT THINEST POINT OF SYSTEM,TYP.07 71 G1 -26GA GALVANIZED SHEETMETAL GUTTER PAINTED TO MATCHEXTERIOR07 71 G2 -26GA GALVANIZED STEEL ROUND DOWNSPOUT PAINTED TOMATCH EXTERIOR07 71 G3 -26 GA GALV METAL SCUPPER PAINTED TO MATCH EXTERIORDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 14 D1 -1 HOUR RATED SELF-CLOSING OR AUTOMATIC CLOSING DOORAND OPENINGDIVISION 22 - PLUMBING22 10 A1 -HOSE BIBB WITH BACK FLOW PREVENTERDIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS32 94 P1 -WATERPROOF PLANTER BOX LINER WITH DRAIN TO ROOFDRAINAGE COURSE/GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS, TYP.DIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C2 -SOLAR ENERGY FLAT PANEL COLLECTOR, MOUNTED HORIZONTALON ROOF; 7 PANEL 2.59 KWDC PV SYSTEM SHOWN IS BASED ONVSUN 370W PANELS, VERIFY EXACT PANEL PER SEPARATE PVPERMIT. April 3, 2025November 1, 201 November 2, 201 November 6, 201 November 8, 201 REVIEWED AS REVISEDCity of San Luis ObispoBuilding & Safety Division (1 4"/Ft) 07 21 A6 1:24 (12"/Ft)07 21 A607 71 G1 typ1:48 (14"/Ft)07 21 A61:48 (14"/Ft)07 21 A61:48 (14"/Ft)08 62 A1+1.5"01 11 T1+1.5"01 11 T1+5.125" 01 11 T1+1.5"01 11 T1+4.0"01 11 T1 + 4 . 5 "+3.0"01 11 T1+1.5"01 11 T107 71 G107 71 G207 71 G107 71 G107 71 G207 71 G207 71 D107 71 D101 11 D207 71 A307 71 A207 71 G207 71 G207 71 G207 71 G201 11 F201 11 F207 50 R107 21 A6 typA-4.32.3blwA-4.21.3A-4.21.3A-4.21.2A-4.21.3A-4.21.2A-4.22.3A-4.22.31122334455ABCDABCDA-3.11.2A-3.11.2A-3.21.6A-3.21.6A-3.32.9A-3.32.9abvA-4.23.2A-4.22.3typA-4.22.4A-4.23.2A-4.22.3@roofblw2'-9"1'-9"2'-9"2'-9"A-1.5Roof Plan10128a-1.5 roof plan.dwg----consultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTbldg-0330-2022--------May 31 2025Lofts on Garden750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPSan Luis ObispoCa.934011321 & 1323 Garden StSan Luis ObispoCa9340111/4" = 1'-0"Roof PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2022-01-28 / Building Permit Submittal2023-09-25 / Bldg Pmt PC Respn2024-03-12 / Bldg Pmt PC#2 RespnR12025-03-19/Rev remove skylightsR1R1R1REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 D1 -UNCOVERED ROOF DECK01 11 D2 -UNCOVERED 2ND FLOOR DECK01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW01 11 R3 -2ND FLOOR ROOF01 11 T1 -TOP OF INSULATION ELEVATION IS FROM TOP OF STRUCTURALSHEATHING01 11 W3 -LINE OF WALL BELOW, TYP.DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 21 A6 -CLOSED CELL AIR IMPERMEABLE POLYISO RIGID FOAMINSULATION INSTALLED DIRECTLY ABOVE THE STRUCTURAL ROOFSHEATHING; ACHIEVE ROOF SLOPE WITH TAPPERED BOARDSYSTEM, PROVIDE A MIN R-5 VALUE AT THINEST POINT OF SYSTEM,TYP.07 50 R1 -60 MIL TPO MEMBRANE EVERGUARD BY GAF OR EQUAL, INSTALLPER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS07 71 A2 -26 GA GALV GUTTER, 1/2 ROUND, FINISH TO MATCH ROOF, TYP.07 71 A3 -26 GA GALV ROUND DOWNSPOUT, FINISH TO MATCH ROOF, TYP.07 71 D1 -26 GA GALV METAL RECTANGULAR 2 X 3 RAINWATERDOWNSPOUT PAINTED BLACK, TYP.07 71 G1 -26GA GALVANIZED SHEETMETAL GUTTER PAINTED TO MATCHEXTERIOR07 71 G2 -26GA GALVANIZED STEEL ROUND DOWNSPOUT PAINTED TOMATCH EXTERIORDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 62 A1 -SELF FLASHING SKYLIGHT AS SELECTED BY OWNER; SUBMITDOCUMENTATION OF ICC APPROVAL LISTING ORMANUFACTURES DOCUMENTATION SHOWING PROOF OFCONFORMANCE WITH CRC R308.6; MAX U-FACTOR OF 0.32 &MAX. SHGC OF 0.25; INSTALL PER THE MANUFACTURERSINSTRUCTIONS, TYP.DIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C2 -SOLAR ENERGY FLAT PANEL COLLECTOR, MOUNTED HORIZONTALON ROOF; 7 PANEL 2.59 KWDC PV SYSTEM SHOWN IS BASED ONVSUN 370W PANELS, VERIFY EXACT PANEL PER SEPARATE PVPERMIT. April 3, 2025November 1, 201 November 2, 201 November 6, 201 November 8, 201 REVIEWED AS REVISEDCity of San Luis ObispoBuilding & Safety Division 1 From:CHRIS KNAUER <cknauer243@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 26, 2025 5:11 PM To:Wright, Don Subject:1323 Garden Permit 2022-0330 This message is from an External Source. Use cau Ɵon when deciding to open aƩachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Hi Don, I sent the plans into the City Portal for 1323 Garden street. Permit number is 2022-0330. i appreciate your help. Thanks Chris Knauer 805-801-5251 Sent from my iPhone 1 From:Tami Simpson <violaconstructioninc@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:02 AM To:LaFreniere, Matt Subject:Fwd: 1321 & 1323 Garden St This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Matt, Just checking in on these maps ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tami Simpson <violaconstructioninc@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:46 AM Subject: 1321 & 1323 Garden St To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Matt, Hope all is well with you! Can you send me over the utility maps for the above address when you get a chance? -- Sincerely, Tami Simpson Viola Construction, Inc. P.O Box 198 Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 Phone (805)474-9745 Fax (805) 474-1522 -- Sincerely, Tami Simpson Viola Construction, Inc. P.O Box 198 Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 Phone (805)474-9745 Fax (805) 474-1522 1 From:LaFreniere, Matt Sent:Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:54 AM To:Tami Simpson Subject:RE: 1321 & 1323 Garden St Attachments:SB_K-10.pdf; Ebook_K-10.pdf; WtrPage_K-10.pdf Hi Tami, Attached are the utility grid maps. Thank you, Matt LaFreniere pronouns he/him/his Engineering Technician III Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mlafreni@slocity.org T 805.781.7015 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tami Simpson <violaconstructioninc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:02 AM To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: 1321 & 1323 Garden St This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Matt, Just checking in on these maps ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tami Simpson <violaconstructioninc@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:46 AM Subject: 1321 & 1323 Garden St To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Matt, Hope all is well with you! Can you send me over the utility maps for the above address when you get a chance? 2 -- Sincerely, Tami Simpson Viola Construction, Inc. P.O Box 198 Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 Phone (805)474-9745 Fax (805) 474-1522 -- Sincerely, Tami Simpson Viola Construction, Inc. P.O Box 198 Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 Phone (805)474-9745 Fax (805) 474-1522 &%nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnRnnnnnnnnnnn nn nn n nn nnnnnn n nnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnn nnþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ÍB ÍBÍBÍB ÍB ÍB ÍB " " " " "" " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" "" " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " """ " " """" """ " " " "" " " " " """ " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " "" " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" " """ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " " """ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " "" " "" " "" " """ " "" "" " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" "" " "" " " " " " " " """""" " " " " " "" " """" " " " " " " """ """" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " "" "" " " " " " "" " " " """" """"" "" " "" """" " """" " " " " "" " " """" " " """" " "" " " " " " " """ "7 2 9 9 6 6 1 / 2 6 7 4 1 / 2 6 6 5 1 / 2 1 0 3 5 1 / 2 1 0 5 1 1 / 2 1 0 1 1 1 / 2 1 1 3 0 1 / 2 1414 1/25 9 4 173917261642181117138 7 514081422 17148 7 1 160313048 6 7 7 8 8 7 8 3 6 6 4 8 5 8 15336 4 1 13357 4 5 9 7 6 1 1 1 4 180417471719163416291627161114387 1 2 7151446 150115041401163516321702170317067 8 8 1 0 0 3 14401 0 7 1 7 2 7 5 5 8 16261 0 5 3 181418191337 7 3 9 1427 1/27 2 4 7 4 3 5 5 4 13239 7 5 8 7 314057 8 5 18266 5 612396 5 7 5 8 7 153116157 5 1 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 6 9 8 0 1 0 2 7 6 5 11347 14458 6 0 16097031513 7 9 5 9 7 7 1530130311088 7 1 7 2 0 151718298 6 9 8 8 2 17377 2 6 13348 5 0 144615187 7 0 6 4 9 15311641162015356 8 5 18229 7 2 1317 8 5 3 1 0 3 5 7 5 2 6 4 9 17276 6 515195 9 1 18211636141013171 1 1 0 16455 5 0 8 8 413017 7 1 1 0 2 9 1 0 1 5 6 8 3 5 8 6 13067 2 7 5 5 9 15281415182517287 7 113121316 8 2 0 7 4 41326 8 9 6 13206 9 0 7 4 8 1 0 6 1 7 0 8 170115356 5 8 15041511164216261527143018047 7 9 6 7 7 1763 18458 6 6 181716278 9 8 8 5 0 17209 7 3 7 7 0 18157 7 7 142917207 4 2 1725 5 6 0 14066 7 0 9 7 4 6 8 5 9 6 0 13299 6 9 15468 4 21530 16357 5 3 1427152614057 3 6 16201325142113018 5 313701329 7 9 0 15055 7 8 720154117179 6 8 8 7 91212 8 7 61343711 7 5 2 1700122813261420142816018 6 2 5 7 5 8 8 0 7 8 1 8 5 8 14358 8 0 6 6 3 1443152117117 2 5 8 2 0 6 3 9 16057 9 11426133615208 4 11349 16338 3 6 7 3 2 5 7 5 721 15211 0 1 8 9 5 6 152613447 2 2 9 6 6 8 7 4 6 6 9 16046 6 7 16177 3 7 8 6 8 1 0 3 51235 1345 15196 6 0 16286 9 5 8 6 3 7 2 8 16206 6 2 7 3 2 5 9 11541 1400 1 0 5 2 8 9 3 7 7 7 142517216728 6 41372 6 7 1 17058 8 013337 4 1 16351520154312431730161717346 5 0 18417 5 0 6 6 11421 174417297 8 5 1628131917506 7 1 152614076 5 4 1536164514159 7 2 13129 8 1 1 0 2 8 17316 5 5 17271 0 4 5 6 8 0 9 8 51341 6 9 1 7 5 1 1749 8 9 3 8 5 7 8 5 5 8 9 5 152015121 0 4 2 8 9 51346 7 8 4 1 0 2 0 174617167 4 0 18206 7 6 142115166 7 6 7 1 4 17031 0 1 71522 7 8 5 8 1 5 7 0 91418 9 7 1 7 8 7 6 4 7 7 5 3 1 0 2 8 8 6 8 8 6 5 7 2 0 14111880 1 0 6 7 8 8 8 17121516153417107091404 174513708 0 5 7 4 7 5 7 1 1 1 1 3 123417058 2 9 1 0 4 5 17086 7 5 8 8 9 7 4 3 1527140117891245 8 7 6 8 5 613341511 16275 6 1 1 0 2 2131814217 3 4 6 4 4 1 0 3 6 9 7 6 1316170415181 0 2 2 1510152914181 1 2 0 1514172014377 3 6 8 7 3 1 0 5 7 15429 7 7 5 5 0 16218 8 5 7 4 3 15128 6 0 7 9 3 6 5 41428 162815281 0 4 5 15158 9 0 1335 6 4 1 15368 2 71342 15446 8 7 16208 5 0 8 7 1 7 2 5 153417367 3 3 6 7 4 15108 7 8 8 9 1 8 6 7 8 8 5 16409 7 9 1 0 4 4 6 6 3 7 1 7 8 8 0 9 6 9 1 0 3 2 16418 5 1 1 0 3 4 8 1 8 14298 7 9 7 9 4 1318 8 5 915166 7 0 8 5 0 7 4 4 8 9 7 16131 0 0 5 142716378 8 1 8 6 6 7 4 7 1 0 1 01328 8 7 5 8 7 0 8 7 8 5 4 9 14166 8 0 7 3 1 1530144116381 0 5 3 1 0 5 1 7 1 4 1 0 1 1 5 8 8 16225 5 6 1 0 4 7 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 7 5 0 5 7 2 73213455 5 2 1 0 2 513141407 15257 9 5 717 8 8 714361404 1 0 3 7 16198 5 4 1 0 1 9 9 5 4 17247 4 8 9 7 6 1 0 2 712411380 17291624152113471 1 1 2 18041508 8 6 0 8 9 0 163113416 6 5 150315367 3 0 14086 5 2 1425181317101709141417091 0 4 0 181414237 4 7 9 5 41607 15401728162412318 7 4 1634144417401544134516366 7 31304 16351 0 3 5 1 0 4 1 705 6 7 6 142311106 6 812331406 1 0 2 5 7 2 8 172115111 0 6 2 9 6 6 1 0 4 9 7 7 2 9 7 8 7 2 2 5 7 4 7 1 9 8 7 7 9 5 8 9 6 2 1510 1/213136 5 5 13211325132713298 7 1 8 7 3 8 7 5 8 7 7 1319141014201430112011307 2 4 7 2 01240 1 0 5 5 5 4 7 15186 4 1 13368 6 81634 121 123 64 74 77 78 55 59 82 86 117 109 97 68 62 37 40 4549 112 88 106 107 71 61 26 41 25 76 83 81 57 53 38 35 101 99 103 93 70 67 4840 119 95 89 90 65 134 6 10 12 16 17 110 118 92 96 31 44 11 8 69 87 104 113 30 54 4342 122 13 4 73 2 67 15 21 20 28 33 32 34 48 22 18 3 9 10 125 130 135 137 139 145 98 18 146 147 148 149 150 1ft.1ft.2ft.2f t .2f t .2ft.2 f t .2ft.5 f t .2ft.2 f t .2ft.5ft.3 f t .3f t .83ft .3ft.3ft.3ft.3ft . 3 f t . 4 f t .4ft.4 f t . 4ft. 0 f t .4ft.5ft. 5 f t . 5 f t . 5 f t .6ft.6 f t .6ft.6ft.6 f t .6ft.6f t . 7 f t . 7ft. 7ft. 7 f t .8ft.9 f t . 0 f t .9ft.1 0 f t . 10ft. 10ft.10ft.10ft.1 2 f t . 1 2 f t . 1 2 f t . 0 f t .13ft.1 3 f t . 1 3 f t .0ft.1 3 f t .13ft.14ft.1 4 f t . 1 5 f t .15ft.16ft.1 6 f t .17ft.166ft.3 7 f t .18ft.0ft.0ft.2 1 f t . 2 1 f t .21ft.22ft.2 2 f t . 2 3 f t . 2 3 f t .23ft.0 f t .37ft.0 f t .24ft.24f t .24ft.2 5 f t . 0 f t . 0ft.29ft.29ft.32ft.314ft.0ft. 35ft. 3 7 f t . 3 7 f t .37ft.40ft.40ft. 0ft. 4 1 f t .43ft.0ft. 4 5 f t .45ft.46ft.50ft.56ft.56ft.460ft.6 2 f t . 2 9 6 f t .79ft.227ft.189ft.8 9 f t . 3 3 8 f t .267ft.208ft.115ft.2 3 7 f t . 1 1 8 f t . 3 3 7 f t .380ft.3 2 4 f t . 1 4 9 f t . 2 9 3 f t . 1 5 4 f t .159ft.1 8 1 f t . 3 6 5 f t .408ft.209ft.504ft.397ft.228ft.232ft.273ft.246ft.249ft.252ft.377ft.3 1 0 f t .279ft.2 8 0 f t . 2 8 4 f t .284ft.302ft.2 9 7 f t . 3 0 0 f t .300ft.3 0 3 f t .305ft.3 0 6 f t .307ft.3 0 7 f t .307ft.3 0 8 f t . 3 0 8 f t .308ft.3 1 8 f t . 3 2 0 f t . 3 2 0 f t .502ft.3 2 7 f t . 3 2 8 f t . 3 3 1 f t . 3 3 1 f t . 3 3 3 f t . 3 3 8 f t . 3 4 0 f t .342ft.3 4 2 f t . 3 4 5 f t . 3 4 9 f t . 3 5 7 f t . 3 6 3 f t . 3 6 8 f t . 0 f t .383ft.394ft.425ft.404ft.415ft.423ft.449ft.488ft.9429ft.6 i n . C 9 0 0 1 0 i n .C 9 0 0 10in.Cast Ir on 10in.C900 10in.Ductile Iron 1 0 i n .D u c t i l e I r o n 1 0 i n .C a s t I r o n 6in.C900 8 i n .C 9 0 08in.C900 4 in .GV 6in.Cast Iron10in.Ductile Iron8 i n .C 9 0 0 4 in .6in.C900 4i n . C 9 0 0 6 i n . C 9 0 0 6 i n .C 9 0 0 4 i n .C 9 0 0 6 i n .C 9 0 0 6in.C 9 0 06in.C9006in.C900 6in.Cast Iron 6in.Cast Iron 8 i n .C a s t I r o n 6 in .10in.C900 6 i n .C a s t Ir o n 6in.Cast Iron6in.Cast Iron 1 0 i n .C a s t Ir o n 6 i n .D u c t i l e Iro n6in.C900 1 2 i n .C a s t Ir o n 6 i n .C 9 0 0 i n . 6 i n .C a s t I ron 6 i n .C a s t Ir o n 6in.C9006in.Cast Iron6in.C900 6 i n .C 9 0 06in.C9008in.C900 8in.Ductile Ir on 6in.Ductile Iron4in.C900 6 i n .C 9 0 0 6 in .C 9 0 0 6in.C900 8 i n .D u c t i l e I r o n 6 i n .C 9 0 0 4in.C900 2 i n . i n .10in.Cast Ir o n 4 i n .C 9 0 0 4in.C9 0 0 6in.C a st Ir o n 6 i n .C 9 0 0 6in.Cast Iron8in.Cast Ironin. 6in.Ductile Iron8in.C900 8 i n .C 9 0 0 8in.C900 4in. 8 i n .C 9 0 0 6in.Cast Iron8 i n .C 9 0 0 8in.Ductile Iro n 8 i n .C 9 0 0 6in.Du ctil e Iron8in.C900 8in.D u ctil e Ir o n 6 i n .C a s t I r o n 8 i n .C 9 0 0 8in.C900 8in.C9006in.Cast Iro n 8in.C900 6 i n .C a s t I r o n 8 i n .C a s t I r o n8in.Ductile Ir o n 8 i n .C 9 0 0 6 i n .C a s t I r o n 8 i n .C 9 0 0 6 i n .AC 8 i n .C 9 0 0 8 i n .C 9 0 0 8 i n .D u c t i l e I r o n 8in.Cast Iro n 8in.C900 8in.C9008in.Cast Iro n Downtown Zone K-10 ¡RW Hydrant &.RW ARV ÊË RW Blow Off &É BFV &CORP STOP nGV #RW BCS Valve "Meters ?Air Release Valve ÍB Back flow Device ,Blow Off ÍÏ Check Valves Hydrants þ CPFH þ City owned Óñ DRAFT ¬«Private FH ")Plant ß Pressure Valve System Valve R BALLV &É BFV nGV ÝÞßá RTVALVE ZNV Tanks &%Well RW Main Main City Limit Pipe in Concrete Press Red Station Pump Station Reservoir O 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 FeetPrint date:3/18/2025 7 2 91019 9 6 6 1 / 2 6 7 4 1 / 2 5 3 2 1 / 2 4 7 2 1 / 2 4 7 0 1 / 2 6 6 5 1 / 2 4 8 0 1 / 2 1908 1 0 3 5 1 / 2 1 1 6 9 1 / 2 1 0 5 1 1 / 2 12111 0 1 1 1 / 2 1 1 3 0 1 / 2 1 1 2 9 1 / 21414 1/25 9 4 3 8 4 1 / 2 1739 1 1 6 9 17264 5 4 16421547181117136 7 4 18352034 8 7 5 5 6 4 12317 1 8 1 0 0 2 1 0 5 4 1 0 5 9 7 4 6 7 0 5 7 1 114081422 14261714 8 7 1 16031927 1/2 189913041 1 5 3 8 6 7 1 1 4 2 5 6 2 8 3 7 7 8 8 14284 6 5 7 8 3 1 1 7 7 1 1 6 0 6 6 4 1940 8 5 8 191015336 4 1 13351 1 3 2 7 4 5 9 7 6 1 1 1 4 1951 1941 1938 1934 1929 1928 1925 1921 19141907 1902 7571 0 6 3 1 0 4 6 75918041747171916341629162716111 4 1 4 6 9 2 6 9 7 14387 0 5 7 1 2 715 7 1 7 14467 3 7 14447 9 3 1501150414011635163217021703170613197 8 8 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 3 6 8 6 14401 0 7 1 7 2 7 5 5 8 16261 0 5 3 181418161 0 6 91819 2052 1980 1337 2017 18177 3 9 1427 1/211121 1 5 5 2033B 7 2 4 7 4 3 5 5 4 13239 7 5 5 7 4 16758 7 3 1 1 4 1 18271513131014057 8 5 18266 5 612396 5 7 5 8 7 6 0 0 1 0 2 8 15319 5 1 183616156 6 7 7 5 1 1 0 2 312031306 1 0 2 6113011117 2 3 4 6 5 9 8 0 1 1 3 7 1 1 0 9 5 3 2 1 0 4 2 1 1 4 51288 1 0 2 7 5 9 5 6 5 1 1 1 3 012168 4 0 10 1 11624 13474 8 1 1 0 2 3 1177 14458 6 0 4 4 1 16092035 70315131040 7 9 51210 9 7 7 6 5 71117 6 4 8 15308 8 3 6 4 6 13031108 1 1 5 9 8 7 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 2 9 7 2 0 5 5 1 1606151775511 0 0 6 6 5 18298 6 9 8 8 2 202117377 2 6 133419748 5 0 144615187 7 0 13016 4 9557 8 4 4 15311641162015356 8 5 8 9 2 18229 7 2 1317 7 1 2 11198 5 3 12201 0 3 5 7 5 2 4 8 5 1 0 5 1 1 1 6 1 6 4 9 151817276 6 515195 9 1 18211636141013171 1 1 0 8 9 3 16455 5 0 5 9 5 17058 8 4 8 4 513017 7 1 2022 1 0 2 9 1 0 1 5 6 8 3 5 8 6 13067 2 7 5 5 4 5 5 9 1957 1 0 1 1 15281415182517285 5 3 7 7 1 1 1 2 1 14371312112111351316 8 2 0 7 4 413266 9 8 4 4 3 5 3 0 1 1 2 9 17218 9 6 13206 9 0 7 4 8 2013 1 0 6 1 7 0 8 170115356 6 9 1 1 9 0 10201 0 1 114456 5 81240 15041511164211441626192615271815 1 1 6 9 8 7 0 1721143016655 6 7 1 1 8 6 162518047 7 9 1 1 5 2 7 5 1 1 1 8 9 6 3 8 6 7 7 11 7 0 7 2 6 18021 0 3 611371763 11 9 6 18458 6 6 18174 7 5 182016276 4 1 3 9 3 7 8 5 8 9 8 8 5 0 17201 1 5 7 9 7 3 7 7 0 1 1 7 2 18034 6 9 18156 9 1 4 4 5 7 7 7 1 0 4 3 6 6 4 7 7 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 7 0 4 9 2 1 1 8 2 142917207 4 2 1725 4 5 6 17105 6 0 1 2 0 1 6 5 8 17331 1 6 7 140611416 7 0 1 0 2 9 9 7 4 6 8 5 7 3 0 9 6 0 132913509 6 9 8 5 5 181215462030 8 4 21530 16354 5 8 7 5 3 15031427152614057 3 6 1 1 7 8 11 8 2 5 9 0 162017111250151713251421130120431427 6 4 0 6 7 9 8 5 313701329 6 8 4 7 9 0 15055 7 8 720154117179 6 8 5 5 2 8 7 9 7 7 9 1181 1 1 0 4 1 1 4 4 12128 7 6 182813435 5 3 711 19373 8 3 4 5 1 7 7 8 7 5 2 151417007 1 212281326 1420142811009 7 1 1641 6 6 1 16012001 11 9 2 6 9 9 6 6 4 8 6 2 5 7 5 8 8 0 7 8 1 8 5 8 8 9 8 14354 8 2 5 5 5 8 8 8 5 4 2 8 8 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 3 3 6 6 3 14431521171114181 1 7 0 13167 2 5 181517258 2 0 6 3 9 6 4 0 17205 4 4 2040 5 6 3 16051 0 0 8 1 1 6 0 7 9 11426133615208 4 1 1 1 1 6 134916331 1 7 4 8 3 6 12337 3 2 5 7 5 721 15211 0 1 8 7 7 8 4 6 8 6 4 0 9 5 6 7 4 5 1526161413447 2 2 6 6 4 9 6 6 8 7 4 6 6 9 5 6 7 16041 0 3 4 1 1 4 0 1901 6 6 7 142016171518201517077 3 7 8 6 8 1 0 3 5 1841123511277 6 2 1 1 7 5 17311345 5 7 8 5 7 5 15196 6 0 6 9 4 134016281 1 3 3 7 1 0 15192040 6 9 5 8 6 3 6 6 7 200611257 2 8 16204 8 0 6 6 2 1179 7 3 2 5 9 11541 4 6 7 1400 1 0 5 2 6 4 1 2006 8 9 3 7 7 7 10 2 1 8 4 3171914251721672 16458 6 41372 18326 7 1 5 3 9 17058 8 0 5 8 0 19061741182018451 1 5 4 13337 4 11128 1 1 2 41320 5 5 9 16356 3 8 2005 1 1 3 9 15211520154312431730161717341 0 3 0 6 5 01032 7 2 8 1 1 8 1 18411 1 3 6 7 6 7 7 5 0 6 6 11421 1 0 2 01127 174417297 8 5 6 5 9 162815306 7 3 131917501 0 1 61201 15373 9 6 4 7 9 6 7 1 15261 2 1 5 132114076 5 4 15365 5 9 1 1 4 7 1635164514159 7 2 5 8 6 13121 0 4 3 1 1 6 0 9 8 1 4 5 4 1 / 2 1 1 5 7 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 8 1731 6 9 8 6 5 5 17275 4 6 1 0 4 5 6 8 0 4 8 5 5 3 5 9 8 51341 16356 9 1 7 5 1 1749 8 9 3 4 3 4 8 5 7 8 5 5 8 9 5 1520196015124 4 6 8 9 4 1 0 4 2 8 9 51346 7 8 4 1 0 2 0 17467 2 8 17166 6 8 7 4 0 18206 7 6 18316 5 5 142115167 9 0 5 7 8 5 4 7 5 7 5 6 7 6 7 2 0 1 0 3 4 7 1 4 17031 0 1 71522 7 8 5 15078 1 5 7 3 7 4 6 1 7 0 912211418 9 7 1 6 5 6 7 8 7 17216 4 7 1 1 3 5 15654 9 3 12357 5 3 1 0 2 8 2033 8 6 8 8 6 5 5 5 9 7 2 0 14112041 1880 1 1 5 4 1 0 6 7 5 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 3 5 8 8 8 171215165 3 9 183715347 9 9 5 7 9 4 3 2 151317107091404 17451 1 4 7 13708 0 5 1728154517206 3 0 7 2 6 5 9 9 7 4 7 5 7 1 1 1 1 3 123417058 2 9 4 6 2 1 0 4 5 4 5 0 17086 7 5 1 1 2 3 11208 8 9 7 4 3 152714011789 8 8 0 131512454 9 7 8 7 613296 4 0 5 7 1 8 5 613341511 16271 1 1 8 18175 6 1 1 1 5 1 2048 1 0 2 2 15631318120415356 7 414217 3 4 5 3 0 6 4 4 1 0 3 6 6 6 5 9 9 0 6 8 5 9 7 6 131615151704151883910106 4 7 1 0 2 21241 151017304 5 9 152914181 1 2 0 15141 1 5 3 4 8 0 172014377 3 6 5 4 0 16008 7 3 4 4 3 8 5 9 1 0 5 7 15429 7 7 2046 5 5 0 16218 8 5 7 4 3 8 9 9 15128 6 0 7 9 3 6 5 41428 162815285 5 6 1 0 4 5 5 7 0 1260 15158 9 01322 4 5 7 18351335 6 4 1 1 0 6 8 15368 2 71342 15446 8 7 16208 4 9 8 5 0 8 7 1 8 9 0 7 2 5 15344 6 4 5 4 51525 17366 6 3 7 3 3 6 7 4 11 7 4 151010238 7 8 8 9 1 1 1 4 8 8 6 7 4 8 1 1 1 4 5 6 7 9 6 4 2 18265 8 5 12391 0 5 0 1 0 2 6 8 8 5 1 1 0 0 16409 7 9 1 0 4 4 6 6 3 7 1 7 5 7 0 8 8 0 9 6 9 19014 7 7 1 0 3 2 1 1 5 9 16418 5 1 1 0 3 4 15206 5 4 5 4 1 1965 8 1 8 9 7 5 6 7 1 180914298 7 9 7 9 4 1 0 6 0 6 3 9 1 1 0 9 1318 8 5 9 4 6 3 5 6 6 15164 5 7 6 7 0 8 5 0 7 4 4 6 5 7 7 9 0 6 9 1 7 2 0 8 9 71010 1 1 7 6 16131 0 0 5 142716377 8 2 8 8 1 8 6 61124 18081627204718311929 7 4 7 4 7 2 1 0 1 0 4 5 7 1 0 1 513288 7 5 4 4 2 13418 7 0 8 7 8 4 9 6 5 4 9 1927 7 1 5 7 1 9 14167 9 5 6 9 0 7696 8 0 7 3 1 1 0 6 6 4 5 4 4 8 3 10607 7 4 153014411 0 3 1 5 5 2 16381 0 5 3 1 0 5 1 7 1 4 1 1 0 5 18156 8 4 11191 0 1 1 5 8 8 12354 4 7 162210216 8 2 1 1 1 7 4 3 9 4 6 7 5 5 6 1 0 4 7 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 1995 1 0 2 5 1728118 6 7 5 0 5 7 2 1 0 1 2 7 2 5 4 5 4 11 8 4 15057 3 3 163973213457 8 7 5 5 2 1 0 2 5 7 7 7 1110 6 7 0 11 7 678111297 6 6 15211 1 1 0 131414076 9 6 152518097 9 5 717 8 8 7 6 9 9 8 7 1 1 0 4 314361404 15191 0 3 7 18221118 202316198 5 4 1 0 1 9 1 0 1 0 4 6 3 1 / 2 9 5 4 172412097 4 8 9 7 6 4 7 0 4 6 2 7 9 6 151618101 0 2 7 165512411 1 5 1 13807 4 9 17295 3 6 1624152113471 1 1 2 180411087 3 6 1508 8 6 0 8 9 0 19611631180113416 6 5 1503164015367 3 0 14086 5 2 142518137 2 8 1024 171016451709141411 9 6 17091 0 4 0 1814150214237 1 2 2050 7 4 7 6 4 9 9 5 41607 1540 11 9 4 1906111411247 6 0 5 3 3 2027172816247 1 6 12318 7 4 1 1 4 5 1634144417408 7 6 11 8 8 15154 9 8 15442045172713451636 2047 6 7 31304 113016351 2 0 3 7 1 0 1175 7 4 0 4 8 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 5 1 0 4 1 7 8 6 162310444 9 9 1 1 8 4 1 0 2 7 705 6 7 6 6 7 2 6 6 9 4 7 2 142311104 5 5 6 6 812331406 1 0 2 5 7 2 8 5 3 8 17214 8 6 15111 1 6 5 11156 7 5 1 0 6 21113 9 6 6 6 4 5 1 0 4 91050 7 7 21131 13029 7 8 1 1 3 0 7 2 2 5 7 4 7 4 1 7 1 9 8 7 7 8 6 3 7 5 7 7 5 0 9 5 8 9 6 2 9 6 4 7 3 8 5 5 8 8458511122111811141 1 2 6 1510 1/21929 1/2 1914 1/2 20281 1 6 2 1 1 6 4 1 1 6 6 1 1 6 8 1 1 5 3 1 / 2 1 1 4 9 13131 1 4 6 2005 5 8 3 5 8 7 5 9 1 121312151217122512231 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 6 5 5 113311411505150913211325132713298 7 1 8 7 3 8 7 5 8 7 7 13191410142014301 1 2 1 112011307 2 4 7 2 01240 1 0 5 5 1 0 5 2 17155 4 7 172415185 6 0 1 1 1 5 14246 4 1 1 1 7 4 13361 0 3 2 8 6 81634 1 1 5 9 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ðð ð ð ð ð "!;Î"!;Î "!;Î "!;Î"!;Î "!;Î"!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î"!;Î"!;Î"!;Î "!;Î !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ððð ð ð ð ð ð ð "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B"?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B"?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) T) "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "?B "? "?B "?B 253 254 256 265 298 307 Monterey Jennifer Higuera Os o s He n r y O sos Church Pismo T o r o U ph a mBr o a d ChurchSa n t a R o s a Be a c h Ca rm e l Ni p om o EllaMo r r o Buchon IslayPacific Marsh Garden Ga r d e n Ch o r r o RachelSwazeyPismobuchon Ra i lroadNipomo GeorgeRailroadSanta BarbaraLeffRailroad1920 1565 2334 1910 1605 2328 1943 1915 2325 1968 1711 1888 1631 1917 1625 2066 1608 2331 2350 1946 1940 1602 1794 6770 1916 1977 1906 1713 16771665 6 1628 1714 1886 8 1632 2345 2035 1941 1603 2351 1795 1766 6771 2488 1972 1629 1666 7 1889 1623 1944 1921 1660 1606 2348 1600 1974 1577 1969 1712 1912 1626 1918 1707 1661 2349 2332 1601 1578 1907 1909 1710 1664 1913 5 1884 1627 4 2311 2335 1890 2346 1604 2036 2324 1624 1618 1957 1973 1945 2336 1891 1607 2347 1914 1911 1905 1619 1762 1919 1885 1975 2333 23271942 1908 1579 2893 11275 1630 1887 1971 1956 1622 2065 262 263 264 265 268 295 321 325 340 354 386 389 398 361 315 324 464 521 404 358 364 347 522 499 353 359 529 313 370 588 350 393 356 316357 365 317 348 325 314 371 532 372 352 360 366 369 349 443 3355 3361 3415 3464 3364 3356 3442 3477 3354 3386 8355 n u l l 9 f t null87ftCMP17ftCAS 0ftCMP 21ft n u l l 0 f t PVC25ftC P 2 6 f t RCP 29ft RCP 31ft PVC 31ft R C P 3 1 f t PVC 34ftPVC3 4 f tCP 50ftRC P 3 7 f t n u l l 3 8 f t PVC 42ft H D P E 4 0 f tPVC 15ftRCP52ftRCP39ftRCP41ftR C P 4 1 f t RCP 42ft SP42ftRCP42ftRCP 45ft PVC46ft CP 106ftCP49ftRCP 31ftRC P 49ftPVC5 0 f t R C P 5 1 f t PE 51ft CP 52ft CP 53ft RCP 3 9 7 f tRCP57ftnull0ftPE60ft CMP6 1 f tRCP2 9 6 f t RCP86ftCP87ftP VC 1 0 5 f t CMP 9 3 f tnull 99ftCP 109ftRCP 1 1 0 f tCMP1 1 5 f tRCP 2 2 3 f t RCP 1 2 2 f t CP 128ft RCP 1 7 5 f t PE1 4 1 f t B R 1 4 0 f t RCP449ft RCP174ft CP99ftP VC 1 7 0 f t RCP1 7 2 f t CP 184ft RCP2 1 5 f t RCP 252ft RCP251ft CP266ftRCP 2 7 3 f t RCP317ftRCP3 0 8 f t RCP329ft P VC 3 3 9 f t RCP 3 9 7 f tRCP3 6 9 f t RCP 515ftRCP 3 8 2 f tRCP3 9 2 f t RCP 0ftCP436ftRCP437ft RCP 445ftK-10Date: 3/18/2025 Railroad Tracks 4 DetentionBasinPoint ð DischargePoint [Ú LiftStation !.CleanOut !!2 Manhole "!;Î Culvert Inlet UNITTYPE "?B Catch T)Corner "?B Sump ð OpenChannelPoint EdgeDrain Mains- Ownership OWNER STATE CITY EASE PRVT research Open Channel Private research VirtualDrainLine detension basins k RockGuard Flow Direction !east !north !south!west Creeks City Limit Right-of-way SchoolParcels Bridges Pavement Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ¯ 0 750 1,500375 Feet K-09 J-10L-10K-11 @ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@!@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@!@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@ !@!@ !@ !@ !@ 7 2 9 9 6 6 1 / 2 6 7 4 1 / 2 6 6 5 1 / 2 1 0 3 5 1 / 2 1 0 5 1 1 / 2 1 0 1 1 1 / 21414 1/25 9 4 173917261642181117138 7 514081422 17148 7 1 160313048 6 7 7 8 8 7 8 3 6 6 4 8 5 8 15336 4 1 13357 4 5 9 7 6 1 1 1 4 180417471719163416291627161114387 1 2 7151446 150115041401163516321702170317067 8 8 1 0 0 3 14401 0 7 1 7 2 7 5 5 8 16261 0 5 3 181418191337 7 3 9 1427 1/27 2 4 7 4 3 5 5 4 13239 7 5 8 7 314057 8 5 18266 5 612396 5 7 5 8 7 153116157 5 1 1 0 2 3 9 8 0 1 0 2 7 6 5 1 14458 6 0 16097031513 7 9 5 9 7 7 153013038 7 1 7 2 0 151718298 6 9 8 8 2 17377 2 6 13348 5 0 144615187 7 0 6 4 9 15311641162015356 8 5 18229 7 2 1317 8 5 3 1 0 3 5 7 5 2 6 4 9 17276 6 515195 9 1 18211636141013171 1 1 0 16458 8 413017 7 1 1 0 2 9 1 0 1 5 6 8 3 5 8 6 13067 2 7 5 5 9 15281415182517287 7 113121316 8 2 0 7 4 41326 8 9 6 13206 9 0 7 4 8 1 0 6 1 7 0 8 170115356 5 8 15041511164216261527143018047 7 9 6 7 7 1763 18458 6 6 181716278 9 8 8 5 0 17209 7 3 7 7 0 18157 7 7 142917207 4 2 1725 5 6 0 14066 7 0 9 7 4 6 8 5 9 6 0 13299 6 9 15468 4 21530 16357 5 3 1427152614057 3 6 16201325142113018 5 313701329 7 9 0 15055 7 8 720154117179 6 8 8 7 91212 8 7 61343711 7 5 2 1700122813261420142816018 6 2 5 7 5 8 8 0 7 8 1 8 5 8 14358 8 0 6 6 3 1443152117117 2 5 8 2 0 6 3 9 16057 9 11426133615208 4 113498 3 6 7 3 2 5 7 5 721 15211 0 1 8 9 5 6 152613447 2 2 9 6 6 8 7 4 6 6 9 16046 6 7 16177 3 7 8 6 8 1 0 3 51235 1345 15196 6 0 16286 9 5 8 6 3 7 2 8 16206 6 2 7 3 2 5 9 11541 1400 1 0 5 2 8 9 3 7 7 7 142517216728 6 41372 6 7 1 17058 8 013337 4 1 16351520154312431730161717346 5 0 18417 5 0 6 6 11421 174417297 8 5 1628131917506 7 1 152614076 5 4 1536164514159 7 2 13129 8 1 1 0 2 8 17316 5 5 17271 0 4 5 6 8 0 9 8 51341 6 9 1 7 5 1 1749 8 9 3 8 5 7 8 5 5 8 9 5 15121 0 4 2 8 9 51346 7 8 4 1 0 2 0 174617167 4 0 18206 7 6 142115166 7 6 7 1 4 17031 0 1 71522 7 8 5 8 1 5 7 0 91418 9 7 1 7 8 7 6 4 7 7 5 3 1 0 2 8 8 6 8 8 6 5 7 2 0 14111880 1 0 6 7 8 8 8 17121516153417107091404 174513708 0 5 7 4 7 5 7 1 123417058 2 9 1 0 4 5 17086 7 5 8 8 9 7 4 3 1527140117891245 8 7 6 8 5 6133415115 6 1 1 0 2 2131814217 3 4 6 4 4 1 0 3 6 9 7 6 1316170415181510152914181514172014377 3 6 8 7 3 1 0 5 7 15429 7 7 5 5 0 16218 8 5 7 4 3 15128 6 0 7 9 3 6 5 41428 162815281 0 4 5 15158 9 0 1335 6 4 1 15368 2 71342 15446 8 7 16208 5 0 8 7 1 7 2 5 153417367 3 3 6 7 4 15108 7 8 8 9 1 8 6 7 8 8 5 16409 7 9 1 0 4 4 6 6 3 7 1 7 8 8 0 9 6 9 1 0 3 2 16418 5 1 1 0 3 4 8 1 8 14298 7 9 7 9 41318 8 5 915166 7 0 8 5 0 7 4 4 8 9 7 16131 0 0 5 142716378 8 1 8 6 6 7 4 7 1 0 1 01328 8 7 5 8 7 0 8 7 8 5 4 9 14166 8 0 7 3 1 1530144116381 0 5 3 1 0 5 1 7 1 4 1 0 1 1 5 8 8 16221 0 4 7 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 7 5 0 5 7 2 73213455 5 2 1 0 2 513141407 15257 9 5 717 8 8 714361404 1 0 3 7 16198 5 4 1 0 1 9 9 5 4 17247 4 8 9 7 6 1 0 2 712411380 17291624152113471 1 1 2 18041508 8 6 0 8 9 0 163113416 6 5 150315367 3 0 14086 5 2 1425181317101709141417091 0 4 01423 7 4 7 9 5 41607 15401728162412318 7 4 1634144417401544134516366 7 31304 16351 0 3 5 705 6 7 6 14236 6 812331406 1 0 2 5 7 2 8 172115111 0 6 2 9 6 6 1 0 4 9 7 7 2 9 7 8 7 2 2 5 7 4 7 1 9 8 7 7 9 5 8 9 6 2 1510 1/2131313211325132713298 7 1 8 7 3 8 7 5 8 7 7 1319141014201430112011307 2 4 7 2 01240 1 0 5 5 5 4 7 15186 4 1 13368 6 81634 Ga r d e n Church Mars h Br o a d Pism o IslayNi p om o Church Sa n t aRo s a Santa BarbaraRailroadBr o a dCh o r r o Ni p om o Leff ChurchNi p om o Br o a d Ni p om o Ch o r r o UphamMo r r o Pacific IslayMo r r o RailroadOsos Pacific Church LeffIslayPacific Buchon Pismo Pismo Buchon Os o s Sa n t aRo s a Ga r d e n Br o a d Buchon IslayLeff Mars h Pacific LeffIslayPismo Buchon Ch o r r o Mo r r o Ga r d e n Os o s Ch o r r o Mo r r o Os o s Mo r r o Ga r d e n Ga r d e nCh o r r o Br o a dBr o a d Ch o r r o Ga r d e n Mo r r o Ni p om o Br o a d Ga r d e n Ch o r r o Church Pismo Buch on IslayLeff Buchon Pismo Buchon IslayNipo m o Islay37 27 52 49 30 13 54 59 24 44 33 63 33 8 31 19 55 2 18 1 47 51 65 42 10 54 36 22 43 50 15 3 16 38 62 6 11 17 4 35 45 3 25 29 60 14 58 32 9 39 58 53 57 7 21 40 41 5 26 56 34 6461 46 20 23 28 12 8i n 4 3 ' V C P 6 i n 2 5 5 'VCP6in55'VCP 8in128'HDPE6 i n 1 1 2 'VCP 6 i n 3 7 4 'VCP 8 i n 3 2 6 'VCP8in382'HDPE 6 i n 1 4 8 ' VCP 8in144'HDPE 6in176'VCP 8 i n 3 3 6 'HDPE 6 i n 1 7 5 'VCP10in423'VCP 12in508'HDP E 1 0 i n 3 7 5 'VCP6in216'VCP 6 i n 2 2 0 'VCP6in456'VCP6in296'VCP 10in254'HDP E 6in158'HDPE6in260'VCP 6 i n 2 9 5 'VCP 6 i n 2 6 6 'VCP6in266'VCP 6 i n 2 6 6 'VCP 6 i n 2 7 5 'VCP 6 i n 2 7 5 'VCP 6 i n 3 1 2 'VCP6in290'VCP 6 i n 2 9 0 'VCP 6 i n 2 9 1 'VCP6in332'VCP 6 i n 2 9 5 'VCP6in298'VCP 6 i n 3 1 5 'C I PP 8in291'VCP 6in380'HDPE 1 0 i n 3 1 0 'VCP6in318'VCP 8 i n 3 4 1 'VC P15in350'PVC 8 i n 3 4 0 'VCP6in349'VCP 6in349'VCP 6in349'VCP 6in350'PVC 8 i n 3 5 4 'HDPE 6in350' V C P 6 i n 3 5 0 'VCP 8 i n 3 5 0 'HDPE 8 i n 3 5 0 'HDPE 6 i n 3 5 7 'VCP 6 i n 3 5 1 'VCP 8 i n 3 5 5 'PVC 6 i n 3 5 2 ' VC P 8 i n 3 5 7 'HDPE 8 i n 3 6 1 'PVC 6 i n 3 7 0 'VCP6in363'VCP 6 i n 3 6 5 'VCP6in373'VCP 10in382'HDPE 8in391'HDPE6in421'VCP 10in430'HDP E 8in430'VCP 6in502'VCP 6in488'VCP K-10 ³ Date: 3/25/2025 L-10K-11 K-09 K-10J-10Legend Gravity Main !@ CLEANOUT !@ CLEANOUTMH !@ DROPMH !@ JUMPER !@ MANHOLE !@ SUMMIT ")LiftStation @ Private Manholes Private Sewer Force Main CityLimit 1:2,000 1 From:Tami Simpson <violaconstructioninc@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 20, 2025 8:47 AM To:LaFreniere, Matt Subject:1321 & 1323 Garden St This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Matt, Hope all is well with you! Can you send me over the utility maps for the above address when you get a chance? -- Sincerely, Tami Simpson Viola Construction, Inc. P.O Box 198 Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 Phone (805)474-9745 Fax (805) 474-1522 1 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 8:35 AM To:cknauer243@aol.com Subject:RE: tree protection garden 1 Hi Chris, Thanks for providing the photos. The tree protection fencing is a step in the right direction. The fencing is very close to the trunks of the trees and based on its location and the signs of grading in the critical root zone, I’m concerned about the impact to the trees. How they respond will need to be monitored. As a reminder, there is no exception from submitting a tree removal application and obtaining approval to remove trees on your property. This includes dead trees. Please follow protocol in the future. It is imperative that there is clarity regarding tree trimming and removal during construction activities. Thank you, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: cknauer243@aol.com <cknauer243@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 1:20 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: tree protection garden 1 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Walter, As discussed, here are some pictures with installed tree protection fencing. Call me with questions. Thanks Chris Knauer 1323 Garden 805-801-5251 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: CHRIS KNAUER <cknauer243@aol.com> To: chris knauer <cknauer243@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 01:18:06 PM PST 2 Subject: tree protection garden 1 Sent from my iPhone 1 From:cknauer243@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 1:20 PM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Fw: tree protection garden 1 Attachments:IMG_1425.jpg; IMG_1424.jpg; IMG_1422.jpg; IMG_1419.jpg; IMG_1418.jpg This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Walter, As discussed, here are some pictures with installed tree protection fencing. Call me with questions. Thanks Chris Knauer 1323 Garden 805-801-5251 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: CHRIS KNAUER <cknauer243@aol.com> To: chris knauer <cknauer243@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 01:18:06 PM PST Subject: tree protection garden 1 Sent from my iPhone 1 From:Alexander, Dustin Sent:Saturday, March 1, 2025 9:57 AM To:PD_Officers Subject:1321 Garden construction noise. 250301031 Family, I had a conversation with RP/ who expressed concerns regarding construction noise originating from 1321 Garden, which began before 0800hrs today and has been a recurring issue. I informed the property owner, Christopher Knauer, about the complaint and the muni code regulations. He assured me that he would direct his contractor and subcontractors to adhere to the muni code during future construction activities. I provided RP/ with today’s DR#250301031 and advised him to reference it when reporting any future violations to SLOPD, as Knauer has been officially notified about the need for compliance with the muni code. DUSTIN Dustin Alexander Detective Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E dalexand@slocity.org T 805.594.8015 C slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 1 From:Alexander, Dustin Sent:Saturday, March 1, 2025 11:37 AM To:PD_Officers Subject:FW: 1321 Garden construction noise. 250301031 corrected info Family, C.Wallace reminded me construction is allowed 0700-1900 mon-sat. I re-contacted all parties and advised correct hours. RP/ will call if future construction starts before 0700. From: Alexander, Dustin Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2025 9:57 AM To: PD_Officers <PD_Officers@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden construction noise. 250301031 Family, I had a conversation with RP/ who expressed concerns regarding construction noise originating from 1321 Garden, which began before 0800hrs today and has been a recurring issue. I informed the property owner, Christopher Knauer, about the complaint and the muni code regulations. He assured me that he would direct his contractor and subcontractors to adhere to the muni code during future construction activities. I provided RP/ with today’s DR#250301031 and advised him to reference it when reporting any future violations to SLOPD, as Knauer has been officially notified about the need for compliance with the muni code. DUSTIN Dustin Alexander Detective 2 Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E dalexand@slocity.org T 805.594.8015 C slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 1 From: Sent:Friday, February 28, 2025 7:06 PM To:SLO; Gault, Walter Cc:J M Subject:1321 Garden Trees This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Dear Walter Gault, We met several weeks ago regarding the request #9660 regarding the trees of heaven that were illegally cut down at 1321 Garden Street. I am writing to infom you that the construction at 1321 Garden began on Monday and they have since dug a massive hole for the footing for the house. The hole is about 1 foot from the remaining tree trunks and goes down about 6 feet. one half of all the tree's roots have been cut and tossed and it seems pretty obvious that the trees will now die. I have attached pictures to this email (I had to shoot ove the fence, so the images do not fully show the degree of damage). My only intent is to let you know that now all the approximately 15 trees will have been killed by this land owner/developer. This is very sad and upsetting. Sincerely, 2 3 4 5 1 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Monday, January 13, 2025 9:21 AM To:CHRIS KNAUER Subject:RE: Notice of Violation 1323 Garden St (BLDG-0330-2024) Attachments:IMG_0418.jpg; IMG_0419.jpg Hi Chris, Thanks for your quick response. Dead or not, a permit is still required. Removing trees to a stump is considered a removal. While the tree of heaven grows in clustered groups and can propagate by runners, each stem was providing canopy value and will be considered as a tree. -Walter From: CHRIS KNAUER <cknauer243@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 9:02 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Notice of Violation 1323 Garden St (BLDG-0330-2024) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Walter, All of the trees on site were trimmed and not removed. There was a couple of tree sucklings that were dead and were removed to protect the neighbors property as it was a hazard and dangerous. The neighbors were pleased. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, Chris Knauer Searise Construction Services 805-801-5251 Sent from my iPhone On Jan 13, 2025, at 5:50 PM, Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> wrote: Chris Knauer, It has been brought to my attention that trees were illegally removed at 1323 Garden Street. Due to the zoning of the property, no tree can be removed without a permit. Tree removals must be requested in a Tree Removal Application. The notice of violation is attached. Regards, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist 2 Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 1 From:CHRIS KNAUER <cknauer243@aol.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2025 9:02 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Re: Notice of Violation 1323 Garden St (BLDG-0330-2024) Attachments:1323 Garden (BLDG-0330-2024) NOV 1-13-24.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Walter, All of the trees on site were trimmed and not removed. There was a couple of tree sucklings that were dead and were removed to protect the neighbors property as it was a hazard and dangerous. The neighbors were pleased. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, Chris Knauer Searise Construction Services 805-801-5251 Sent from my iPhone On Jan 13, 2025, at 5:50 PM, Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> wrote: Chris Knauer, It has been brought to my attention that trees were illegally removed at 1323 Garden Street. Due to the zoning of the property, no tree can be removed without a permit. Tree removals must be requested in a Tree Removal Application. The notice of violation is attached. Regards, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org January 13, 2024 sent via email Chris Knauer Searise Construction P.O. Box 1481 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: Illegal Removal of ten (10) Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) at 1323 Garden Street (BLDG-0330-2022) On December 10, 2024, I determined that ten (10) Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) had been removed without a permit at 1323 Garden Street. A new 3-story single family residence and ADU have been approved for construction at this address in BLDG-0330-2022. On parcels zoned “O”, no tree can be removed without a permit. Applicable Code Sections: Protection of Trees: 12.24.150 1. In accordance with municipal code 12.24.150.E, any person or contractor deemed responsible for damaging any tree in violation of this chapter shall be liable for penalties to the city according to Section 12.24.170, Enforcement. Enforcement 12.24.170(A). Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. Searise Construction has been deemed responsible for removing the trees without a permit. 1. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.170.A(3), if the tree removal or damaged tree is related to any development or subdivision then the civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times four, plus all related staff costs. The City Arborist will compute the value of the tree using methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture. The penalties for the tree damage are detailed in the following “Penalties” section. 2. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.170(A)(4), the property owner will be required to plant up to 3 trees under the direction of the City Arborist. If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, contact me by phone at (805) 781- 7578 or by email at wgault@slocity.org. Sincerely, Walter Gault City Arborist Community Development 1 From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com> Sent:Monday, December 30, 2024 6:12 PM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Ask SLO Message About Request #: 9612 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. The requestor added the following information to Request # 9612 Message: Dear Walter Gault, Thanks for your response. I was originally told I would have a response by 12/19 and now you are saying “it may take a long time”. The cut down these 40’ trees without a permit. I get the feeling this is being swept under the rug. I will be coming to your office after the 1st to discuss this with someone in person. Best, > On Dec 18, 2024, at 1:46 PM, SLO <sanluisobispoca@user.govoutreach.com> wrote: > > --- Request Information Request type: Problem Request area: Illegal Tree Removals & Non-Conformance to Pruning Best Practices Citizen name: Location: 1321 Garden Street Description: Ten 40' tall heritage "trees of heaven" were cut down with out a permit by this land developer at the back of this property. Only five small trees remain, but have had all the lower branches and branches facing the property cut off. Only branches hanging over the fence remain. There was a lush green wall of trees and now it is stark and barren. Expected Close Date: December 19, 2024 2 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 1:32 PM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Ask SLO Message About Request #: 9612 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. The requestor added the following information to Request # 9612 Message: I am checking in on the status of this request. I was to receive a response by tomorrow. I just want to confirm that this is being handled. Thank you, > On Dec 5, 2024, at 10:22 AM, SLO <sanluisobispoca@user.govoutreach.com> wrote: > > --- Request Information Request type: Problem Request area: Illegal Tree Removals & Non-Conformance to Pruning Best Practices Citizen name: Location: 1321 Garden Street Description: Ten 40' tall heritage "trees of heaven" were cut down with out a permit by this land developer at the back of this property. Only five small trees remain, but have had all the lower branches and branches facing the property cut off. Only branches hanging over the fence remain. There was a lush green wall of trees and now it is stark and barren. Expected Close Date: December 19, 2024 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2024 9:00 AM To:Nelson, Trevor Subject:1323 Garden Street (BLDG-0330-2022) Stop Work Attachments:IMG_0418.jpg; TC_00174.JPG; IMG_0419.jpg Good morning Trevor, I received a report about some trees that were removed without a permit at 1321 Garden—it appears that a permit was recently issued for a new single family residence in the back. Due to the zoning of the location, there is no exemption on any circumstances for a tree removal without a permit. This BLDG was reviewed prior to my joining the City, so I think the trees slipped through. That means there’s no tree protection to enforce like at 3160 Johnson. While penalties and a replanting plan are assessed, is there anything you’d recommend doing in the meantime, like a stop work order? Thank you, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 10:32 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Ask SLO You have been assigned a new Request #: 9660 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Request # 9660 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Problem Request area: Illegal Tree Removals & Non-Conformance to Pruning Best Practices Citizen name: Description: Caller states 8 trees were cut down. Unsure if permit were issued for tree removal. Location: 1321 Garden St Expected Close Date: December 23, 2024 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 1 From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2024 10:23 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Ask SLO You have been assigned a new Request #: 9612 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Request # 9612 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Problem Request area: Illegal Tree Removals & Non-Conformance to Pruning Best Practices Citizen name: Description: Ten 40' tall heritage "trees of heaven" were cut down with out a permit by this land developer at the back of this property. Only five small trees remain, but have had all the lower branches and branches facing the property cut off. Only branches hanging over the fence remain. There was a lush green wall of trees and now it is stark and barren. Location: 1321 Garden Street Expected Close Date: December 19, 2024 5 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 1 From:Wynn, Eva Sent:Friday, November 15, 2024 12:13 PM To: Cc:J M Subject:RE: SLO Planning Questions Apologies for the late reply. Notices would have been a condition of the permit and gone to neighbors within 300ft of the project. I unfortunately wouldn’t know if the previous owner contacted the building department or whether they would be required to disclose that information to you. Hope this helps! Kind regards, Eva Wynn Planning Technician Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E EWynn@slocity.org T 805.781.7172 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 12:08 PM To: Wynn, Eva <EWynn@slocity.org> Cc: Subject: Re: SLO Planning Questions This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Eva, Thanks for getting back to me. I looked up the address on google earth. It looks like the address is 1321 Garden street (see attached screen grab). I believe the person that applied for the permit is: Chris Knauer (805) 801-5251 Cknauer243@aol.com 2 Chris Knauer told me that notices had been sent out to neighbors. I just want to confirm this to be true and that a formal notice was sent to 1370 Broad st. Also, if there is any record of the previous owner Edwina D. Olt, communicating with the building department regarding this permit. Thanks! On Nov 5, 2024, at 11:51 AM, Wynn, Eva <EWynn@slocity.org> wrote: I am following up about your phone call today. I would need some more information to determine whether noticing was conducted for the address you were calling about. It all depends on what kind of permit or level of review the address required for development. Whether they were planning or building permits. If you have an address, I may be able to determine if noticing was required. Respectfully, Eva Wynn Planning Technician Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E EWynn@slocity.org 3 T 805.781.7172 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:Stanley, Erin Sent:Monday, October 14, 2024 4:27 PM To:CHRIS KNAUER Subject:1323 Garden Plans Good afternoon Chris, I have added all the stamped approved documents to the link below for your access. If you need anything further, please feel free to let me know. https://www.dropbox.com/ Have a great rest of your day! Erin Stanley Permit Technician I Community Development E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7159 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:Danny McBride <sanluisobispocountyinspections@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 24, 2024 3:59 PM To:Henderson, Marcus; Alan Arvin Subject:Garden Green 2697-001 Attachments:Garden Green 2697-001.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. -- Danny McBride San Luis Obispo County Inspections PO. Box 13252 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406 805-441-5903 CSLB Lisc# 1042814 C-20, C-36 A.B.P.A Cert # 05-00657, BCxP, CBCP sanluisobispocountyinspections@gmail.com SIZE: MODEL: FACILITY PHONE: FACILITY NAME: FACILITY ADDRESS: CITY: ASSEMBLY LOCATION: FACILITY ID: OWNER / OPERATOR PHONE: OWNER ID: REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE ASSEMBLY PRESSURE VACUUM BREAKER CHECK VALVE NO. 1 CHECK VALVE NO. 2 TYPE II BYPASS CHECK VALVE TEST HELD AT: _____ PSID LEAKED LEAKED TEST DATE COMMENTS: DATE: TAG NO.: TESTER NUMBER: NAME: If the test PASSES or FAILS, the field testing report(s) shall be filed within 10 calendar days following completion of the field test. Failure to submit testing results within 10 calendar days may result in enforcement action. SUBMITTED ON __________________ [PROCESS DATE] OWNER/CONTACT: MAILING CARE OF: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, & ZIP: THIS IS A TEST AFTER REPAIRS: STATUS: AIR INLET VALVE DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY CHECK DIFFERENTIAL RELIEF VALVE RPASSEMBLY CATEGORY: SERVICE NO.:DUE DATE: TYPE:MFG: DEVICE USE: LEAKED TYPE OF SERVICE: SERIAL NO.: WATER PURVEYOR: ASEMBLY ID: AIR GAP AIR GAP CHECKED OPENED AT: _____ OPENED AT: _____ PSID HELD AT: _____ PSID HELD AT: _____ PSID CLOSED TIGHT (RP) LEAKED PSID HELD AT: _____ PSID BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TEST REPORT FAX: VALVE ASSEMLBY COMMENTS J034482 1.0RP 825YA FEBCO RP BD0007462 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GARDEN GREEN 1323 GARDEN ST SAN LUIS OBISPO GARDEN GREEN-1323 GARDEN STREET-IRRIG-FRONT OF BUILDING IN PLANTER FA0011451 GARDEN GREEN-LEE BREN OW0011710 3.48.7 8 08/23/2024 Passed 2697-001 PI0000023 MCBRIDE, DAN 08/24/2024 08/31/20252697-001 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Services Division San Luis Obispo crossconnection@co.slo.ca.us CA 2156 Sierra Way Ste. B 93401 (805) 781-4211(805) 781-5544 1 From:building Sent:Friday, May 31, 2024 2:09 PM To:khall@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject:BLDG-0330-2022 (1323 Garden St) Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022-INVOICE.pdf; School Fee Form - BLDG-0330-2022.pdf Hello, Your building permit application has been reviewed for code compliance and is ready for issuance pending all the following: An invoice has been generated and attached to your account, please log on to the Citizen Access portal at InfoSLO (slocity.org) to pay the balance. PLEASE EMAIL BUILDING@SLOCITY.ORG WHEN ONCE FEES ARE PAID IN FULL AS WE WILL NOT RECEIVE NOTIFICAITON. Paying an Invoice: There is no need to create an account to make a payment. You can pay online by following the link and searching the invoice number. Pay Invoices (slocity.org)  If you wish to pay with a check, please mail the check to address 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 attention to the Building Department. Please include the permit number and/or address to ensure we can assist you promptly.  If you would like to pay by phone, please call (805) 781-7180 between 8:00am-3:00pm and someone can assist you.  You can also walk into our office and make a payment during our open counter hours. Thank you! School Fee Form: Your project is ready to issue pending payment or exemption of your School Fees. Attached is your school fee form. Please email Anna Marie Livingston alivingston@slcusd.org or call (805) 549-1213 to make an appointment. Once the school fees have been paid or exempted, please email the receipt to building@slocity.org or drop it off at our office during our open counter hours. Stamped plans will be available on-line to download once fees are paid and we issue the permit. Please log into your portal to view and download your stamped plans. InfoSLO (slocity.org) Counter Hours: Monday & Wednesday 1:00pm – 4:00pm Tuesday & Thursday 9:00am – 12:00 pm Friday – Closed (by appointment only) Thank you, Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I 2 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications Siri'Ltr.q.gpl$po Building & Safety Division . 919 Palm Street. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -321 8 School Fee Payment Certification Email this form to alivingston@slcusd.org and then call 805-549-1213 or email for an appointment in order to pay fees. The City cannot issue a building permit until the fee required by the San Luis Coastal Unified School District has been paid. T applicant is responsible for taking this form to the school district offices at 1500 Lizzie Bldg C. The school district will determin if a fee is required, compute and collect the fee from the applicant, and certify payment in part "C" of this form. The applicant must return this form to the Building Division and pay permit fees before the building permit can be issued. The phone numbe for the school district is (805) 549-1213. A. APPLICANT AND PERMIT INFORMATION PermitNumber: BLDG-0330-2022 Applicant Name: , ONCE UPON A TIME LP Assessor's Parcel Number:003-524-021 Project Address: 1323 Garden St B. BUILDING TYPE & SIZE INDICATED BY PERMIT APPLICATION Building - New Single FamilyBuilding Type: Floor Area:# New SQFT # Demo SQFT Total SQFT Residential: Commercial: 4,577.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,577.00 0.00 Total: rmit application reviewed by: Vanessa Nichols,Se 4,577.O0 0.00 4,577.00 May 31.2024 DateCoordinator C. SCHOOL DISTRICT VERIFICATION OF FEE PAYMENT I hereby certify that the required development fee has been paid to the San Luis Coastal Unified School District for the building described above. AB 2926 fee: Sq. Ft.x fee Signature TOTAL FEE CALCULATED $ Date INVOICE (00035902) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BILLING CONTACT KEITH HALL KHA Architect 285 Bridge St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION 00035902 05/31/2024 06/30/2024 NONEDue REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL BLDG-0330-2022 Administrative Fee $360.03 Building Permit Review - Planning $191.00 Building Permit Review - Planning $382.00 C&D Recycling - UTIL $71.11 Consolidated Inspection Fees $9,269.40 Consolidated Plan Check Fees $6,474.59 Final Inspection - SF Residential - PW $247.47 Fire Citywide Base fee (SF)$676.87 Grading - BLDG $824.82 Green Building Fee $34.00 IT Surcharge $660.45 Meter Cost (1")$216.00 Meter Service: Install (.58"-1")$142.21 Park Improvement Impact Fee (SF)$3,355.21 Parkland Impact Fee (SF)$3,670.93 Police Citywide Base fee (SF)$794.64 Recycled Water Services - UTIL $568.85 Single Family Residential -ENG $938.37 SMIP (Residential)$114.00 Stormwater - Moderate Project - BLDG $1,975.42 TIF Citywide Base fee (SF) >1400 $12,075.72 W Residential Unit > 1201 sqft $13,767.02 Water Service or Trash Enc or Landscape - UTIL $568.85 WW Residential Unit > 1201 sqft $12,785.98 $70,164.94 SUBTOTAL1323 Garden St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TOTAL $70,164.94 Page 1 of 1May 31, 2024 City of San Luis Obispo 1 From:building Sent:Friday, May 24, 2024 8:54 AM To:Jessica HANNEMAN Subject:RE: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) v5 That worked thank you. Counter Hours: Monday & Wednesday 1:00pm – 4:00pm Tuesday & Thursday 9:00am – 12:00 pm Friday – Closed (by appointment only) Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 8:39 AM To: building <building@slocity.org> Subject: Re: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) v5 Hi Ilianna, Can you try and access the teams now? I All the best, Jessica Hannemann Operations Manager Bureau Veritas 2 1411 Marsh St. Suite 107, San Luis Obispo Office: 805-792-1109 Mobile: 805.538.4911 Jessica.Hannemann@bureauveritas.com http://www.us.bureauveritas.com/ Shaping a World of Trust From: building <building@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 7:53 AM To: Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Subject: RE: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) v5 Hi Jennifer, I’m trying to download the files, but it says I need permission. Counter Hours: Monday & Wednesday 1: 00pm – 4: 00pm Tuesday & Thursday 9: 00am – 12: 00 pm Friday – Closed (by appointment only) Ilianna Silva Permit Technician ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart Be careful with this message: it is coming from an external sender Do not open attachments nor click on links, unless you are sure that the content is safe ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi Jennifer, I’m trying to download the files, but it says I need permission. 3 Counter Hours: Monday & Wednesday 1:00pm – 4:00pm Tuesday & Thursday 9:00am – 12:00 pm Friday – Closed (by appointment only) Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 2:44 PM To: building <building@slocity.org> Subject: Re: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) v5 4 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good afternoon, Building has approved: Approved All the best, Jessica Hannemann Operations Manager Bureau Veritas 1411 Marsh St. Suite 107, San Luis Obispo Office: 805-792-1109 Mobile: 805.538.4911 Jessica.Hannemann@bureauveritas.com http://www.us.bureauveritas.com/ Shaping a World of Trust From: building <building@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 9:34 AM To: Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Subject: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) v5 Hello Jessica, Please see attached V5 resubmittal for the above-mentioned project. Thank you. Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@ slocity. org T 805. 781. 7101 slocity. org Stay ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart Be careful with this message: it is coming from an external sender Do not open attachments nor click on links, unless you are sure that the content is safe ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hello Jessica, Please see attached V5 resubmittal for the above-mentioned project. Thank you. Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 5 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This message contains confidential information. To know more, please click on the following link: https://disclaimer.bureauveritas.com This message contains confidential information. To know more, please click on the following link: https://disclaimer.bureauveritas.com 1 From:building Sent:Monday, May 20, 2024 9:35 AM To:Jessica HANNEMAN Subject:BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) v5 Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_BV REVIEW V4_2024-05-19 Response.pdf Hello Jessica, Please see attached V5 resubmittal for the above-mentioned project. Thank you. Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 4 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 1333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the FOURTH plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list.  These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicable codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation.  The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed.  For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals.  Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section.  Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Plans Examiner Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 4 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2 nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A- 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one-half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been obtained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] 3rd Review: No response found in submission. Comment remains. City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 4 4th Review: The calculations of the main level have included the stair footage twice, overstating the size of the main floor. Please see red marks below RESPONSE________________________________________________________________________________ City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 4 of 4 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS portion of the stair down labeled as "A.2" is open to the Main Floor & IS included in the Main Floor Area A.2 L.1 12'-4"2024-04-17/Loft Area Clarify 10128 EX-01.1 Loft-Mezanine Floor Area Exhibit.dwg E X -0 1 .1 BLDG-0330-2022Loft-Mezanine Floor Area Exhibit 1321 Garden St Lofts 1321 & 1323 Garden St San Luis Obispo , Ca 93401 1 From:building Sent:Monday, May 20, 2024 9:32 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: BLDG-0330-2022 PC#4 Response for 1321 & 1323 Garden Street Received and routed for review. Thank you. Counter Hours: Monday & Wednesday 1:00pm – 4:00pm Tuesday & Thursday 9:00am – 12:00 pm Friday – Closed (by appointment only) Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2024 5:51 PM To: building <building@slocity.org> Subject: RE: BLDG-0330-2022 PC#4 Response for 1321 & 1323 Garden Street This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. This is our Plan Check Review Response for the 4 th review of BLDG-0330-2022… 1. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS (files aƩached to this email) a. The Community Development PC#4 Comment List noted that it is just the final fees leŌ to resolve & they are pending the City acceptance of our final response, thus, no ac Ɵon required in this response. b. For response to the Bureau Veritas PC#3 Comment List see … BLDG-0330-2022_BV REVIEW V4_2024-05-19 Response.pdf Best regards, Keith Hall khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S 2 k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2024 5:51 PM To:building Subject:RE: BLDG-0330-2022 PC#4 Response for 1321 & 1323 Garden Street Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_BV REVIEW V4_2024-05-19 Response.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. This is our Plan Check Review Response for the 4 th review of BLDG-0330-2022… 1. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS (files aƩached to this email) a. The Community Development PC#4 Comment List noted that it is just the final fees leŌ to resolve & they are pending the City acceptance of our final response, thus, no ac Ɵon required in this response. b. For response to the Bureau Veritas PC#3 Comment List see … BLDG-0330-2022_BV REVIEW V4_2024-05-19 Response.pdf Best regards, Keith Hall khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 4 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 1333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the FOURTH plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list.  These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicable codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation.  The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed.  For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals.  Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section.  Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Plans Examiner Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 4 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2 nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A- 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one-half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been obtained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] 3rd Review: No response found in submission. Comment remains. City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 4 4th Review: The calculations of the main level have included the stair footage twice, overstating the size of the main floor. Please see red marks below RESPONSE________________________________________________________________________________ City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 4 of 4 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS portion of the stair down labeled as "A.2" is open to the Main Floor & IS included in the Main Floor Area A.2 L.1 12'-4"2024-04-17/Loft Area Clarify 10128 EX-01.1 Loft-Mezanine Floor Area Exhibit.dwg E X -0 1 .1 BLDG-0330-2022Loft-Mezanine Floor Area Exhibit 1321 Garden St Lofts 1321 & 1323 Garden St San Luis Obispo , Ca 93401 1 From:building Sent:Monday, May 13, 2024 10:10 AM To:khall@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject:BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_BV REVIEW V4.pdf; BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V4.docx Hello, Please find the attached comment letters for this project. Please address corrections and provide responses with your re-submittal. Thank you! Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications Date: May 10, 2024 Plan Check Review # 4 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: _____yes ______no Print Name: If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: Project Address 1333 Garden St. Project Name Lofts on Garden Application Number BLDG-0330-2022 Review of New 3- Story SFR w/ attached ADU Occupancy Class R-3 Construction Type VB Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text. Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 2 Planning Division Graham Bultema gbultema@slocity.org 805-781-7111 ☒ Ready for Action ☐ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) 1. Payment of the completion fee (invoice #00022883) 2. Provide an explanation for changes made from approved project plans ARCH-0543-2019 - Conditions of Approval (dated Nov. 20, 2020)  Condition #1 –  Condition #4 –  Condition #5 –  Condition #6 Engineering Development Review Richard Avila Phil Dowty ravila@slocity.org Pdowty@slocity.org Mobile: 949.283.2270 ☒ Ready for Action ☐ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: These plans are considered incomplete and additional comments may apply when all minimum plan information and/or supporting documentation is provided through the plan review process. Provide responses to each comment, as appropriate, and note on what page(s) in the plan set each item is addressed. Include the name and phone # of the person(s) providing responses. The following items are required prior to building permit issuance: 1. The project shall show and document compliance with the 2014 Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building permit application shall include the required PCR checklist to show compliance with any pertinent standards. The checklist is available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5190 . Correct the Stormwater Control Plan section (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area does not include replaced area. This number seems to be high. Section (e) should not be 0 (2nd P/C) The PCR checklist has been received, however please complete the Project Information in Step 1: Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 3 2. If the PCR checklist triggers water quality requirements, then provide a Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) on a form provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Add this to cover sheet 3. Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the coversheet that identifies Stormwater Plan BMPs used for compliance for Performance Requirements 1-4 and required inspection by EOR during construction. Fill in the blank with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Refer to the project’s Post Construction Stormwater Plan. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: Project is subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Project is Exempt: _(yes or no)___ If no, Project meets: Performance Req. 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Performance Req. 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of _____________. Performance Req. 3 Runoff Retention through use of _____________ Performance Req. 4 Peak Management through use of _____________. The following items need correction on the draft construction plans : General 4. Verify address of 1333 Garden. City maps show property as 1321 Garden. (2nd P/C) Based on Owner’s response it seems that the address on plans should be revised to 1321 Garden Street, if not, please provide additional explanation for leaving the address for the Main residence. 5. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 6. The building plans shall clearly note if existing frontage improvements meet current compliance with city standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA driveway, etc. 7. Include reference on the cover sheet of the plans to the project soils report. Include reference to the Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 4 soils engineering firm, report number, and report date. 8. Provide an update and/or final review letter from the soils engineer stating that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report. (2nd P/C) Architect’s response acknowledged, however review letter not found. Please resubmit, or email pdf to: pdowty@slocity.org Sheet C-2 9. Clarify on this sheet if Building C or any of the utilities were ever installed? Site Plan A-0.1 10. Provide a legend to show what different hatching patterns represent. Utilities 11. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). (2nd P/C) Utility sheet has been added. Please include the following information (see image below for reference): o Show size and material for existing sewer and water mains in Garden St. (6” VCP Sewer, and 8” PVC Water). o Show existing water service and reference size of meter and lateral (3/4” mtr. With ¾” lateral). o Identify size and material for new sewer lateral. o See minor drafting comments below: Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 5 12. No plumbing system, drainage system, building sewer, private sewage disposal system, or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities. CPC 307.1 13. The plan shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 14. Sewer laterals shall be protected with a backwater valve where in finish floor of the structure is located less than 1’ above the BFE at the next upstream sewer manhole [SLOMC 15.04.020.LL] Grading 15. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 6 (2nd P/C) The Engineer’s response does not address the entire comment; please show existing buildings within 15 feet of this property (existing bldg. adjacent to north-west PL is not shown, or existing drainage in the same area). (2nd P/C) Drainage is directed to existing inlet, please show existing drain pipe and how the run-off discharges to street or other downstream facility.  (3RD P/C) Engineer’s response acknowledged, however for common ownership a “Reservation” for future dedication will be required for drainage, access or any appropriate reciprocal easements on adjacent lots with common ownership. A clear boxed note may be added to the plan indicating “Reservation for reciprocal drainage, access….. to be recorded prior to final inspection”, however the linework and identification of the reservations must be shown on the plan. Please contact Phil Dowty, 949.283.2270 with questions or to discuss further. (2nd P/C) CBC 1804.4 required 2%minimum slope on earth swale within 10’ of property, some slopes shown are less than the minimum.  (3rd P/C) Engineer’s response acknowledged, however the issues mentioned may be addressed with area drain inlets/pipe using minimum slopes, or concrete swale, or possibly raised pad elevation. Or, have soils engineer provide a memo supporting slopes shown or alternate criteria. Please contact Phil Dowty, 949.283.2270 with questions or to discuss further. Site Drainage 16. Clarify the proposed drainage strategy. Provide complete details of all proposed drainage features. Show drainage arrows existing and proposed contours to clearly indicate the altered drainage. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed across property lines. The improved drainage may be retained/detained on site with a controlled outlet to mimic pre-construction historic run-off. Indicate if there is a specific location of the historic outlet. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17 17. Show the finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grades adjacent to building, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. CRC 300.2 18. Show drainage on site plan – slopes & direction of flow. The ground adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2%. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17, the area below does not have adequate slope: Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 7 19. Provide a detail of the Drainage Swale. Show drainage swale flowline grades, high points and low points of the swales and drainage arrows, for reference, if applicable. 20. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. [§406.3.3 CBC] Show compliance 21. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas or swale. Induce sheet flow at outlet of swale to mimic historic sheet flows. Flood Zone Requirements: 22. Include a note on the cover sheet of the plans and/or at the project data defining the flood zone designation, depth or BFE, and ordinance requirements for minimum FF height or the height of floodproofing, wet floodproofing, and/or floodgates if applicable. Include any additional notes regarding the protection of any building service equipment 23. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The new garage structure must be raised or may be “wet” floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. See FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93 for “wet” floodproofing requirements. The building construction materials located below the elevation of the BFE plus one foot of freeboard shall be constructed with flood-resistant materials in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08 and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 24. Floodproofing of the office spaces located at the first floor is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. (2nd P/C) Applicant’s response reference a new note 01 11 B1 on sheet F-1.0, however the note was not found. 25. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 8 26. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and office spaces located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 27. Provide venting for all of the “wet” floodproofed areas. Venting shall be provided at the rate of 1 square inch per 1 square foot of floor area. Vents shall be located with the bottom of the opening located not more than 12” above grade. A minimum of two vents shall be provided. 28. The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer: (2nd P/C) The following notes have been added to Sheet T-1, however please add a signature block specifically for “Flood Zone Notes”, to be signed by Engineer or Architect. (2nd P/C) Due to updated FEMA forms and City requirements the following notes have been updated as shown in red:  The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations.  Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.  Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate for “dry” water proofing (FEMA form FF- 206-FY-22-153, or most current version) and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. At a minimum, supporting documentation shall include a comprehensive Maintenance Plan to include the following items: 1) Photographs of labeled flood gates installed at each location. 2) Reduced floor plan showing location of flood gate storage area/room and all flood protected openings with labels to match the corresponding labeled flood gate. 3) Instructions and details for installation of floodgates, gaskets and hardware. 4) Instructions for annual maintenance/inspection of building envelope, flood gates, gaskets, hardware and utility conduit/pipe seals In the case of the AO zone, the architect of record may complete the elevation certificate.  Prior to final inspection approval the contractor or owner shall provide documentation to the City Engineer certifying “wet” floodproofing per F.E.M.A. Technical Bulletin 7-93, page 4. This certification to be signed by Contractor or Engineer clearly stating the water proofing and venting conforms to FEMA requirements (Technical Bulletin 7-93) – also see comment #30 for additional certification requirements.  A non-conversion agreement for the garage shall be recorded prior to occupancy or final Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 9 inspection approval in accordance with MC Section 17.84.040.B.10. (2nd P/C) Flood gate sections have been added to sheet F-1.0, also include the required elastomeric waterproof membrane on all floodproofing section details to protect construction assemblies. Note the specific gasketing proposed for the floodgates. Show and label the existing and/or proposed floodgate storage room(s) on the floor plans for reference. Also please show how the flood panels mount to the building. 29. The contractor, architect, or owner responsible for construction and compliance with the approved plans, codes, and ordinances shall summarize in writing that the minimum following “wet” floodproofing requirements have been achieved: a. The portion of the structure located below the BFE + 1’ of freeboard has been constructed of flood-resistant materials meeting the requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08. b. The structure has been designed for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters or has otherwise been designed to resist the appropriate hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. c. Mechanical and utility equipment have been elevated to 1’ above the BFE or have been floodproofed. d. The structure meets the wet floodproofing requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93. e. Statement that the architect observed the construction of the building to ensure it is in compliance with the above requirements. f. Include pictures of the flood-resistant construction, utility service equipment, and flood openings. Fees / Addressing Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org Phone (805) 781-7588 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: 1. APN reflects the address to be 1321 Garden Street. Please update all plan sheet accordingly. Plan Check Review #4 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 10 2. Please clearly note the square footage of the new residence and ADU. Please breakdown the square footages for each dwelling and accessory spaces. 3. Address assigned to ADU is 1321 A Garden Street. Please add the newly assigned address to the plans. 4. The Civil sheets in the plan set that are stamped approved from 2010 need to be removed and replaced with updated plan sheets. 5. Updated Building Address: Building Address: Main Residence: 1323 Garden Street ADU: 1321 Garden Street Please update the plans to reflect the above assigned addressing. 6. Final fees pending other department reviews. No action required. City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 4 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 1333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the FOURTH plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list.  These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicable codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation.  The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed.  For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals.  Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section.  Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Plans Examiner Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 4 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2 nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A- 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one-half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been obtained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] 3rd Review: No response found in submission. Comment remains. City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 4 4th Review: The calculations of the main level have included the stair footage twice, overstating the size of the main floor. Please see red marks below RESPONSE________________________________________________________________________________ City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 4 of 4 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 4 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 1333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the FOURTH plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list.  These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicable codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation.  The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed.  For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals.  Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section.  Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Plans Examiner Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 4 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2 nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A- 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one-half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been obtained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] 3rd Review: No response found in submission. Comment remains. City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 4 4th Review: The calculations of the main level have included the stair footage twice, overstating the size of the main floor. Please see red marks below RESPONSE________________________________________________________________________________ City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 4 of 4 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS 1 From:Dowty, Philip Sent:Friday, May 10, 2024 4:08 PM To:building Subject:1321 Garden St.: BLDG-0330-2024 Hello Building, Just sending this note to let you know I was the last reviewer for this project and just uploaded my review indicating it is “Ready for Action” Please call me, or reply with any questions. Thank you, Phil Dowty Engineering Consultant Mobile: 949.283.2270 Community Development E PDowty@slocity.org T 805.781.7171 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:building Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2024 11:56 AM To:Jessica HANNEMAN Subject:RE: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) V3 Resubmittal. RECEIVED, THANK YOU. Counter Hours: Monday & Wednesday 1:00pm – 4:00pm Tuesday & Thursday 9:00am – 12:00 pm Friday – Closed (by appointment only) Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 11:26 AM To: building <building@slocity.org> Subject: Re: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) V3 Resubmittal. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning, Please see the remaining attached corrections. All the best, Jessica Hannemann Operations Manager Bureau Veritas 1411 Marsh St. Suite 107, San Luis Obispo 2 Office: 805-792-1109 Mobile: 805.538.4911 Jessica.Hannemann@bureauveritas.com http://www.us.bureauveritas.com/ Shaping a World of Trust From: building <building@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 8:49 AM To: Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Subject: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) V3 Resubmittal. Hi Jessica, Please see attached responses to comments and plans for V3 resubmittal for BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St). Let me know if you can access the link. V3 Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart Be careful with this message: it is coming from an external sender Do not open attachments nor click on links, unless you are sure that the content is safe ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi Jessica, Please see attached responses to comments and plans for V3 resubmittal for BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St). Let me know if you can access the link. V3 Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This message contains confidential information. To know more, please click on the following link: https://disclaimer.bureauveritas.com 1 From:Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2024 11:26 AM To:building Subject:Re: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) V3 Resubmittal. Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_1333 Garden St [4].pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning, Please see the remaining attached corrections. All the best, Jessica Hannemann Operations Manager Bureau Veritas 1411 Marsh St. Suite 107, San Luis Obispo Office: 805-792-1109 Mobile: 805.538.4911 Jessica.Hannemann@bureauveritas.com http://www.us.bureauveritas.com/ Shaping a World of Trust From: building <building@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 8:49 AM To: Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Subject: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) V3 Resubmittal. Be careful with this message: it is coming from an external sender Do not open attachments nor click on links, unless you are sure that the content is safe Hi Jessica, Please see attached responses to comments and plans for V3 resubmittal for BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St). Let me know if you can access the link. V3 Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I 2 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This message contains confidential information. To know more, please click on the following link: https://disclaimer.bureauveritas.com City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 4 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 1333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the FOURTH plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list.  These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicable codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation.  The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed.  For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals.  Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section.  Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Plans Examiner Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 4 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2 nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A- 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one-half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been obtained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] 3rd Review: No response found in submission. Comment remains. City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 4 4th Review: The calculations of the main level have included the stair footage twice, overstating the size of the main floor. Please see red marks below RESPONSE________________________________________________________________________________ City of San Luis Obispo 05/6/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 4 of 4 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS 1 From:building Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2024 11:25 AM To:Dowty, Philip; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:1321 Garden - Resubmittal Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_BV_BLDG_REVIEW_V3_khA Rspn_2024-04-16.pdf Please review this new resubmittal. BLDG-0330-2024 1321 Garden Route to: BLDG- BV PW- Philip Fees- VN Due date: 05/14/2024 LINK: V4 Thank you, Erin Stanley Permit Technician I Community Development E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7159 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 3 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 1333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the THIRD plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS • This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list. • These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicabl e codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation. • The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer. • All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval. • The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed. • For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals. • Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section. • Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Plans Examiner Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com Mildred Renteria Plan Check Engineer Mildred.Renteria@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 Aleta Francis Plans Examiner/Building Inspector Aleta.FRANCIS@bureauveritas.com (818) 335-8463 City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 3 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS • Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A - 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one -half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been ob tained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] 3rd Review: No response found in submission. Comment remains. RESPONSE________________________________________________________________________________ City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 3 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS -0"51 2"51 2" 19'-0"3'-0"512"512"27'-1"8'-912"11'-0"512"31'-0"31 2"17'-612"4'-212"2024-04-15/Loft Area Clarify 10128 EX-01.1 Loft-Mezanine Floor Area Exhibit.dwg E X -0 1 .1 BLDG-0330-2022Loft-Mezanine Floor Area Exhibit 1321 Garden St Lofts 1321 & 1323 Garden St San Luis Obispo , Ca 93401 1 From:building Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2024 11:17 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: BLDG-0330-2022 PC#3 Response for 1321 & 1323 Garden Street Good morning Keith, This has been received and submitted for review. The due date has been set at 05/14/2024 for comment or approval. Thank you, Erin Stanley Permit Technician I Community Development E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7159 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 2:06 PM To: building <building@slocity.org> Subject: BLDG-0330-2022 PC#3 Response for 1321 & 1323 Garden Street This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. This is our Plan Check Review Response for the 3 rd review of BLDG-0330-2022… 1. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS (files aƩached to this email) a. For response to the Community Development PC#3 Comment List see… BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V3_khA Rspn.docx b. For response to the Bureau Veritas PC#3 Comment List see … BLDG-0330-2022_BV_BLDG_REVIEW_V3_khA Rspn_2024-04-16.pdf 2. 24 x 36 PLAN SET : Link to the plans… hƩps://www.dropbox.com/ Best regards, Keith Hall khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m 2 T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Danielle Lauinger <dlauinger@abovegradeengineering.com> Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2024 10:59 AM To:Dowty, Philip Cc:Keith Hall Subject:22128 - 1333 Garden Street Storm Drain Easement Attachments:22128-C2.1-UT-C-2.1.pdf; 22128-C1.1-GD-C-1.1.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Philip, Since we keep missing each other over the phone I figured an email may help. This is what we are now showing for the updated grading scheme for the swale and the labeling of the existing storm drain easement. If these changes satisfy your comments, then we will pdf the set and get them back in. Let me know if we need to add/change anything. Thanks, -- From now until the end of April, I will be unavailable on Fridays. If you need assistance, please contact Scott (scott@abovegradeengineerig.com) or Derrick (dbettale@abovegradeengineering.com) at the office. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Danielle Lauinger, PE Civil Engineer Main: (805) 540-5115 | Direct: (805) 548-1181 245 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 0 FL 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 4 4 9 10 DESIGNED: SHEET: DATE: JOB NUMBER:PLOT BY: AGE03PLOT DATE: Apr 23, 2024 - 1:08pmDrawing name: N:\2022\22128-RossiGardenStreet\Civil\Condocs\Sheetfiles\22128-C1.1-GD.dwgENGINEER OF RECORD: DATE:NO.REVISIONDATEC-1.1 DRAWN: SJS DLL 22128 SEPTEMBER 20, 20231321 & 1323 GARDEN STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401AGENCY APPROVAL:1.PLAN CHECK #202/13/242.PLAN CHECK #304/23/24GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN( IN FEET ) 1 INCH = FT. 2.5 55 5 100 SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION NOTES:DETAIL/SHEET 1 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE FLATWORK PER DETAIL.A/C-4.1 2 CONSTRUCT PERMEABLE PAVERS PER DETAIL.B/C-4.1 3 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB PER DETAIL. SEE PLAN FOR HEIGHT.C/C-4.1 4 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE FLUSH CURB PER DETAIL.D/C-4.1 5 CONSTRUCT PATIO PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. 6 CONSTRUCT VEGETATED SWALE PER DETAIL.E/C-4.1 7 PROVIDE STAIRS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND DETAILS. SHOWN FOR COORDINATION PURPOSES. 8 MATCH EXISTING. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY MATCH LOCATION AND ELEVATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. CONTACT ENGINEER OF RECORD IF DISCREPANCIES ARISE. 9 PROVIDE BUILDING STEM WALL PER STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION PLAN. 10 INSTALL SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS THAT ARE TO BE DISCHARGED OVER LANDSCAPE. # ADDITIONAL NOTES: ·COMPLETE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK WERE INSTALLED AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND MEET CURRENT CITY CODE. 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 DESIGNED: SHEET: DATE: JOB NUMBER:PLOT BY: AGE03PLOT DATE: Apr 23, 2024 - 1:14pmDrawing name: N:\2022\22128-RossiGardenStreet\Civil\Condocs\Sheetfiles\22128-C2.1-UT.dwgENGINEER OF RECORD: DATE:NO.REVISIONDATEC-2.1 DRAWN: SJS DLL 22128 SEPTEMBER 20, 20231321 & 1323 GARDEN STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401AGENCY APPROVAL:1.PLAN CHECK #202/13/242.PLAN CHECK #304/23/24UTILITY PLAN( IN FEET ) 1 INCH = FT. 5 1010 10 200 SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION NOTES:DETAIL/SHEET 1 INSTALL SANITARY SEWER LATERAL PER SLO CITY STND 6810.6810/C-4.2 2 INSTALL 4" SDR-35 PVC SANITARY SEWER LINE PER DETAIL.A/C-4.2 3 INSTALL SEWER CLEAN OUT PER DETAIL.B/C-4.2 4 INSTALL NEW 1" METER AND 1-1/2" LATERAL PER SLO CITY STND 6210.6210/C-4.2 5 INSTALL 1-1/2" SCH-80 WATER LINE PER DETAIL.A/C-4.2 6 INSTALL GAS LINE PER THE GAS COMPANY FROM THE EXISTING STUB TO THE PROPOSED GAS METER AT THE BUILDING. SIZE AND MATERIAL OF THE PROPOSED GAS LINE TO BE PER THE GAS COMPANY. SHOWN FOR COORDINATION ONLY. 7 INSTALL ELECTRICAL CONDUIT PER PG&E HANDOUT PACKAGE. SIZE AND MATERIAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDUIT TO BE PER THE PG&E HANDOUT PACKAGE. CONDUIT ROUTING SHOWN FOR COORDINATION PURPOSES ONLY. 8 CONNECT TO EXISTING UTILITY MAIN. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND FIELD VERIFY EXISTING PIPE SIZE, INVERT AND LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND PURCHASING OF MATERIALS. CONTACT ENGINEER OF RECORD IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARISE. 9 INSTALL BACK WATER VALVE PER INDUSTRY STANDARDS. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A SUBMITTAL FOR ENGINEER OF RECORD TO REVIEW PRIOR TO PURCHASE OF MATERIALS. 10 EXISTING WATER SERVICE FOR 748 PISMO STREET (3/4" METER & 3/4" LATERAL). 11 ROUTE POWER FROM EXISTING POWER POLE PER PG&E HANDOUT PACKAGE. 12 INSTALL 8" 'NYLOPLAST' DRAIN INLET WITH ATRIUM GRATE PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 13 INSTALL 8" SDR-35 PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE PER DETAIL.A/C-4.2 14 CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" STORM DRAIN PIPE. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND FIELD VERIFY EXISTING PIPE LOCATION AND DEPTH PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND PURCHASING OF MATERIALS. CONTACT ENGINEER IF DISCREPANCIES ARISE. # ADDITIONAL NOTES: ·CONTRACTOR SHALL UNDERGROUND ALL ELECTRICAL AND WIRE SERVICES. 1 From:building <building@slocity.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:22 PM To:Keith Hall Subject:1321 Garden BLDG-0330-2022 V3 Comments Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V3.docx; BLDG-0330-2022_BV_BLDG_REVIEW_V3.pdf Hello,   Please find the attached comment letters for this project. Please address corrections and provide responses with your re-submittal. Thank you, Erin Stanley Permit Technician I Community Development E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7159 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 3 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 1333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the THIRD plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS • This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list. • These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicabl e codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation. • The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer. • All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval. • The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed. • For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals. • Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section. • Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Plans Examiner Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com Mildred Renteria Plan Check Engineer Mildred.Renteria@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 Aleta Francis Plans Examiner/Building Inspector Aleta.FRANCIS@bureauveritas.com (818) 335-8463 City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 3 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS • Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A - 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one -half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been ob tained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] 3rd Review: No response found in submission. Comment remains. RESPONSE________________________________________________________________________________ City of San Luis Obispo 04/11/24 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 3 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS Date: April 8, 2024 Plan Check Review # 3 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: _____yes ______no Print Name: If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: Project Address 1333 Garden St. Project Name Lofts on Garden Application Number BLDG-0330-2022 Review of New 3- Story SFR w/ attached ADU Occupancy Class R-3 Construction Type VB Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text. Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 2 Planning Division Graham Bultema gbultema@slocity.org 805-781-7111 ☒ Ready for Action ☐ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) 1. Payment of the completion fee (invoice #00022883) 2. Provide an explanation for changes made from approved project plans ARCH-0543-2019 - Conditions of Approval (dated Nov. 20, 2020)  Condition #1 –  Condition #4 –  Condition #5 –  Condition #6 Engineering Development Review Richard Avila Phil Dowty ravila@slocity.org Pdowty@slocity.org Mobile: 949.283.2270 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: These plans are considered incomplete and additional comments may apply when all minimum plan information and/or supporting documentation is provided through the plan review process. Provide responses to each comment, as appropriate, and note on what page(s) in the plan set each item is addressed. Include the name and phone # of the person(s) providing responses. The following items are required prior to building permit issuance: 3. The project shall show and document compliance with the 2014 Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building permit application shall include the required PCR checklist to show compliance with any pertinent standards. The checklist is available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5190 . Correct the Stormwater Control Plan section (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area does not include replaced area. This number seems to be high. Section (e) should not be 0 (2nd P/C) The PCR checklist has been received, however please complete the Project Information in Step 1: Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 3 4. If the PCR checklist triggers water quality requirements, then provide a Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) on a form provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Add this to cover sheet 5. Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the coversheet that identifies Stormwater Plan BMPs used for compliance for Performance Requirements 1-4 and required inspection by EOR during construction. Fill in the blank with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Refer to the project’s Post Construction Stormwater Plan. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: Project is subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Project is Exempt: _(yes or no)___ If no, Project meets: Performance Req. 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Performance Req. 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of _____________. Performance Req. 3 Runoff Retention through use of _____________ Performance Req. 4 Peak Management through use of _____________. The following items need correction on the draft construction plans : General 6. Verify address of 1333 Garden. City maps show property as 1321 Garden. (2nd P/C) Based on Owner’s response it seems that the address on plans should be revised to 1321 Garden Street, if not, please provide additional explanation for leaving the address for the Main residence. 7. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 8. The building plans shall clearly note if existing frontage improvements meet current compliance with city standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA driveway, etc. 9. Include reference on the cover sheet of the plans to the project soils report. Include reference to the Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 4 soils engineering firm, report number, and report date. 10. Provide an update and/or final review letter from the soils engineer stating that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report. (2nd P/C) Architect’s response acknowledged, however review letter not found. Please resubmit, or email pdf to: pdowty@slocity.org Sheet C-2 11. Clarify on this sheet if Building C or any of the utilities were ever installed? Site Plan A-0.1 12. Provide a legend to show what different hatching patterns represent. Utilities 13. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). (2nd P/C) Utility sheet has been added. Please include the following information (see image below for reference): o Show size and material for existing sewer and water mains in Garden St. (6” VCP Sewer, and 8” PVC Water). o Show existing water service and reference size of meter and lateral (3/4” mtr. With ¾” lateral). o Identify size and material for new sewer lateral. o See minor drafting comments below: Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 5 14. No plumbing system, drainage system, building sewer, private sewage disposal system, or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities. CPC 307.1 15. The plan shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 16. Sewer laterals shall be protected with a backwater valve where in finish floor of the structure is located less than 1’ above the BFE at the next upstream sewer manhole [SLOMC 15.04.020.LL] Grading 17. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 6 (2nd P/C) The Engineer’s response does not address the entire comment; please show existing buildings within 15 feet of this property (existing bldg. adjacent to north-west PL is not shown, or existing drainage in the same area). (2nd P/C) Drainage is directed to existing inlet, please show existing drain pipe and how the run-off discharges to street or other downstream facility.  (3RD P/C) Engineer’s response acknowledged, however for common ownership a “Reservation” for future dedication will be required for drainage, access or any appropriate reciprocal easements on adjacent lots with common ownership. A clear boxed note may be added to the plan indicating “Reservation for reciprocal drainage, access….. to be recorded prior to final inspection”, however the linework and identification of the reservations must be shown on the plan. Please contact Phil Dowty, 949.283.2270 with questions or to discuss further. (2nd P/C) CBC 1804.4 required 2%minimum slope on earth swale within 10’ of property, some slopes shown are less than the minimum.  (3rd P/C) Engineer’s response acknowledged, however the issues mentioned may be addressed with area drain inlets/pipe using minimum slopes, or concrete swale, or possibly raised pad elevation. Or, have soils engineer provide a memo supporting slopes shown or alternate criteria. Please contact Phil Dowty, 949.283.2270 with questions or to discuss further. Site Drainage 18. Clarify the proposed drainage strategy. Provide complete details of all proposed drainage features. Show drainage arrows existing and proposed contours to clearly indicate the altered drainage. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed across property lines. The improved drainage may be retained/detained on site with a controlled outlet to mimic pre-construction historic run-off. Indicate if there is a specific location of the historic outlet. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17 19. Show the finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grades adjacent to building, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. CRC 300.2 20. Show drainage on site plan – slopes & direction of flow. The ground adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2%. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17, the area below does not have adequate slope: Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 7 21. Provide a detail of the Drainage Swale. Show drainage swale flowline grades, high points and low points of the swales and drainage arrows, for reference, if applicable. 22. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. [§406.3.3 CBC] Show compliance 23. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas or swale. Induce sheet flow at outlet of swale to mimic historic sheet flows. Flood Zone Requirements: 24. Include a note on the cover sheet of the plans and/or at the project data defining the flood zone designation, depth or BFE, and ordinance requirements for minimum FF height or the height of floodproofing, wet floodproofing, and/or floodgates if applicable. Include any additional notes regarding the protection of any building service equipment 25. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The new garage structure must be raised or may be “wet” floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. See FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93 for “wet” floodproofing requirements. The building construction materials located below the elevation of the BFE plus one foot of freeboard shall be constructed with flood-resistant materials in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08 and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Floodproofing of the office spaces located at the first floor is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. (2nd P/C) Applicant’s response reference a new note 01 11 B1 on sheet F-1.0, however the note was not found. 27. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 8 28. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and office spaces located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 29. Provide venting for all of the “wet” floodproofed areas. Venting shall be provided at the rate of 1 square inch per 1 square foot of floor area. Vents shall be located with the bottom of the opening located not more than 12” above grade. A minimum of two vents shall be provided. 30. The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer: (2nd P/C) The following notes have been added to Sheet T-1, however please add a signature block specifically for “Flood Zone Notes”, to be signed by Engineer or Architect. (2nd P/C) Due to updated FEMA forms and City requirements the following notes have been updated as shown in red:  The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations.  Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.  Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate for “dry” water proofing (FEMA form FF- 206-FY-22-153, or most current version) and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. At a minimum, supporting documentation shall include a comprehensive Maintenance Plan to include the following items: 1) Photographs of labeled flood gates installed at each location. 2) Reduced floor plan showing location of flood gate storage area/room and all flood protected openings with labels to match the corresponding labeled flood gate. 3) Instructions and details for installation of floodgates, gaskets and hardware. 4) Instructions for annual maintenance/inspection of building envelope, flood gates, gaskets, hardware and utility conduit/pipe seals In the case of the AO zone, the architect of record may complete the elevation certificate.  Prior to final inspection approval the contractor or owner shall provide documentation to the City Engineer certifying “wet” floodproofing per F.E.M.A. Technical Bulletin 7-93, page 4. This certification to be signed by Contractor or Engineer clearly stating the water proofing and venting conforms to FEMA requirements (Technical Bulletin 7-93) – also see comment #30 for additional certification requirements.  A non-conversion agreement for the garage shall be recorded prior to occupancy or final Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 9 inspection approval in accordance with MC Section 17.84.040.B.10. (2nd P/C) Flood gate sections have been added to sheet F-1.0, also include the required elastomeric waterproof membrane on all floodproofing section details to protect construction assemblies. Note the specific gasketing proposed for the floodgates. Show and label the existing and/or proposed floodgate storage room(s) on the floor plans for reference. Also please show how the flood panels mount to the building. 31. The contractor, architect, or owner responsible for construction and compliance with the approved plans, codes, and ordinances shall summarize in writing that the minimum following “wet” floodproofing requirements have been achieved: a. The portion of the structure located below the BFE + 1’ of freeboard has been constructed of flood-resistant materials meeting the requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08. b. The structure has been designed for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters or has otherwise been designed to resist the appropriate hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. c. Mechanical and utility equipment have been elevated to 1’ above the BFE or have been floodproofed. d. The structure meets the wet floodproofing requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93. e. Statement that the architect observed the construction of the building to ensure it is in compliance with the above requirements. f. Include pictures of the flood-resistant construction, utility service equipment, and flood openings. Fees / Addressing Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org Phone (805) 781-7588 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: 1. APN reflects the address to be 1321 Garden Street. Please update all plan sheet accordingly. 2. Please clearly note the square footage of the new residence and ADU. Please breakdown the square footages for each dwelling and accessory spaces. 3. Address assigned to ADU is 1321 A Garden Street. Please add the newly assigned address to the plans. Plan Check Review #3 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 10 4. The Civil sheets in the plan set that are stamped approved from 2010 need to be removed and replaced with updated plan sheets. 5. Updated Building Address: Building Address: Main Residence: 1323 Garden Street ADU: 1321 Garden Street Please update the plans to reflect the above assigned addressing. 6. Final fees pending other department reviews. 1 From:Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Sent:Friday, March 29, 2024 9:28 AM To:building Subject:Re: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) V3 Resubmittal. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you!! Happy Friday From: building <building@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 8:49 AM To: Jessica HANNEMAN <jessica.hannemann@bureauveritas.com> Subject: BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) V3 Resubmittal. Be careful with this message: it is coming from an external sender Do not open attachments nor click on links, unless you are sure that the content is safe Hi Jessica, Please see attached responses to comments and plans for V3 resubmittal for BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St). Let me know if you can access the link. V3 Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This message contains confidential information. To know more, please click on the following link: https://disclaimer.bureauveritas.com 1 From:building Sent:Friday, March 29, 2024 8:50 AM To:Jessica HANNEMAN Subject:BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St) V3 Resubmittal. Hi Jessica, Please see attached responses to comments and plans for V3 resubmittal for BLDG-0330-2022 (1321 Garden St). Let me know if you can access the link. V3 Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:building Sent:Friday, March 29, 2024 8:51 AM To:Keith Hall; Stanley, Erin Subject:RE: 1321 & 1323 Garden Street Plan Check Response Thank you, this has been received and routed for review. Due Date is set at 4/12/2024 for comments or approval. Thank you. Ilianna Silva Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 4:23 PM To: building <building@slocity.org>; Stanley, Erin <EStanley@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 & 1323 Garden Street Plan Check Response This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. This is our Plan Check Review Response for the 2nd review of BLDG-0330-2022… 1. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS compiled response leƩer is aƩached, see “BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V2_khA Rspn_2024-03-12.pdf” a. Architects Response added to the Community Development PC#2 Comment List b. Consultant Engineer Response & documents included are… i. Civil Engineer responses added to pages 4-6 of the Community Development Comment List ii. Permit & Fee documentaƟon for previous work iii. Ebnook K-10 c. Soils Engineer Plan Review leƩer. 2. 24 x 36 PLAN SET : Link to the plans… hƩps://www.dropbox.com/ Best regards, Keith Hall khA keith hall Architect 2 A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2024 4:23 PM To:building; Stanley, Erin Subject:1321 & 1323 Garden Street Plan Check Response Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V2_khA Rspn_2024-03-12.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. This is our Plan Check Review Response for the 2nd review of BLDG-0330-2022… 1. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS compiled response leƩer is aƩached, see “BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V2_khA Rspn_2024-03-12.pdf” a. Architects Response added to the Community Development PC#2 Comment List b. Consultant Engineer Response & documents included are… i. Civil Engineer responses added to pages 4-6 of the Community Development Comment List ii. Permit & Fee documentaƟon for previous work iii. Ebnook K-10 c. Soils Engineer Plan Review leƩer. 2. 24 x 36 PLAN SET : Link to the plans… hƩps://www.dropbox.com/ Best regards, Keith Hall khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 khA keith hall Architect D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S P A C I F I C C O A S T C E N T E R 7 5 H I G U E R A S T R E E T S U I T E 1 6 5 S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 T 8 0 5 5 4 1 9 1 6 0 C 8 0 5 2 9 6 5 4 2 1 W w w w . p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m E k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m Date: January 2, 2024 Plan Check Review # 2 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: __X__yes ______no Print Name: Keith Hall If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: RESPONSE: As part of our in-house review of the drawings for coordination between ourselves & the various consultants we made corrections & updates when any discrepancy was found. The sections have been refined for coordination with the structural framing plans. The revisions to the drawings were for quality control coordination & correction and were not for design or plan changes. Project Address 1333 Garden St. Project Name Lofts on Garden Application Number BLDG-0330-2022 Review of New 3- Story SFR w/ attached ADU Occupancy Class R-3 Construction Type VB Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text. Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 2 Planning Division Graham Bultema gbultema@slocity.org 805-781-7111 ☒ Ready for Action ☐ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) 1. Payment of the completion fee (invoice #00022883) 2. Provide an explanation for changes made from approved project plans ARCH-0543-2019 - Conditions of Approval (dated Nov. 20, 2020) • Condition #1 – • Condition #4 – • Condition #5 – • Condition #6 Engineering Development Review Richard Avila Phil Dowty ravila@slocity.org Pdowty@slocity.org Mobile: 949.283.2270 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: These plans are considered incomplete and additional comments may apply when all minimum plan information and/or supporting documentation is provided through the plan review process. Provide responses to each comment, as appropriate, and note on what page(s) in the plan set each item is addressed. Include the name and phone # of the person(s) providing responses. The following items are required prior to building permit issuance: 3. The project shall show and document compliance with the 2014 Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building permit application shall include the required PCR checklist to show compliance with any pertinent standards. The checklist is available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5190. Correct the Stormwater Control Plan section (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area does not include replaced area. This number seems to be high. Section (e) should not be 0 (2nd P/C) The PCR checklist has been received, however please complete the Project Information in Step 1: Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 3 RESPONSE: The information has been provided in Step 1 of the PCR checklist. 4. If the PCR checklist triggers water quality requirements, then provide a Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) on a form provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Add this to cover sheet 5. Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the coversheet that identifies Stormwater Plan BMPs used for compliance for Performance Requirements 1-4 and required inspection by EOR during construction. Fill in the blank with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Refer to the project’s Post Construction Stormwater Plan. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: Project is subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Project is Exempt: _(yes or no)___ If no, Project meets: Performance Req. 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Performance Req. 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of _____________. Performance Req. 3 Runoff Retention through use of _____________ Performance Req. 4 Peak Management through use of _____________. The following items need correction on the draft construction plans: General 6. Verify address of 1333 Garden. City maps show property as 1321 Garden. (2nd P/C) Based on Owner’s response it seems that the address on plans should be revised to 1321 Garden Street, if not, please provide additional explanation for leaving the address for the Main residence. RESPONSE: Both the address of the Main House & the ADU have been added to the title block. Also, see Project Address under the Project Information heading on sheet T-1. 7. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 4 8. The building plans shall clearly note if existing frontage improvements meet current compliance with city standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA driveway, etc. 9. Include reference on the cover sheet of the plans to the project soils report. Include reference to the soils engineering firm, report number, and report date. 10. Provide an update and/or final review letter from the soils engineer stating that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report. (2nd P/C) Architect’s response acknowledged, however review letter not found. Please resubmit, or email pdf to: pdowty@slocity.org RESPONSE: The review letter from GeoSolutions is included with this response. Sheet C-2 11. Clarify on this sheet if Building C or any of the utilities were ever installed? Site Plan A-0.1 12. Provide a legend to show what different hatching patterns represent. Utilities 13. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). (2nd P/C) Utility sheet has been added. Please include the following information (see image below for reference): o Show size and material for existing sewer and water mains in Garden St. (6” VCP Sewer, and 8” PVC Water). o Show existing water service and reference size of meter and lateral (3/4” mtr. With ¾” lateral). o Identify size and material for new sewer lateral. o See minor drafting comments below: Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 5 RESPONSE: See response from the Civil Engineer, Above Grade Engineering. 14. No plumbing system, drainage system, building sewer, private sewage disposal system, or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities. CPC 307.1 15. The plan shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 6 electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 16. Sewer laterals shall be protected with a backwater valve where in finish floor of the structure is located less than 1’ above the BFE at the next upstream sewer manhole [SLOMC 15.04.020.LL] Grading 17. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. (2nd P/C) The Engineer’s response does not address the entire comment; please show existing buildings within 15 feet of this property (existing bldg. adjacent to north-west PL is not shown, or existing drainage in the same area). RESPONSE: See response from the Civil Engineer, Above Grade Engineering. (2nd P/C) Drainage is directed to existing inlet, please show existing drain pipe and how the run-off discharges to street or other downstream facility. RESPONSE: See response from the Civil Engineer, Above Grade Engineering. (2nd P/C) CBC 1804.4 required 2%minimum slope on earth swale within 10’ of property, some slopes shown are less than the minimum. RESPONSE: See response from the Civil Engineer, Above Grade Engineering. Additionally, see storm water diverter channel called out by reverence note 22 14 D1 on the Architectural Site Plan sheet A-0.1. Site Drainage 18. Clarify the proposed drainage strategy. Provide complete details of all proposed drainage features. Show drainage arrows existing and proposed contours to clearly indicate the altered drainage. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed across property lines. The improved drainage may be retained/detained on site with a controlled outlet to mimic pre-construction historic run-off. Indicate if there is a specific location of the historic outlet. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17 RESPONSE: See response from the Civil Engineer, Above Grade Engineering. 19. Show the finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grades adjacent to building, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. CRC 300.2 20. Show drainage ` at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 7 horizontal distance, 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2%. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17, the area below does not have adequate slope: RESPONSE: See response from the Civil Engineer, Above Grade Engineering. 21. Provide a detail of the Drainage Swale. Show drainage swale flowline grades, high points and low points of the swales and drainage arrows, for reference, if applicable. 22. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. [§406.3.3 CBC] Show compliance 23. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas or swale. Induce sheet flow at outlet of swale to mimic historic sheet flows. Flood Zone Requirements: 24. Include a note on the cover sheet of the plans and/or at the project data defining the flood zone designation, depth or BFE, and ordinance requirements for minimum FF height or the height of floodproofing, wet floodproofing, and/or floodgates if applicable. Include any additional notes regarding the protection of any building service equipment 25. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The new garage structure must be raised or may be “wet” floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. See FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93 for “wet” floodproofing requirements. The building construction materials located below the elevation of the BFE plus one foot of freeboard shall be constructed with flood-resistant materials in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08 and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Floodproofing of the office spaces located at the first floor is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. (2nd P/C) Applicant’s response reference a new note 01 11 B1 on sheet F-1.0, however the note Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 8 was not found. RESPONSE: The response to PC#1 was mistaken. The information that we wanted to include in our response has been provided as general note #2 on sht. F-1.0 instead using the 01 11 B1 reference note. 27. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 28. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and office spaces located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 29. Provide venting for all of the “wet” floodproofed areas. Venting shall be provided at the rate of 1 square inch per 1 square foot of floor area. Vents shall be located with the bottom of the opening located not more than 12” above grade. A minimum of two vents shall be provided. 30. The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer: (2nd P/C) The following notes have been added to Sheet T-1, however please add a signature block specifically for “Flood Zone Notes”, to be signed by Engineer or Architect. RESPONSE: See T-1, the signature & date lines have been added in the block for Flood Zone Notes. (2nd P/C) Due to updated FEMA forms and City requirements the following notes have been updated as shown in red: RESPONSE: See T-1, the notes have been updated as instructed. • The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. • Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. • Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate for “dry” water proofing (FEMA form FF- 206-FY-22-153, or most current version) and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. At a minimum, supporting documentation shall include a comprehensive Maintenance Plan to include the following items: 1) Photographs of labeled flood gates installed at each location. 2) Reduced floor plan showing location of flood gate storage area/room and all flood protected openings with labels to match the corresponding labeled flood gate. 3) Instructions and details for installation of floodgates, gaskets and hardware. Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 9 4) Instructions for annual maintenance/inspection of building envelope, flood gates, gaskets, hardware and utility conduit/pipe seals In the case of the AO zone, the architect of record may complete the elevation certificate. • Prior to final inspection approval the contractor or owner shall provide documentation to the City Engineer certifying “wet” floodproofing per F.E.M.A. Technical Bulletin 7-93, page 4. This certification to be signed by Contractor or Engineer clearly stating the water proofing and venting conforms to FEMA requirements (Technical Bulletin 7-93) – also see comment #30 for additional certification requirements. • A non-conversion agreement for the garage shall be recorded prior to occupancy or final inspection approval in accordance with MC Section 17.84.040.B.10. (2nd P/C) Flood gate sections have been added to sheet F-1.0, also include the required elastomeric waterproof membrane on all floodproofing section details to protect construction assemblies. Note the specific gasketing proposed for the floodgates. Show and label the existing and/or proposed floodgate storage room(s) on the floor plans for reference. Also please show how the flood panels mount to the building. RESPONSE: See Details 2 & 3/A-1.1a for waterproofing membrane details. See details 2.0, 2.1 & 2.2/F-1.0 for flood gate details showing method of attachment & seals. Also see Alternate Bid Items listed at the top of sheet F-1.0 for notes allowing for the option of using off site built flood barriers by FM approved manufactures. The flood gate storage area is shown & dimensioned adjacent to line C. The actual flood gate lengths are ghosted in to insure sufficient allocation of space. 31. The contractor, architect, or owner responsible for construction and compliance with the approved plans, codes, and ordinances shall summarize in writing that the minimum following “wet” floodproofing requirements have been achieved: a. The portion of the structure located below the BFE + 1’ of freeboard has been constructed of flood-resistant materials meeting the requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08. b. The structure has been designed for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters or has otherwise been designed to resist the appropriate hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. c. Mechanical and utility equipment have been elevated to 1’ above the BFE or have been floodproofed. d. The structure meets the wet floodproofing requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93. e. Statement that the architect observed the construction of the building to ensure it is in compliance with the above requirements. f. Include pictures of the flood-resistant construction, utility service equipment, and flood openings. Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 10 Fees / Addressing Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org Phone (805) 781-7588 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: 1. APN reflects the address to be 1321 Garden Street. Please update all plan sheet accordingly. 2. Please clearly note the square footage of the new residence and ADU. Please breakdown the square footages for each dwelling and accessory spaces. 3. Address assigned to ADU is 1321 A Garden Street. Please add the newly assigned address to the plans. 4. The Civil sheets in the plan set that are stamped approved from 2010 need to be removed and replaced with updated plan sheets. 5. Updated Building Address: Building Address: 1321 Garden Street 1st Floor Offices: #100, #101 & #102 2nd Floor Residential Units: #200 & #201 RESPONSE: We spoke to Vanessa & provided her with the explanation below to justify the addresses that we have listed. She said she would review it with her supervisor & then make a determination of how the address numbers will be assigned. Applicant explanation: 1) Previously we were told that there are two address # in reserve for this site…1321 & 1323 a) We used 1321 for the ADU. It has its own main exterior entrance door located at the ground level and accessed directly from the driveway/parking area. b) We used 1323 for the Main Residence Live/Work unit. It has its main exterior entrance on the ground level at the central stair. The stair is integral to both the ground floor office spaces & the upper floors residential spaces. As in a typical multi story residence the stair is internal to the residence, i.e., you do not exit the residence when going from the Living Rm to the stair to go up a floor to get to the Bedroom. c) The office spaces on the ground floor are not designed as separate independent spaces with their own unique entrances. The hallway between the offices is open to the Entrance Foyer/Stair which, as already mentioned, is internal to the residence. 2) The three existing townhomes in front of this property are address #’s 1325, 1327, & 1329 Please update the plans to reflect the above assigned addressing. 6. Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. RESPONSE: The applicant will pay the fees prior to issuance of the permit. GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW #2 Once Upon a Time LP: This report presents the results of our geotechnical review of the project plans for the proposed three 3 story residential building and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be located at 1323 Garden Street, APN: 003-524-017, in San Luis Obispo, California. The purpose of our review was to evaluate the proposed plans with respect to geotechnical recommendations provided in the referenced report and with known site conditions. Our review was conducted for the sheets listed in Table 1 below. Table 1: List of Sheets Reviewed Title Date Sheet Prepared By Structural Notes November 9, 2023 S-1.0 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Structural Notes November 9, 2023 S-1.1 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Structural Notes November 9, 2023 S-1.2 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Foundation Plan November 9, 2023 S-2.0 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Foundation Details November 9, 2023 S-5.0 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Foundation Details November 9, 2023 S-5.1 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP It is our opinion that the proposed plans (as listed in Table 1) are in general conformance with the recommendations presented in the referenced report. If subsequent changes are made to the reviewed plans, GeoSolutions, Inc. must be notified of said changes to verify continued compliance with the referenced report. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES It is assumed that GeoSolutions, Inc. will be retained to perform construction inspections and testing as required including, but not limited to, stripping, grading, over-excavating, subdrain placement, compaction, retaining wall backfill placement, imported materials, and foundation excavation. LIMITATIONS Our review was performed in accordance with the usual and current standards of the profession, as they relate to this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this plan review. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to notify GeoSolutions, Inc. a minimum of 72 hours before any stripping, grading, or foundation excavations can commence at this site. In addition to the construction inspections listed above, section 1705.6 of the 2019 (CBSC, 2019) requires the following inspections by the Soils Engineer for controlled fill thicknesses greater than 12 inches as shown in Table 2: Required Verification and Inspections of Soils: DATE: January 17, 2024 PROJECT NUMBER: SL06405-4 CLIENT: Once Upon a Time LP 750 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 PROJECT NAME: 1323 Garden Street APN: 003-524-017 San Luis Obispo, California 1323 Garden Street January 17, 2024 Project SL06405-4 2 Table 2: Required Verification and Inspections of Soils Verification and Inspection Task Continuous During Task Listed Periodically During Task Listed 1. Verify materials below footings are adequate to achieve the design bearing capacity. - X 2. Verify excavations are extended to proper depth and have reached proper material. - X 3. Perform classification and testing of controlled fill materials. - X 4. Verify use of proper materials, densities and lift thicknesses during placement and compaction of controlled fill. X - 5. Prior to placement of controlled fill, observe sub-grade and verify that site has been prepared properly. - X The recommendations of this review are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during the soil engineering study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the Site, GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. This review is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project. The owner or his/her representative is responsible to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. As of the present date, the findings of this review are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this review should not be relied upon after a period of one year without our subsequent review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. However, many events such as floods, earthquakes, grading of the adjacent properties and building and municipal code changes could render this review invalid in less than a year. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (805) 614-6333. Sincerely, GeoSolutions, Inc. Patrick B. McNeill, PE Principal \\192.168.1.100\s\SL06000-SL06499\SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street\Construction\SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street Plan Review #1.doc Reference: Soils Engineering Report, 1323 Garden Street, APN: 003-524-017, in San Luis Obispo, California, by GeoSolutions, Inc., Project SL06405-4, dated January 11, 2022. Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 4 soils engineering firm, report number, and report date. 10. Provide an update and/or final review letter from the soils engineer stating that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report. (2nd P/C) Architect’s response acknowledged, however review letter not found. Please resubmit, or email pdf to: pdowty@slocity.org Sheet C-2 11. Clarify on this sheet if Building C or any of the utilities were ever installed? Site Plan A-0.1 12. Provide a legend to show what different hatching patterns represent. Utilities 13. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). (2nd P/C) Utility sheet has been added. Please include the following information (see image below for reference): o Show size and material for existing sewer and water mains in Garden St. (6” VCP Sewer, and 8” PVC Water). Labled. o Show existing water service and reference size of meter and lateral (3/4” mtr. With ¾” lateral). Labled. o Identify size and material for new sewer lateral. Specific Construction note #2. o See minor drafting comments below: Specific Construction Note #11 added for clarity. Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 5 14. No plumbing system, drainage system, building sewer, private sewage disposal system, or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities. CPC 307.1 15. The plan shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 16. Sewer laterals shall be protected with a backwater valve where in finish floor of the structure is located less than 1’ above the BFE at the next upstream sewer manhole [SLOMC 15.04.020.LL] Grading 17. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 6 (2nd P/C) The Engineer’s response does not address the entire comment; please show existing buildings within 15 feet of this property (existing bldg. adjacent to north-west PL is not shown, or existing drainage in the same area). Surveyors are not required to go onto adjacent properties unless they are provided permission. The adjacent building to the northwest placed via Google Earth. (2nd P/C) Drainage is directed to existing inlet, please show existing drain pipe and how the run-off discharges to street or other downstream facility. Catch basin ties into the storm drain line shown on Atlas Map K-10 (circled in green of attached). No easement is currently shown for the catch basin connecting to this line since you can’t grant yourself an easement across your own properties. Rob Rossi is the owner of both 1321 Garden Street and 748 Pismo Street. (2nd P/C) CBC 1804.4 required 2%minimum slope on earth swale within 10’ of property, some slopes shown are less than the minimum. The code also states to slope away at 5% for the first 10-ft or provide a slope at 2%. Since the site is too flat to achieve a slope of 2% without creating a pond next to the building, slopes less than 2% were used. In addition, if a 2% swale was used the length of the swale adjacent to the building, the FG at the catch basin would be 95.90 which means that the water would pond 1.1’ before entering the catch basin. Standing water next to buildings is highly unadvisable.Instead, the FF=198.87 means that the FG is 8” lower at 198.2 minimum. For 10’ at 5% the grade drops another 6” making the FG=197.7 minimum. This occurs at the northwest corner of the building which is the first location the swale is perpendicular to the building. The remaining section of the swale, before it reaches the catch basin, contains slopes greater than 13% away from the building towards the swale. Site Drainage 18. Clarify the proposed drainage strategy. Provide complete details of all proposed drainage features. Show drainage arrows existing and proposed contours to clearly indicate the altered drainage. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed across property lines. The improved drainage may be retained/detained on site with a controlled outlet to mimic pre-construction historic run-off. Indicate if there is a specific location of the historic outlet. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17 See response to #17 19. Show the finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grades adjacent to building, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. CRC 300.2 20. Show drainage on site plan – slopes & direction of flow. The ground adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2%. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17, the area below does not have adequate slope: Refer to updated sheet. Stormwater Control Plan for Post Construction Requirements Exhibit 4 Application Submittal Where directions state “Done” that means no additional information or forms below that point needs to be filled out or furnished. See Exhibits for Watershed Management Zones, Basins, & Urban Sustainability Areas Use “n/a” where information requested is not applicable. If you are unsure regarding how to fill out any of the information, please come in and request assistance from a staff person. Project Information Step 1 Applicant Name: Application No: Project Name: Location Address: Location APN: Site Zoning: Project Type:  Commercial Detached Single Family Residential Industrial Multi-unit Residential Mixed Use Public Project Phase: Project Description: Total Project Site Area = (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area = (b) Total Replaced Impervious Surface Area = (c) Total Existing Impervious Area = (d) Total Impervious Area of Completed Project = (e) Net Impervious Area: (a+b) – (c-d) = OR where (c-d) is a negative number: (a+b) = Your project is NOT subject to Post Construction Requirements if… Step 2  Area (a+b) of project is < 2,500 square feet – Done OR  Area (a+b) of project is > 2,500 square feet, and is a project type listed below ( type) – Done  Road & parking surface repair – slurry & fog & crack seal, pothole & spot patching, overlay & resurfacing & other damage repair with no expansion  Road & parking shoulder grading  Road & parking cleaning, repairing, maintaining, reshaping, regarding drainage systems  Sidewalk & bike path / lane project – no other impervious surface created and runoff is directed to vegetated area  Curb & gutter improvement or replacement – no other impervious created  Underground utility project – surface replaced in kind  Utility vaults – Ex: lift stations, backflows  Fuel storage – above ground with spill containment  Photovoltaic systems – on existing impervious surface, over pervious surface with vegetated cover, buffer strip at the most down gradient row of panels  Second story – no increase in building footprint  Decks & stairs & walkways – raised with space below for drainage  Temporary structures – in place less than 6 months  Trails and pathways, where no other impervious surfaces are replaced or created, and built to direct stormwater runoff to adjacent vegetated areas. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !ð !ð !ð !ð !ð "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î"!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î "!;Î !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !ð !ð !ð !ð !ð 680 67 9 6 5 6 875 5 7 9 8 7 5 724 150817231337721 715 711 703 705 954 972 8 5 0 7 5 0 853 865 7 5 3 89 088 0 7 9 5 8 8 0 966 9 7 3 9 8 1 871 889 717 709 660 788 777 8 5 8 836 860 8 1 8 784 7 2 5 650 8 9 6 8 9 7 7 3 7 9 6 6 6 7 6 85 3 85 9 86 9 895 75 2 7 9 4 885 7 7 1 7 7 9 748 5 8 7 6 7 7 676 8 5 6 7 5 0 6 6 9 6 8 5 6 4 9 6 5 7 6 6 3 550 87 3 87 9 89 3 8 6 0 74 3 74 5 75 1 67 0 7 5 2 753 731 9 7 9 6 4 1 6 4 7 6 6 3 6 6 5 6 5 2 795 9 7 6 9 8 0 9 7 8 8 7 1 8 4 1 8 8 8 8 8 08 7 4 8 6 8 8 7 18 2 7 6 3 9 6 4 9 751 728 575 85 0 57 4 5 7 1 7 9 3 6 5 4 6 6 2 5 9 4 788 956 6 6 9 8 5 8 6 4 1 6 5 1 6 6 1 6 6 5 5 5 2 874 559 560 552 9 7 7 9 8 5 6 7 4 878 880 6 4 4 6 8 3 549 6 6 45 5 0 9 7 6 9 6 8 708 541 6 6 8 868 5 6 1 5 7 5 5 9 1 7 4 17 2 7 5 5 6 77 7 78 1 78 5 739 6 5 6 876 7 8 5 8 5 0 6 5 5 6 7 5 5 5 8 7 1 7 591 8 1 5 8 0 5 5 7 8 57 2 7 9 0 7 8 5 74 4 72 0 6 9 5 714 6 8 5 733 8 7 6 8 8 5 8 5 7 8 8 4 8 8 2 8 6 0 7 0 9 8 4 2 8 5 0 8 6 6 8 9 8 6 8 0 7 2 2 65 8 9 7 5 7 4 0 7 2 7 7 4 4 787 791 6 8 7 8 5 48 6 6 6 7 0 6 9 0 6 7 3 9 6 9 7 2 5 7 4 7 8 6 2 8 6 8 8 7 0 7 3 0 7 3 2 7 3 4 74 7 65 4 7 4 7 770 714 7 4 2 7 3 2 687 855 6 7 1 7 7 2 9 7 7 736 8 9 1 9 7 4 7 7 1 728 8 8 7 8 7 9 8 2 0 7 7 0 720712 8 2 9 722 7 4 8 958 89 58 8 1 9 7 2 9 7 61316 7327201 0 6 7 8 7 3 86 7 878 102686 3 16355 8 8 18201427 1/217091608867 8 9 0 1 8 8 0 1 7 2 5 1 7 6 3 163318171717181910251530 181416091714134614161 7 8 9 1 0 2 5 1 0 3 5 163615151042 161716191444170917311724162010221614 17291 0 32 1635161116411052 1635173616351645132913251631172117061519140417441370133413261318130618041 0 0 3 15141301182118291841184517041410141814261710152116131629134112311615154114451333132914281601142514231405130613191233123913451047 17501740152614411429180411 10 1 0 3 51 0 2 7 16051628162413471826182214051329134514071703173017201710170217201534142314011418154417261531162016041510170514201544153615301516133513801512121216261 0 1 7 1516141113081526123415401 7 4 9 144614381428152015031511162815351527143717451 0 36 1 0 27 153016201 0 22 164117131318141515211543153515271430142214081421140116271813180416321525151915131505134413201117 1811152815281303124517051635172817461645163716221728162015101518154615181406140817191372123513171 1 12 14211022 15311321132510 3710 35 10 511536 170014071317130113421334132613121712172015041316172917271 0 6 2 1 0 2 9 1 0 5 3 1 0 6 1 14401 0 1 5 164216341336110816281049 1 0 45 15221517134913431512160316271511163414361446142114291443152015111028 15361427143513451 0 4 1 1642163613141370160617161703171117271737174713411 0 4 51427 17011 1 30 142112281 1 131504 15261534124117081607162115161627161713351336181516241414101016381 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 18150115331541152914001 0 1 9 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 3 1034 1 0 4 0 11 14 15421 0 20 18141 0 7 1 1 0 4 5 152017341 0 28 1044 11 20 6725 8 6 55 7 1739124317211 0 5 3 1825140616401 0 5 7 7 2 61260 1028 1 0 51 783 1525969 743A_B 1347736 7 4 3 5 5 4 A _ B 1312667 6 7 41/2 6 6 51/2 9 6 61/2 7 2 9 9 7 1 671 141514141/21 0 1 11/215211 0 3 51/2 11301/2 1 0 511/2 90 72 74 99 95 O S O S S A N T A R O S A BUCHONG A R D E NMARSH O S O S SANTA BARBARAISLAYCHURCHB R O A D NIP O M O CHURCHC H O R R O M O R R O UPHAMPACIFICPISMOLEFF75 76 56 6362 38 205 71 73 98 89 94 n ull 1 1 ft P E 13ft CP 21ftRCP22ft CP 22ft R C P2 3ftPVC25ftC P 26ft null33ftRCP31ft RCP31ftP V C31 ftPVC31ft PVC34ftP V C 3 4ft CMP34ft R C P37ft RCP39ftC M P40ftRCP4 0 ft BR4 0ftC M P41f tCP41ftRCP41ftR C P42 ftP V C4 2ftRCP42ft PVC46ftCP49ftRCP49ft CP52ftRCP57ftPE60ftR C P78ftRCP382ft RCP86ftCP 87ftCP 106ftR C P 11 0ft R C P 1 2 2ft R C P 397ft P E 1 4 1ft C P 1 5 4 ftP V C 170ft R C P 1 7 2ftRCP 174ftC P 1 8 4 ftR C P 2 7 3ft R C P 215ftRCP 251ftCP 266ftR C P 3 0 8ft CP 436ftRCP 329ftRCP 329ftP V C 339ft R C P 3 8 2ft R C P 3 6 9ftRCP 437ftRCP 445ft7172 02 05 03 11 02 0304 05 06 07 08 10 13 17 20 21 23 2459 117 35 69 104 31 44 55 87 97 36 50 33 78 100 65 58 54 54 128 93 131 30 77 91 126 22 80 64 61 83 27 37 46 82 68 51 86 39 32 81 70 49 52 66 56 92 105 57 25 88 28 59 67 53 60 101 141 4524 23 41 57 29 26 42 108 29 84 96 K-10Date : 3/7/2 018 Railroad Tracks 4 DetentionBasinPoint !ð DischargePoint [Ú LiftStation !.CleanOut !!2 Manhole "!;Î Culvert Inlet UNITTYPE "?B CATCH T)CORNER "?B SUMP !ð OpenChannelPoint EdgeDrain Mains- Ownership research OWN ER STATE CITY EASE PRVT Open Channel research Private VirtualDrainLine detension basins k RockGuard Flow Direction !east !north !south !west Creeks CityOutside City Limit Right-of-way SchoolParcels Bridges Pavement Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ¯ 0 500 1,000250Feet 5 3 7 8 6 1 24 9 K-09 J-10L-10K-11 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org January 13, 2024 sent via email Chris Knauer Searise Construction P.O. Box 1481 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: Illegal Removal of ten (10) Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) at 1323 Garden Street (BLDG-0330-2022) On December 10, 2024, I determined that ten (10) Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) had been removed without a permit at 1323 Garden Street. A new 3-story single family residence and ADU have been approved for construction at this address in BLDG-0330-2022. On parcel zoned “O”, no tree can be removed without a permit. Applicable Code Sections: Protection of Trees: 12.24.150 1. In accordance with municipal code 12.24.150.E, any person or contractor deemed responsible for damaging any tree in violation of this chapter shall be liable for penalties to the city according to Section 12.24.170, Enforcement. Enforcement 12.24.170(A). Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. Searise Construction has been deemed responsible for removing the trees without a permit. 1. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.170.A(3), if the tree removal or damaged tree is related to any development or subdivision then the civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times four, plus all related staff costs. The City Arborist will compute the value of the tree using methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture. The penalties for the tree damage are detailed in the following “Penalties” section. 2. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.170(A)(4), the property owner will be required to plant up to 3 trees under the direction of the City Arborist. If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, contact me by phone at (805) 781- 7578 or by email at wgault@slocity.org. Sincerely, Walter Gault City Arborist Community Development 1 From:building Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2024 4:00 PM To:khall@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject:BLDG-0330-2022 / 1321 Garden St Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022_BV_BLDG_Review_V2.pdf; BLDG-0330-2022_Review_V2.docx Hello, Please see the attached comments from the second review of your project. You can resubmit digital plans to this email at your earliest convenience. Best, Nicole Monroe Permit Technician I Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nmonroe@slocity.org T 805.781.7596 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications Date: January 2, 2024 Plan Check Review # 2 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: _____yes ______no Print Name: If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: Project Address 1333 Garden St. Project Name Lofts on Garden Application Number BLDG-0330-2022 Review of New 3- Story SFR w/ attached ADU Occupancy Class R-3 Construction Type VB Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text. Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 2 Planning Division Graham Bultema gbultema@slocity.org 805-781-7111 ☒ Ready for Action ☐ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) 1. Payment of the completion fee (invoice #00022883) 2. Provide an explanation for changes made from approved project plans ARCH-0543-2019 - Conditions of Approval (dated Nov. 20, 2020)  Condition #1 –  Condition #4 –  Condition #5 –  Condition #6 Engineering Development Review Richard Avila Phil Dowty ravila@slocity.org Pdowty@slocity.org Mobile: 949.283.2270 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: These plans are considered incomplete and additional comments may apply when all minimum plan information and/or supporting documentation is provided through the plan review process. Provide responses to each comment, as appropriate, and note on what page(s) in the plan set each item is addressed. Include the name and phone # of the person(s) providing responses. The following items are required prior to building permit issuance: 3. The project shall show and document compliance with the 2014 Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building permit application shall include the required PCR checklist to show compliance with any pertinent standards. The checklist is available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5190 . Correct the Stormwater Control Plan section (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area does not include replaced area. This number seems to be high. Section (e) should not be 0 (2nd P/C) The PCR checklist has been received, however please complete the Project Information in Step 1: Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 3 4. If the PCR checklist triggers water quality requirements, then provide a Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) on a form provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Add this to cover sheet 5. Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the coversheet that identifies Stormwater Plan BMPs used for compliance for Performance Requirements 1-4 and required inspection by EOR during construction. Fill in the blank with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Refer to the project’s Post Construction Stormwater Plan. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: Project is subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Project is Exempt: _(yes or no)___ If no, Project meets: Performance Req. 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Performance Req. 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of _____________. Performance Req. 3 Runoff Retention through use of _____________ Performance Req. 4 Peak Management through use of _____________. The following items need correction on the draft construction plans : General 6. Verify address of 1333 Garden. City maps show property as 1321 Garden. (2nd P/C) Based on Owner’s response it seems that the address on plans should be revised to 1321 Garden Street, if not, please provide additional explanation for leaving the address for the Main residence. 7. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 8. The building plans shall clearly note if existing frontage improvements meet current compliance with city standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA driveway, etc. 9. Include reference on the cover sheet of the plans to the project soils report. Include reference to the Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 4 soils engineering firm, report number, and report date. 10. Provide an update and/or final review letter from the soils engineer stating that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report. (2nd P/C) Architect’s response acknowledged, however review letter not found. Please resubmit, or email pdf to: pdowty@slocity.org Sheet C-2 11. Clarify on this sheet if Building C or any of the utilities were ever installed? Site Plan A-0.1 12. Provide a legend to show what different hatching patterns represent. Utilities 13. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). (2nd P/C) Utility sheet has been added. Please include the following information (see image below for reference): o Show size and material for existing sewer and water mains in Garden St. (6” VCP Sewer, and 8” PVC Water). o Show existing water service and reference size of meter and lateral (3/4” mtr. With ¾” lateral). o Identify size and material for new sewer lateral. o See minor drafting comments below: Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 5 14. No plumbing system, drainage system, building sewer, private sewage disposal system, or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities. CPC 307.1 15. The plan shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 16. Sewer laterals shall be protected with a backwater valve where in finish floor of the structure is located less than 1’ above the BFE at the next upstream sewer manhole [SLOMC 15.04.020.LL] Grading 17. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 6 (2nd P/C) The Engineer’s response does not address the entire comment; please show existing buildings within 15 feet of this property (existing bldg. adjacent to north-west PL is not shown, or existing drainage in the same area). (2nd P/C) Drainage is directed to existing inlet, please show existing drain pipe and how the run-off discharges to street or other downstream facility. (2nd P/C) CBC 1804.4 required 2%minimum slope on earth swale within 10’ of property, some slopes shown are less than the minimum. Site Drainage 18. Clarify the proposed drainage strategy. Provide complete details of all proposed drainage features. Show drainage arrows existing and proposed contours to clearly indicate the altered drainage. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed across property lines. The improved drainage may be retained/detained on site with a controlled outlet to mimic pre-construction historic run-off. Indicate if there is a specific location of the historic outlet. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17 19. Show the finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grades adjacent to building, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. CRC 300.2 20. Show drainage on site plan – slopes & direction of flow. The ground adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2%. (2nd P/C) See comments for #17, the area below does not have adequate slope: 21. Provide a detail of the Drainage Swale. Show drainage swale flowline grades, high points and low points of the swales and drainage arrows, for reference, if applicable. Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 7 22. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. [§406.3.3 CBC] Show compliance 23. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas or swale. Induce sheet flow at outlet of swale to mimic historic sheet flows. Flood Zone Requirements: 24. Include a note on the cover sheet of the plans and/or at the project data defining the flood zone designation, depth or BFE, and ordinance requirements for minimum FF height or the height of floodproofing, wet floodproofing, and/or floodgates if applicable. Include any additional notes regarding the protection of any building service equipment 25. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The new garage structure must be raised or may be “wet” floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. See FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93 for “wet” floodproofing requirements. The building construction materials located below the elevation of the BFE plus one foot of freeboard shall be constructed with flood-resistant materials in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08 and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Floodproofing of the office spaces located at the first floor is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. (2nd P/C) Applicant’s response reference a new note 01 11 B1 on sheet F-1.0, however the note was not found. 27. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 28. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and office spaces located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 29. Provide venting for all of the “wet” floodproofed areas. Venting shall be provided at the rate of 1 square inch per 1 square foot of floor area. Vents shall be located with the bottom of the opening located not more than 12” above grade. A minimum of two vents shall be provided. 30. The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer: (2nd P/C) The following notes have been added to Sheet T-1, however please add a signature block specifically for “Flood Zone Notes”, to be signed by Engineer or Architect. (2nd P/C) Due to updated FEMA forms and City requirements the following notes have been updated as shown in red: Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 8  The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations.  Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.  Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate for “dry” water proofing (FEMA form FF- 206-FY-22-153, or most current version) and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. At a minimum, supporting documentation shall include a comprehensive Maintenance Plan to include the following items: 1) Photographs of labeled flood gates installed at each location. 2) Reduced floor plan showing location of flood gate storage area/room and all flood protected openings with labels to match the corresponding labeled flood gate. 3) Instructions and details for installation of floodgates, gaskets and hardware. 4) Instructions for annual maintenance/inspection of building envelope, flood gates, gaskets, hardware and utility conduit/pipe seals In the case of the AO zone, the architect of record may complete the elevation certificate.  Prior to final inspection approval the contractor or owner shall provide documentation to the City Engineer certifying “wet” floodproofing per F.E.M.A. Technical Bulletin 7-93, page 4. This certification to be signed by Contractor or Engineer clearly stating the water proofing and venting conforms to FEMA requirements (Technical Bulletin 7-93) – also see comment #30 for additional certification requirements.  A non-conversion agreement for the garage shall be recorded prior to occupancy or final inspection approval in accordance with MC Section 17.84.040.B.10. (2nd P/C) Flood gate sections have been added to sheet F-1.0, also include the required elastomeric waterproof membrane on all floodproofing section details to protect construction assemblies. Note the specific gasketing proposed for the floodgates. Show and label the existing and/or proposed floodgate storage room(s) on the floor plans for reference. Also please show how the flood panels mount to the building. 31. The contractor, architect, or owner responsible for construction and compliance with the approved plans, codes, and ordinances shall summarize in writing that the minimum following “wet” floodproofing requirements have been achieved: a. The portion of the structure located below the BFE + 1’ of freeboard has been constructed of flood-resistant materials meeting the requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08. b. The structure has been designed for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters or has otherwise been designed to resist the appropriate hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. Plan Check Review #2 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 9 c. Mechanical and utility equipment have been elevated to 1’ above the BFE or have been floodproofed. d. The structure meets the wet floodproofing requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93. e. Statement that the architect observed the construction of the building to ensure it is in compliance with the above requirements. f. Include pictures of the flood-resistant construction, utility service equipment, and flood openings. Fees / Addressing Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org Phone (805) 781-7588 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: 1. APN reflects the address to be 1321 Garden Street. Please update all plan sheet accordingly. 2. Please clearly note the square footage of the new residence and ADU. Please breakdown the square footages for each dwelling and accessory spaces. 3. Address assigned to ADU is 1321 A Garden Street. Please add the newly assigned address to the plans. 4. The Civil sheets in the plan set that are stamped approved from 2010 need to be removed and replaced with updated plan sheets. 5. Updated Building Address: Building Address: 1321 Garden Street 1 st Floor Offices: #100, #101 & #102 2 nd Floor Residential Units: #200 & #201 Please update the plans to reflect the above assigned addressing. 6. Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. City of San Luis Obispo 12/18/2023 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 1 of 3 Project Description: SFR w/Attached ADU & Garage Project Address: 13333 Garden St Application/Permit #: BLDG-0330-2022 Occupancy: R-3/U Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Sprinklered 13R Stories: 2 Floor Area (sf): Habitable: 2,517, Garage/Storage: 997, Deck: 997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire Alarm: - Bureau Veritas has completed the SECOND plan review on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Codes in effect for this project include the 2022 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2021 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in this list.  These plans and documents have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable code requirements and instructions of the jurisdiction. The stamping of these plans shall not be held to permit or be an approval of a violation of any applicable codes and/or standards nor relieve the owner, design professional of record or contractor of compliance with any applicable codes and/or standards. Plan review of documents does not authorize construction to proceed in violation of any federal, state, nor local regulation.  The review does not necessarily include errors and omissions. Complete compliance is the responsibility of the designer.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  The comments identified in other sections of this review require clarifications/corrections before this plan check can be completed.  For reference for explanations in the examiner’s comment sections, italic text refers to the initial submittals, bold text on second submittals, and underlined text on third submittals.  Please annotate your response in the areas on each comment, please see the comment section.  Submit a list showing any changes to the plan or previously submitted documents that are not the result of the plan check comments. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS PLAN REVIEW PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THESE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ Respectfully submitted, Dee Stevens Mildred Renteria Plans Examiner Plan Check Engineer Dee.Stevens@bureauveritas.com Mildred.Renteria@bureauveritas.com (805) 230-2888 City of San Luis Obispo 12/18/2023 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 2 of 3 RESUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment is located. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. To aid in the plan review process— please indicate in the space adjacent to each comment or on a separate sheet, the sheet and the exact location on the sheet where corrections have been made (e.g., Detail S of Sheet 3). Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 1. A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4-story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] 2nd Review: The dimensions specified in sheet T2 for the unit 2 main floor (533.72 s.f.) and 2 nd Floor Loft (261.13 s.f.) do not match the areas obtained by using the dimensions specified on the Second Floor Plan/A- 1.2. After calculating the Unit 2 Floor and unit 2 loft the following approximate areas were obtained: 549 s.f. and 286 s.f. respectively. Therefore, the proposed loft area is greater than the one-half of the floor area of the room per R325.3. Please clarify how the areas in sheet T2 have been obtained. Revise the area of the proposed loft if needed to meet the exception under area limitation. [§R325.2 CRC] RESPONSE: City of San Luis Obispo 12/18/2023 Application/Permit #BLDG-0330-2022 BVNA #13424582 3 of 3 GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS No comments remaining ENERGY COMMENTS No comments remaining ELECTRICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining MECHANICAL COMMENTS No comments remaining PLUMBING COMMENTS No comments remaining STRUCTURAL COMMENTS No comments remaining END OF COMMENTS 1 From:Dowty, Philip Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2024 11:56 AM To:building Subject:RE: 1321 Garden; BLDG-0330-2022 Hello Nicole, I thought I’d get this out earlier, but I just uploaded my amended Engineering comments. Please call/email with any questions. Thank you, Philip Dowty Engineering Consultant Mobile: 949.283.2270 Community Development E PDowty@slocity.org T 805.781.7171 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Dowty, Philip Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 6:59 AM To: building <building@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden; BLDG-0330-2022 Thank you Nicole, I’ll let you know when I update my comments this morning. Phil Sent from my iPhone On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:55 AM, building <building@slocity.org> wrote: Good morning Philip, Yes, you can go ahead and add more comments! Looks like you’re right in that we haven’t sent anything yet to them so it can be altered. Best, Nicole Monroe 2 From: Dowty, Philip <PDowty@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 6:14 PM To: building <building@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden; BLDG-0330-2022 Hello Building, It looks like this review has not gone back to the Applicant? If that is the case, after speaking with Bridget I’d like to add a couple comments 1st thing in the morning. Please send me a reply to confirm I’m not too late to amend my comments. Thank you, Philip Dowty Engineering Consultant Community Development E PDowty@slocity.org T 805.781.7171 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:building Sent:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 1:03 PM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1323 Garden St. ; Permit Ref BLDG 0330-2022 Good afternoon, This has been received and routed for review. The due date has been set at 01/05/2024 for comment or approval. Thank you, Erin Stanley Permit Technician I Community Development E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7159 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:21 PM To: building <building@slocity.org>; Stanley, Erin <EStanley@slocity.org> Cc: 'Marcy Campbell' <mcampbell@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: 1323 Garden St. ; Permit Ref BLDG 0330-2022 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Erin, This is our Plan Check Review Response Re-Submittal that I discussed on the phone with you today… 1. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS a. Architects Response to Bureau Veritas Comment List : See aƩached file “BLDG-0330-2022 [1] - 1333 Garden New 3 Story SFR with AƩached ADU_khA Rspn_2023-12-12.pdf” b. Architects Response to Bureau Veritas Comment List : See aƩached file “BLDG-0330-2022_Review_v1_khA Rspn_2023-12-12.pdf” c. Consultant Engineer Response LeƩers : See aƩached file “1321 Garden_Plan Check Review-Consultant Responses_2023-12-12.pdf” 2. 24 x 36 PLAN SET : Link to the plans… hƩps://www.dropbox.com/ 3. STRUCTURAL CALCS : Link to Structural Calcs hƩps://www.dropbox.com/ 4. AddiƟonal documents are aƩached to this email 2 a. Soils Eng Report Update SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street SER UPDATE.pdf b. SWCP 22128_SWCP_ApplicaƟon.pdf c. Statement of Special InspecƟon Statement of Special InspecƟons 2023-04-06 - EXECUTED.pdf d. Energy Report LoŌs on Garden T-24 Report.pdf Please let me know that you have received this email & were able to reach all of the links. I am available on my cell phone if you have any questions. Best regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:building Sent:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 1:01 PM To:Nichols, Vanessa; Oetzell, Walter; DeGiovanni, Stephanie; Davis, Jerry; Beech, Ryan Subject:1321 Garden - New resubmittal Please review this new resubmittal. BLDG-0330-2022 1321 Garden Route to: BLDG- BV PLNG- Walter PW- Stephanie Fees- VN Sewer- Ryan Due date: 01/05/2024 LINK: V2 Thank you, Erin Stanley Permit Technician I Community Development E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7159 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:21 PM To:building; Stanley, Erin Cc:'Marcy Campbell' Subject:1323 Garden St. ; Permit Ref BLDG 0330-2022 Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022 [1] - 1333 Garden New 3 Story SFR with Attached ADU_khA Rspn_ 2023-12-12.pdf; BLDG-0330-2022_Review_v1_khA Rspn_2023-12-12.pdf; 1321 Garden_Plan Check Review-Consultant Responses_2023-12-12.pdf; SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street SER UPDATE.pdf; 22128_SWCP_Application.pdf; Statement of Special Inspections 2023-04-06 - EXECUTED.pdf; Lofts on Garden T-24 Report.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Erin, This is our Plan Check Review Response Re-Submittal that I discussed on the phone with you today… 1. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS a. Architects Response to Bureau Veritas Comment List : See aƩached file “BLDG-0330-2022 [1] - 1333 Garden New 3 Story SFR with AƩached ADU_khA Rspn_2023-12-12.pdf” b. Architects Response to Bureau Veritas Comment List : See aƩached file “BLDG-0330-2022_Review_v1_khA Rspn_2023-12-12.pdf” c. Consultant Engineer Response LeƩers : See aƩached file “1321 Garden_Plan Check Review-Consultant Responses_2023-12-12.pdf” 2. 24 x 36 PLAN SET : Link to the plans… hƩps://www.dropbox.com/ 3. STRUCTURAL CALCS : Link to Structural Calcs hƩps://www.dropbox.com/ 4. AddiƟonal documents are aƩached to this email a. Soils Eng Report Update SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street SER UPDATE.pdf b. SWCP 22128_SWCP_ApplicaƟon.pdf c. Statement of Special InspecƟon Statement of Special InspecƟons 2023-04-06 - EXECUTED.pdf d. Energy Report LoŌs on Garden T-24 Report.pdf Please let me know that you have received this email & were able to reach all of the links. I am available on my cell phone if you have any questions. Best regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 1 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 GENERAL INFORMATION 01 Project Name Lofts on Garden 02 Run Title Title 24 Analysis 03 Project Location 1333 Garden Street 04 City San Luis Obispo 05 Standards Version 2019 06 Zip code 93401 07 Software Version EnergyPro 8.2 08 Climate Zone 5 09 Front Orientation (deg/ Cardinal)0 10 Building Type Single family 11 Number of Dwelling Units 1 12 Project Scope NewConstruction 13 Number of Bedrooms 2 14 Addition Cond. Floor Area (ft 2)0 15 Number of Stories 3 16 Existing Cond. Floor Area (ft 2)n/a 17 Fenestration Average U-factor 0.3 18 Total Cond. Floor Area (ft 2)6091 19 Glazing Percentage (%)29.57% 20 ADU Bedroom Count n/a 21 ADU Conditioned Floor Area n/a 22 Is Natural Gas Available?Yes COMPLIANCE RESULTS 01 Building Complies with Computer Performance 02 This building incorporates features that require field testing and/or verification by a certified HERS rater under the supervision of a CEC-approved HERS provider. 03 This building incorporates one or more Special Features shown below 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 2 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 ENERGY DESIGN RATING Energy Design Ratings Compliance Margins Efficiency¹ (EDR)Total² (EDR)Efficiency¹ (EDR)Total² (EDR) Standard Design 38.8 27 Proposed Design 38.4 26.6 0.4 0.4 RESULT:3:COMPLIES 1: Efficiency EDR includes improvements to the building envelope and more efficient equipment 2: Total EDR includes efficiency and demand response measures such as photovoltaic (PV) systems and batteries 3: Building complies when efficiency and total compliance margins are greater than or equal to zero •Standard Design PV Capacity: 2.54 kWdc •PV System resized to 2.54 kWdc (a factor of 2.536) to achieve 'Standard Design PV' PV scaling ENERGY USE SUMMARY Energy Use (kTDV/ft 2-yr)Standard Design Proposed Design Compliance Margin Percent Improvement Space Heating 27.76 24.98 2.78 10 Space Cooling 1.28 3.19 -1.91 -149.2 IAQ Ventilation 1.74 1.74 0 0 Water Heating 4.09 4.43 -0.34 -8.3 Self Utilization/Flexibility Credit n/a 0 0 n/a Compliance Energy Total 34.87 34.34 0.53 1.5 REQUIRED PV SYSTEMS - SIMPLIFIED 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 DC System Size (kWdc)Exception Module Type Array Type Power Electronics CFI Azimuth (deg) Tilt Input Array Angle (deg) Tilt: (x in 12) Inverter Eff. (%) Annual Solar Access (%) 2.54 NA Standard Fixed none true 150-270 n/a n/a <=7:12 96 100 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 3 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 REQUIRED SPECIAL FEATURES The following are features that must be installed as condition for meeting the modeled energy performance for this computer analysis. •Non-standard duct location (any location other than attic) HERS FEATURE SUMMARY The following is a summary of the features that must be field-verified by a certified HERS Rater as a condition for meeting the modeled energy performance for this computer analysis. Additional detail is provided in the buildng tables below. Registered CF2Rs and CF3Rs are required to be completed in the HERS Registry Building-level Verifications: •Quality insulation installation (QII) •Indoor air quality ventilation •Kitchen range hood Cooling System Verifications: •Minimum Airflow •Verified EER •Verified SEER •Verified Refrigerant Charge •Fan Efficacy Watts/CFM Heating System Verifications: •Verified HSPF •Verified heat pump rated heating capacity HVAC Distribution System Verifications: •Duct leakage testing •Ducts located entirely in conditioned space confirmed by duct leakage testing Domestic Hot Water System Verifications: •-- None -- BUILDING - FEATURES INFORMATION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Project Name Conditioned Floor Area (ft 2)Number of Dwelling Units Number of Bedrooms Number of Zones Number of Ventilation Cooling Systems Number of Water Heating Systems Lofts on Garden 6091 1 2 11 0 1 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 4 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 ZONE INFORMATION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Zone Name Zone Type HVAC System Name Zone Floor Area (ft 2)Avg. Ceiling Height Water Heating System 1 Water Heating System 2 DS-1.1 Conditioned DS-1.11 722 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A Unconditioned - Unit 2 St Conditioned DS-1.11 81 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A DS-1.2 Conditioned DS-1.22 581 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A HPC/FC-1.1 Conditioned HPC/FC-1.13 863 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A Unconditioned 1F Elev Conditioned HPC/FC-1.13 105 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A HPC/FC-2.1 Conditioned HPC/FC-2.14 1056 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A HPC/FC-2.2 Conditioned HPC/FC-2.25 466 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A HPC/FC-2.3 Conditioned HPC/FC-2.36 780 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A HPC/FC-3.1 Conditioned HPC/FC-3.17 527 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A Unconditioned - Unit 1 St Conditioned HPC/FC-3.17 232 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A HPC/FC-3.2 Conditioned HPC/FC-3.28 678 9 DHW Sys 1 N/A OPAQUE SURFACES 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Name Zone Construction Azimuth Orientation Gross Area (ft 2)Window and Door Area (ft2) Tilt (deg) N Exterior Wall DS-1.1 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 145 63 90 E Exterior Wall DS-1.1 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 159 24.1 90 S Exterior Wall DS-1.1 R-21 Wall 144 n/a 188 70 90 W Exterior Wall DS-1.1 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 10 0 90 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 5 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 OPAQUE SURFACES 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Name Zone Construction Azimuth Orientation Gross Area (ft 2)Window and Door Area (ft2) Tilt (deg) N Exterior Wall 2 Unconditioned - Unit 2 St R-21 Wall 324 n/a 50 0 90 E Exterior Wall 2 Unconditioned - Unit 2 St R-21 Wall 54 n/a 181 0 90 W Exterior Wall 2 Unconditioned - Unit 2 St R-21 Wall 234 n/a 80 24 90 N Exterior Wall 3 DS-1.2 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 240 64 90 E Exterior Wall 3 DS-1.2 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 242 126 90 W Exterior Wall 3 DS-1.2 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 242 94 90 N Exterior Wall 4 HPC/FC-1.1 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 80 42 90 E Exterior Wall 4 HPC/FC-1.1 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 68 0.1 90 S Exterior Wall 2 HPC/FC-1.1 R-21 Wall 144 n/a 240 25 90 W Exterior Wall 4 HPC/FC-1.1 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 318 62.25 90 S Exterior Wall 3 Unconditioned 1F Elev R-21 Wall 144 n/a 82 20.5 90 S Exterior Wall on Roof Unconditioned 1F Elev R-21 Wall 144 n/a 50 0 90 W Exterior Wall On Roof Unconditioned 1F Elev R-21 Wall 234 n/a 64 0 90 N Exterior Wall 5 HPC/FC-2.1 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 300 168 90 E Exterior Wall 5 HPC/FC-2.1 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 496 52 90 S Exterior Wall 4 HPC/FC-2.1 R-21 Wall 144 n/a 302 64.33 90 W Exterior Wall 5 HPC/FC-2.1 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 48 8 90 N Exterior Wall 6 HPC/FC-2.1 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 82 26.67 90 E Exterior Wall 6 HPC/FC-2.1 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 22 10 90 W Exterior Wall 6 HPC/FC-2.1 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 22 10 90 N Exterior Wall 7 HPC/FC-2.2 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 180 44.66 90 E Exterior Wall 7 HPC/FC-2.2 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 194 60 90 W Exterior Wall 7 HPC/FC-2.2 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 192 85 90 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 6 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 OPAQUE SURFACES 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Name Zone Construction Azimuth Orientation Gross Area (ft 2)Window and Door Area (ft2) Tilt (deg) Small N Exterior Walls HPC/FC-2.2 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 36 22 90 Small S Exterior Walls HPC/FC-2.2 R-21 Wall 144 n/a 36 0 90 N Exterior Wall 8 HPC/FC-2.3 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 60 21.67 90 E Exterior Wall 8 HPC/FC-2.3 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 30 19 90 S Exterior Wall 5 HPC/FC-2.3 R-21 Wall 144 n/a 322 42 90 W Exterior Wall 8 HPC/FC-2.3 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 340 95.25 90 N Exterior Wall 9 HPC/FC-3.1 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 182 59 90 E Exterior Wall 9 HPC/FC-3.1 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 261 14.75 90 S Exterior Wall 6 HPC/FC-3.1 R-21 Wall 144 n/a 185 40 90 W Exterior Wall 9 HPC/FC-3.1 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 63 0 90 N Exterior Wall 10 Unconditioned - Unit 1 St R-21 Wall 324 n/a 66 26.67 90 E Exterior Wall 10 Unconditioned - Unit 1 St R-21 Wall 54 n/a 18 10 90 S Exterior Wall 7 Unconditioned - Unit 1 St R-21 Wall 144 n/a 64 8 90 W Exterior Wall 10 Unconditioned - Unit 1 St R-21 Wall 234 n/a 18 10 90 N Exterior Wall Above Unconditioned - Unit 1 St R-21 Wall 324 n/a 124 36 90 E Exterior Wall Above Unconditioned - Unit 1 St R-21 Wall 54 n/a 168 10 90 S Exterior Wall Above Unconditioned - Unit 1 St R-21 Wall 144 n/a 64 0 90 W Exterior Wall Above Unconditioned - Unit 1 St R-21 Wall 234 n/a 104 43.67 90 N Exterior Wall 11 HPC/FC-3.2 R-21 Wall 324 n/a 276 59 90 E Exterior Wall 11 HPC/FC-3.2 R-21 Wall 54 n/a 104 0 90 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 7 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 OPAQUE SURFACES 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Name Zone Construction Azimuth Orientation Gross Area (ft 2)Window and Door Area (ft2) Tilt (deg) S Exterior Wall 8 HPC/FC-3.2 R-21 Wall 144 n/a 276 46 90 W Exterior Wall 11 HPC/FC-3.2 R-21 Wall 234 n/a 368 31 90 Interior Surface Unconditioned - Unit 1 St>>HPC/FC-3.1 R-19 Wall n/a n/a 165 0 n/a Raised Floor HPC/FC-2.1 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace1 n/a n/a 42 n/a n/a Raised Floor 2 HPC/FC-2.1 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace1 n/a n/a 38 n/a n/a Raised Floor 3 HPC/FC-2.2 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace1 n/a n/a 30 n/a n/a Raised Floor 4 HPC/FC-2.3 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace1 n/a n/a 48 n/a n/a Raised Floor 5 HPC/FC-3.1 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace1 n/a n/a 6 n/a n/a Interior Floor HPC/FC-2.1 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace n/a n/a 790 n/a n/a Interior Floor 2 HPC/FC-2.1 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace n/a n/a 186 n/a n/a Interior Floor 3 HPC/FC-2.2 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace n/a n/a 436 n/a n/a Interior Floor 4 HPC/FC-2.3 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace n/a n/a 732 n/a n/a Interior Floor 5 HPC/FC-3.1 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace n/a n/a 521 n/a n/a Interior Floor 6 HPC/FC-3.2 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace n/a n/a 678 n/a n/a OPAQUE SURFACES - CATHEDRAL CEILINGS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Name Zone Construction Azimuth Orientation Area (ft 2) Skylight Area (ft2) Roof Rise (x in 12) Roof Reflectance Roof Emittance Cool Roof Roof DS-1.1 R-30 Roof No Attic 0 Front 15 0 0 0.1 0.85 No Roof 2 DS-1.2 R-30 Roof No Attic 0 Front 77 0 0 0.1 0.85 No Roof 3 DS-1.2 R-30 Roof No Attic 0 Front 77 0 0 0.1 0.85 No Roof 4 Unconditioned 1F Elev R-30 Roof No Attic 0 Front 52 0 0 0.1 0.85 No 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 8 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 OPAQUE SURFACES - CATHEDRAL CEILINGS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Name Zone Construction Azimuth Orientation Area (ft 2) Skylight Area (ft2) Roof Rise (x in 12) Roof Reflectance Roof Emittance Cool Roof Roof 5 HPC/FC-2.1 Uncovered Deck R-30 Roof 0 Front 111 16 0 0.1 0.85 No Roof 6 HPC/FC-2.2 Uncovered Deck R-30 Roof 0 Front 466 0 0 0.1 0.85 No Roof 7 HPC/FC-2.3 Uncovered Deck R-30 Roof 0 Front 96 0 0 0.1 0.85 No Roof 8 HPC/FC-3.1 Uncovered Deck R-30 Roof 0 Front 527 64 0 0.1 0.85 No Roof 9 Unconditioned - Unit 1 St Uncovered Deck R-30 Roof 0 Front 232 25 0 0.1 0.85 No Roof 10 HPC/FC-3.2 Uncovered Deck R-30 Roof 0 Front 678 27 0 0.1 0.85 No FENESTRATION / GLAZING 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Name Type Surface Orientation Azimuth Width (ft) Height (ft)Mult.Area (ft2)U-factor U-factor Source SHGC SHGC Sourc e Exterior Shading Garage Door Window N Exterior Wall 324 1 63 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window (not on elevations Window E Exterior Wall 54 1 0.1 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Garage Door 2 Window S Exterior Wall 144 1 70 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Door Window N Exterior Wall 3 324 1 43 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Door 2 Window N Exterior Wall 3 324 1 21 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Garage Door 3 Window E Exterior Wall 3 54 1 63 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Garage Door 4 Window E Exterior Wall 3 54 1 63 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Garage Door 5 Window W Exterior Wall 3 234 1 62 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window Window W Exterior Wall 3 234 1 32 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window/Door Window N Exterior Wall 4 324 1 42 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 9 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 FENESTRATION / GLAZING 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Name Type Surface Orientation Azimuth Width (ft) Height (ft)Mult.Area (ft2)U-factor U-factor Source SHGC SHGC Sourc e Exterior Shading Window (not on elevations 2 Window E Exterior Wall 4 54 1 0.1 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Door 3 Window S Exterior Wall 2 144 1 21 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 2 Window S Exterior Wall 2 144 1 4 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 3 Window W Exterior Wall 4 234 1 20.75 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 4 Window W Exterior Wall 4 234 1 20.75 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 5 Window W Exterior Wall 4 234 1 20.75 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 6 Window N Exterior Wall 5 324 1 59 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 7 Window N Exterior Wall 5 324 1 25 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 8 Window N Exterior Wall 5 324 1 59 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 9 Window N Exterior Wall 5 324 1 25 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 10 Window E Exterior Wall 5 54 1 13.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 11 Window E Exterior Wall 5 54 1 12.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 12 Window E Exterior Wall 5 54 1 13.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 13 Window E Exterior Wall 5 54 1 12.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 14 Window S Exterior Wall 4 144 1 60.33 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 15 Window S Exterior Wall 4 144 1 4 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window (not on elevations 3 Window W Exterior Wall 5 234 1 8 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 16 Window N Exterior Wall 6 324 1 26.67 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 17 Window E Exterior Wall 6 54 1 10 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 18 Window W Exterior Wall 6 234 1 10 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 19 Window N Exterior Wall 7 324 1 14 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 20 Window N Exterior Wall 7 324 1 8.33 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 21 Window N Exterior Wall 7 324 1 14 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 22 Window N Exterior Wall 7 324 1 8.33 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 23 Window E Exterior Wall 7 54 1 30 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 10 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 FENESTRATION / GLAZING 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Name Type Surface Orientation Azimuth Width (ft) Height (ft)Mult.Area (ft2)U-factor U-factor Source SHGC SHGC Sourc e Exterior Shading Window 24 Window E Exterior Wall 7 54 1 30 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window/Door 2 Window W Exterior Wall 7 234 1 42.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window/Door 3 Window W Exterior Wall 7 234 1 42.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 25 Window Small N Exterior Walls 324 1 11 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 26 Window Small N Exterior Walls 324 1 11 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Door 4 Window N Exterior Wall 8 324 1 21.67 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 27 Window E Exterior Wall 8 54 1 4 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window (not on elevations 4 Window E Exterior Wall 8 54 1 15 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 28 Window S Exterior Wall 5 144 1 12 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 29 Window S Exterior Wall 5 144 1 12 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window (not on elevations 5 Window S Exterior Wall 5 144 1 15 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window (not on elevations 6 Window S Exterior Wall 5 144 1 3 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 30 Window W Exterior Wall 8 234 1 64.25 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 31 Window W Exterior Wall 8 234 1 7.75 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 32 Window W Exterior Wall 8 234 1 7.75 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 33 Window W Exterior Wall 8 234 1 7.75 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 34 Window W Exterior Wall 8 234 1 7.75 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 35 Window N Exterior Wall 9 324 1 59 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 36 Window E Exterior Wall 9 54 1 12.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 37 Window E Exterior Wall 9 54 1 2.25 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 38 Window S Exterior Wall 6 144 1 20 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 39 Window S Exterior Wall 6 144 1 20 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 40 Window N Exterior Wall 10 324 1 26.67 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 41 Window E Exterior Wall 10 54 1 10 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 42 Window S Exterior Wall 7 144 1 8 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 11 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 FENESTRATION / GLAZING 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Name Type Surface Orientation Azimuth Width (ft) Height (ft)Mult.Area (ft2)U-factor U-factor Source SHGC SHGC Sourc e Exterior Shading Window 43 Window W Exterior Wall 10 234 1 10 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 44 Window N Exterior Wall Above 324 1 32 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 45 Window N Exterior Wall Above 324 1 4 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 46 Window E Exterior Wall Above 54 1 10 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Door/Window Window W Exterior Wall Above 234 1 31.67 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 47 Window W Exterior Wall Above 234 1 12 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 48 Window N Exterior Wall 11 324 1 59 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 49 Window S Exterior Wall 8 144 1 20 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 50 Window S Exterior Wall 8 144 1 20 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 51 Window S Exterior Wall 8 144 1 6 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 52 Window W Exterior Wall 11 234 1 12.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 53 Window W Exterior Wall 11 234 1 3 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 54 Window W Exterior Wall 11 234 1 12.5 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Window 55 Window W Exterior Wall 11 234 1 3 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC Bug Screen Skylight Skylight Roof 5 Front 0 1 16 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC None Skylight 2 Skylight Roof 8 Front 0 1 30 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC None Skylight 3 Skylight Roof 8 Front 0 1 30 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC None Skylight 4 Skylight Roof 8 Front 0 1 4 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC None Skylight 5 Skylight Roof 9 Front 0 1 25 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC None Skylight 6 Skylight Roof 10 Front 0 1 15 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC None Skylight 7 Skylight Roof 10 Front 0 1 12 0.3 NFRC 0.35 NFRC None 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 12 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 OPAQUE DOORS 01 02 03 04 Name Side of Building Area (ft 2)U-factor Door 5 E Exterior Wall 24 0.5 Door 6 W Exterior Wall 2 24 0.5 Door 7 S Exterior Wall 3 20.5 0.5 SLAB FLOORS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Name Zone Area (ft 2)Perimeter (ft) Edge Insul. R-value and Depth Edge Insul. R-value and Depth Carpeted Fraction Heated Slab-on-Grade DS-1.1 422 51 none 0 80%No Slab-on-Grade 2 Unconditioned - Unit 2 St 27 11.33 none 0 80%No Slab-on-Grade 3 Unconditioned - Unit 2 St 27 11.33 none 0 80%No Slab-on-Grade 4 Unconditioned - Unit 2 St 27 11.33 none 0 80%No Slab-on-Grade 5 DS-1.2 581 73 none 0 80%No Slab-on-Grade 6 HPC/FC-1.1 431.5 36 none 0 80%No Slab-on-Grade 7 HPC/FC-1.1 431.5 36 none 0 80%No Slab-on-Grade 8 Unconditioned 1F Elev 52.5 5 none 0 80%No Slab-on-Grade 9 Unconditioned 1F Elev 52.5 5 none 0 80%No 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 13 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 OPAQUE SURFACE CONSTRUCTIONS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Construction Name Surface Type Construction Type Framing Total Cavity R-value Interior / Exterior Continuous R-value U-factor Assembly Layers R-21 Wall Exterior Walls Wood Framed Wall 2x6 @ 16 in. O. C.R-21 None / None 0.069 Inside Finish: Gypsum Board Cavity / Frame: R-21 / 2x6 Exterior Finish: 3 Coat Stucco R-30 Roof No Attic Cathedral Ceilings Wood Framed Ceiling 2x12 @ 16 in. O. C.R-30 None / None 0.036 Roofing: Light Roof (Asphalt Shingle) Roof Deck: Wood Siding/sheathing/decking Cavity / Frame: R-30 / 2x12 Inside Finish: Gypsum Board Uncovered Deck R-30 Roof Cathedral Ceilings Wood Framed Ceiling 2x12 @ 16 in. O. C.R-30 None / None 0.036 Roofing: Light Roof (Asphalt Shingle) Roof Deck: Wood Siding/sheathing/decking Cavity / Frame: R-30 / 2x12 Inside Finish: Gypsum Board R-19 Wall Interior Walls Wood Framed Wall 2x6 @ 16 in. O. C.R-19 None / None 0.069 Inside Finish: Gypsum Board Cavity / Frame: R-19 in 5-1/2 in. (R-18) / 2x6 Other Side Finish: Gypsum Board R-19 Floor No Crawlspace1 Exterior Floors Wood Framed Floor 2x6 @ 16 in. O. C.R-19 None / None 0.052 Floor Surface: Carpeted Floor Deck: Wood Siding/sheathing/decking Cavity / Frame: R-19 in 5-1/2 in. (R-18) / 2x6 R-19 Floor No Crawlspace Interior Floors Wood Framed Floor 2x6 @ 16 in. O. C.R-19 None / None 0.049 Floor Surface: Carpeted Floor Deck: Wood Siding/sheathing/decking Cavity / Frame: R-19 in 5-1/2 in. (R-18) / 2x6 Ceiling Below Finish: Gypsum Board 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 14 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 BUILDING ENVELOPE - HERS VERIFICATION 01 02 03 04 Quality Insulation Installation (QII)High R-value Spray Foam Insulation Building Envelope Air Leakage CFM50 Required Not Required Not Required n/a WATER HEATING SYSTEMS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Name System Type Distribution Type Water Heater Name (#)Solar Heating System Compact Distribution HERS Verification DHW Sys 1 Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Standard Distribution System DHW Heater 1 (2)n/a None n/a WATER HEATERS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Name Heating Element Type Tank Type # of Units Tank Vol. (gal) Energy Factor or Efficiency Input Rating or Pilot Tank Insulation R-value (Int/Ext) Standby Loss or Recovery Eff 1st Hr. Rating or Flow Rate NEEA Heat Pump Brand or Model Tank Location or Ambient Condition DHW Heater 1 Gas Consumer Instantaneous 2 0 0.96-UEF <= 200 kBtu/hr 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a WATER HEATING - HERS VERIFICATION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Name Pipe Insulation Parallel Piping Compact Distribution Compact Distribution Type Recirculation Control Central DHW Distribution Shower Drain Water Heat Recovery DHW Sys 1 - 1/2 Not Required Not Required Not Required None Not Required Not Required Not Required 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 15 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 SPACE CONDITIONING SYSTEMS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Name System Type Heating Unit Name Cooling Unit Name Fan Name Distribution Name Required Thermostat Type Status Verified Existing Condition Heating Equipment Count Cooling Equipment Count DS-1.11 Heat pump heating cooling Heat Pump System 1 Heat Pump System 1 n/a n/a Setback New NA 1 1 DS-1.22 Heat pump heating cooling Heat Pump System 2 Heat Pump System 2 n/a n/a Setback New NA 1 1 HPC/FC-1.13 Heat pump heating cooling Heat Pump System 3 Heat Pump System 3 HVAC Fan 3 Air Distribution System 3 Setback New NA 1 1 HPC/FC-2.14 Heat pump heating cooling Heat Pump System 4 Heat Pump System 4 HVAC Fan 4 Air Distribution System 4 Setback New NA 1 1 HPC/FC-2.25 Heat pump heating cooling Heat Pump System 5 Heat Pump System 5 HVAC Fan 5 Air Distribution System 5 Setback New NA 1 1 HPC/FC-2.36 Heat pump heating cooling Heat Pump System 6 Heat Pump System 6 HVAC Fan 6 Air Distribution System 6 Setback New NA 1 1 HPC/FC-3.17 Heat pump heating cooling Heat Pump System 7 Heat Pump System 7 HVAC Fan 7 Air Distribution System 7 Setback New NA 1 1 HPC/FC-3.28 Heat pump heating cooling Heat Pump System 8 Heat Pump System 8 HVAC Fan 8 Air Distribution System 8 Setback New NA 1 1 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 16 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 HVAC - HEAT PUMPS Name System Type Number of Units Heating Cooling Zonally Controlled Compressor Type HERS Verification HSPF/COP Cap 47 Cap 17 SEER EER/CEER Heat Pump System 1 Ductless MiniSplit HP 1 10 10000 5700 19 12.5 Not Zonal Single Speed Heat Pump System 1-hers-htpump Heat Pump System 2 Ductless MiniSplit HP 1 9 21600 12700 18.5 12.5 Not Zonal Single Speed Heat Pump System 2-hers-htpump Heat Pump System 3 Central split HP 1 10.3 10900 6800 17.8 11.1 Not Zonal Single Speed Heat Pump System 3-hers-htpump Heat Pump System 4 Central split HP 1 8.6 20000 13600 15.5 12.5 Not Zonal Single Speed Heat Pump System 4-hers-htpump Heat Pump System 5 Central split HP 1 8.6 20000 13600 15.5 12.5 Not Zonal Single Speed Heat Pump System 5-hers-htpump Heat Pump System 6 Central split HP 1 8.6 20000 13600 15.5 12.5 Not Zonal Single Speed Heat Pump System 6-hers-htpump Heat Pump System 7 Central split HP 1 10 24000 15000 18.6 12.5 Not Zonal Single Speed Heat Pump System 7-hers-htpump Heat Pump System 8 Central split HP 1 10.6 13600 8500 19.4 11.6 Not Zonal Single Speed Heat Pump System 8-hers-htpump HVAC HEAT PUMPS - HERS VERIFICATION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Name Verified Airflow Airflow Target Verified EER Verified SEER Verified Refrigerant Charge Verified HSPF Verified Heating Cap 47 Verified Heating Cap 17 Heat Pump System 1-hers-htpump Not Required 0 Not Required Not Required Yes No No No Heat Pump System 2-hers-htpump Not Required 0 Not Required Not Required Yes No No No 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 17 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 HVAC HEAT PUMPS - HERS VERIFICATION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Name Verified Airflow Airflow Target Verified EER Verified SEER Verified Refrigerant Charge Verified HSPF Verified Heating Cap 47 Verified Heating Cap 17 Heat Pump System 3-hers-htpump Required 450 Not Required Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Heat Pump System 4-hers-htpump Required 350 Required Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Heat Pump System 5-hers-htpump Required 350 Required Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Heat Pump System 6-hers-htpump Required 350 Required Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Heat Pump System 7-hers-htpump Required 350 Required Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Heat Pump System 8-hers-htpump Required 350 Not Required Required Yes Yes Yes Yes HVAC - DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Duct Ins. R-value Duct Location Surface Area Name Type Design Type Supply Return Supply Return Supply Return Bypass Duct Duct Leakage HERS Verification Air Distribution System 3 Conditioned space-entirely Non-Verified R-6 R-6 Conditio ned Zone Conditio ned Zone n/a n/a No Bypass Duct Sealed and Tested Air Distribution System 3-hers-dist Air Distribution System 4 Conditioned space-entirely Non-Verified R-6 R-6 Conditio ned Zone Conditio ned Zone n/a n/a No Bypass Duct Sealed and Tested Air Distribution System 4-hers-dist Air Distribution System 5 Conditioned space-entirely Non-Verified R-6 R-6 Conditio ned Zone Conditio ned Zone n/a n/a No Bypass Duct Sealed and Tested Air Distribution System 5-hers-dist 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 18 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 HVAC - DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Duct Ins. R-value Duct Location Surface Area Name Type Design Type Supply Return Supply Return Supply Return Bypass Duct Duct Leakage HERS Verification Air Distribution System 6 Conditioned space-entirely Non-Verified R-6 R-6 Conditio ned Zone Conditio ned Zone n/a n/a No Bypass Duct Sealed and Tested Air Distribution System 6-hers-dist Air Distribution System 7 Conditioned space-entirely Non-Verified R-6 R-6 Conditio ned Zone Conditio ned Zone n/a n/a No Bypass Duct Sealed and Tested Air Distribution System 7-hers-dist Air Distribution System 8 Conditioned space-entirely Non-Verified R-6 R-6 Conditio ned Zone Conditio ned Zone n/a n/a No Bypass Duct Sealed and Tested Air Distribution System 8-hers-dist HVAC DISTRIBUTION - HERS VERIFICATION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Name Duct Leakage Verification Duct Leakage Target (%) Verified Duct Location Verified Duct Design Buried Ducts Deeply Buried Ducts Low-leakage Air Handler Low Leakage Ducts Entirely in Conditioned Space Air Distribution System 3-hers-dist Yes 5.0 Required Not Required Not Required Credit not taken Not Required No Air Distribution System 4-hers-dist Yes 5.0 Required Not Required Not Required Credit not taken Not Required No Air Distribution System 5-hers-dist Yes 5.0 Required Not Required Not Required Credit not taken Not Required No 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 19 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 HVAC DISTRIBUTION - HERS VERIFICATION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Name Duct Leakage Verification Duct Leakage Target (%) Verified Duct Location Verified Duct Design Buried Ducts Deeply Buried Ducts Low-leakage Air Handler Low Leakage Ducts Entirely in Conditioned Space Air Distribution System 6-hers-dist Yes 5.0 Required Not Required Not Required Credit not taken Not Required No Air Distribution System 7-hers-dist Yes 5.0 Required Not Required Not Required Credit not taken Not Required No Air Distribution System 8-hers-dist Yes 5.0 Required Not Required Not Required Credit not taken Not Required No HVAC - FAN SYSTEMS 01 02 03 04 Name Type Fan Power (Watts/CFM)Name HVAC Fan 3 HVAC Fan 0.38 HVAC Fan 3-hers-fan HVAC Fan 4 HVAC Fan 0.58 HVAC Fan 4-hers-fan HVAC Fan 5 HVAC Fan 0.58 HVAC Fan 5-hers-fan HVAC Fan 6 HVAC Fan 0.58 HVAC Fan 6-hers-fan HVAC Fan 7 HVAC Fan 0.58 HVAC Fan 7-hers-fan HVAC Fan 8 HVAC Fan 0.58 HVAC Fan 8-hers-fan HVAC FAN SYSTEMS - HERS VERIFICATION 01 02 03 Name Verified Fan Watt Draw Required Fan Efficacy (Watts/CFM) HVAC Fan 3-hers-fan Required 0.38 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 20 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 HVAC FAN SYSTEMS - HERS VERIFICATION 01 02 03 Name Verified Fan Watt Draw Required Fan Efficacy (Watts/CFM) HVAC Fan 4-hers-fan Required 0.58 HVAC Fan 5-hers-fan Required 0.58 HVAC Fan 6-hers-fan Required 0.58 HVAC Fan 7-hers-fan Required 0.58 HVAC Fan 8-hers-fan Required 0.58 IAQ (INDOOR AIR QUALITY) FANS 01 02 03 04 05 06 Dwelling Unit IAQ CFM IAQ Watts/CFM IAQ Fan Type IAQ Recovery Effectiveness (%) IAQ Recovery Effectiveness - SREIAQ Recovery Effectiveness - SRE SFam IAQVentRpt 174 0.25 Default 0 n/a 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CF1R-PRF-01E Project Name:Lofts on Garden Calculation Date/Time:2021-12-20T09:52:41-08:00 (Page 21 of 21) Calculation Description:Title 24 Analysis Input File Name:211207 Lofts on Garden.ribd19x Registration Number:Registration Date/Time: HERS Provider: CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance Report Version: 2019.1.300 Schema Version: rev 20200901 Report Generated: 2021-12-20 09:56:21 DOCUMENTATION AUTHOR'S DECLARATION STATEMENT 1. I certify that this Certificate of Compliance documentation is accurate and complete. Documentation Author Name:Documentation Author Signature: Company:Signature Date: Address:CEA/ HERS Certification Identification (If applicable): City/State/Zip:Phone: RESPONSIBLE PERSON'S DECLARATION STATEMENT I certify the following under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California: 1.I am eligible under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code to accept responsibility for the building design identified on this Certificate of Compliance. 2.I certify that the energy features and performance specifications identified on this Certificate of Compliance conform to the requirements of Title 24, Part 1 and Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. 3.The building design features or system design features identified on this Certificate of Compliance are consistent with the information provided on other applicable compliance documents, worksheets, calculations, plans and specifications submitted to the enforcement agency for approval with this building permit application. Responsible Designer Name:Responsible Designer Signature: Company:Date Signed: Address:License: City/State/Zip:Phone: Easy to Verify at CalCERTS.com Brian Starrett 3C Engineering Inc 1500 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 2021-12-30 16:24:56 805-540-5384 Keith Hall khA 75 Higuera Street Suite 165 San Luis Obisbo, CA 93401 2022-01-05 18:46:23 C 22853 805-541-9160 Digitally signed by CalCERTS. This digital signature is provided in order to secure the content of this registered document, and in no way implies Registration Provider responsibility for the accuracy of the information. 221-P010267391A-000-000-0000000-0000 2022-01-05 18:46:23 CalCERTS inc. Stormwater Control Plan for Post Construction Requirements Exhibit 4 Application Submittal Where directions state “Done” that means no additional information or forms below that point needs to be filled out or furnished. See Exhibits for Watershed Management Zones, Basins, & Urban Sustainability Areas Use “n/a” where information requested is not applicable. If you are unsure regarding how to fill out any of the information, please come in and request assistance from a staff person. Project Information Step 1 Applicant Name: Application No: Project Name: Location Address: Location APN: Site Zoning: Project Type:  Commercial Detached Single Family Residential Industrial Multi-unit Residential Mixed Use Public Project Phase: Project Description: Total Project Site Area = (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area = (b) Total Replaced Impervious Surface Area = (c) Total Existing Impervious Area = (d) Total Impervious Area of Completed Project = (e) Net Impervious Area: (a+b) – (c-d) = OR where (c-d) is a negative number: (a+b) = Your project is NOT subject to Post Construction Requirements if… Step 2  Area (a+b) of project is < 2,500 square feet – Done OR  Area (a+b) of project is > 2,500 square feet, and is a project type listed below ( type) – Done  Road & parking surface repair – slurry & fog & crack seal, pothole & spot patching, overlay & resurfacing & other damage repair with no expansion  Road & parking shoulder grading  Road & parking cleaning, repairing, maintaining, reshaping, regarding drainage systems  Sidewalk & bike path / lane project – no other impervious surface created and runoff is directed to vegetated area  Curb & gutter improvement or replacement – no other impervious created  Underground utility project – surface replaced in kind  Utility vaults – Ex: lift stations, backflows  Fuel storage – above ground with spill containment  Photovoltaic systems – on existing impervious surface, over pervious surface with vegetated cover, buffer strip at the most down gradient row of panels  Second story – no increase in building footprint  Decks & stairs & walkways – raised with space below for drainage  Temporary structures – in place less than 6 months  Trails and pathways, where no other impervious surfaces are replaced or created, and built to direct stormwater runoff to adjacent vegetated areas. SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT UPDATE 1323 GARDEN STREET APN: 003-524-017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL06405-4 Prepared for Once Upon a Time LP 750 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Prepared by GEOSOLUTIONS, INC. 220 HIGH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 (805) 543-8539 © January 11, 2022 SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT UPDATE Once Upon a Time LP: This Soils Engineering Report Update has been prepared for a new three 3 story residential building at 1323 Garden Street, APN: 003-524-017, in San Luis Obispo, California. Geotechnically, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations in this report for site preparation, earthwork, foundations, slabs, retaining walls, and pavement sections are incorporated into the design. Prior similar structures adjacent to the site were constructed on engineered fill pads with conventional foundations. It is anticipated that a graded pad will be constructed for the proposed three 3 story residential building and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with all foundations excavated into engineered fill. The site is underlain by expansive soils. This report provides recommendations for construction on expansive soils. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (805) 614-6333. Sincerely, GeoSolutions, Inc. Patrick B. McNeill, PE Principal DATE: January 11, 2022 PROJECT NUMBER: SL06405-4 CLIENT: Once Upon a Time LP 750 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 PROJECT NAME: 1323 Garden Street APN: 003-524-017 San Luis Obispo, California 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ................................................................................ 3 4.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 6 5.0 LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 7 5.1 Liquefaction Analysis .......................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Consequences of Liquefaction ............................................................................................ 8 6.0 GENERAL SOIL-FOUNDATION DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 9 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 9 7.1 Preparation of Building Pad ................................................................................................ 9 7.2 Conventional Foundations ................................................................................................ 10 7.3 Slab-On-Grade Construction ............................................................................................ 11 7.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ............................................................................................... 13 7.5 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................. 13 7.6 Preparation of Paved Areas .............................................................................................. 16 7.7 Pavement Design Standard .............................................................................................. 16 8.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ................................................................................. 16 9.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ................................................................... 17 REFERENCES APPENDIX A Field Investigation Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) CPT Logs (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2009) Classification Data With Soil Behavior Types APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Soil Test Reports (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) APPENDIX C Seismic Hazard Analysis Design Map Summary (SEAOC, 2019) APPENDIX D CPT-Based Liquefaction Analysis APPENDIX E Preliminary Grading Specifications Key and Bench with Backdrain 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map .......................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3: Field Investigation .......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 4: Cross-Section A-A’......................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 5: Regional Geologic Map ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 6: Liquefaction Potential .................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7: Setback Dimensions – Slope Gradients Between 3-to-1 and 1-to-1 ........................................... 11 Figure 8: Sub-Slab Detail ............................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 9: Retaining Wall Detail ................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10: Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges .............................................................................. 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Engineering Properties – (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) ..................................................................... 6 Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................................................ 7 Table 3: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Recommendations ............................................................... 10 Table 4: Minimum Slab Recommendations ................................................................................................ 12 Table 5: Retaining Wall Design Parameters ............................................................................................... 14 Table 6: Required Special Inspections and Tests of Soils .......................................................................... 17 SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT UPDATE 1323 GARDEN STREET APN: 003-524-017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL06405-4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for a new three 3 story residential building and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1323 Garden Street, APN: 003-524-017, in San Luis Obispo, California. See Figure 1: Site Location Map for the general location of the project area. Figure 1: Site Location Map was obtained from the website application TopoView (USGS, 2013). This report serves as an update to the referenced Soils Engineering Report dated November 7, 2007 and April 24, 2009 by GeoSolutions, Inc. (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007 and 2009). It is intended to address the applicable changes to the referenced report (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007 and 2009) required by the adoption of the 2019 California Building Code (CBSC, 2019). 1.1 Site Description 1323 Garden Street is located at 35.277370 degrees north latitude and -120.661885 degrees west longitude at an elevation of approximately 220 feet above mean sea level. The property is rectangular in shape and 0.40 acres in size. The nearest intersection is where Garden Street intersects Pismo Street approximately 80 feet to the southeast of the property. The project property will hereafter be referred to as the “Site.” See Figure 2: Site Plan for the general layout of the Site. The Site is a flat lot near downtown San Luis Obispo. Similar structures are located adjacent to the site. 1.2 Project Description The proposed residential building is planned to be three stories in height, while the attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is planned to be two stories in height. At the time of the preparation of this report, the proposed 3 story residential building and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is to be constructed using conventional wood framing. Small retaining walls may be constructed as part of this project. It is anticipated that the proposed 3 story residential building and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) will utilize slab-on-grade lower floor systems. Dead and sustained live loads are currently unknown, but they are anticipated to be relatively light with maximum continuous footing and column loads estimated to be approximately 2.0 kips per linear foot and 35 kips, respectively. Figure 1: Site Location Map 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 2 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the surface and sub-surface soil conditions at the Site and to develop geotechnical information and design criteria. The scope of this study includes the following items: 1. A literature review of available published and unpublished geotechnical data pertinent to the project site including geologic maps, and available on-line or in-house aerial photographs and review of previous GeoSolutions, Inc., report dated November 7, 2007 and April 24, 2009. 2. A field study consisting of site reconnaissance and review of subsurface exploration including exploratory borings and CPT soundings in order to formulate a description of the sub-surface conditions at the Site. 3. A review of laboratory testing performed on representative soil samples that were collected during our field study. 4. Engineering analysis of the data gathered during our literature review, field study, and laboratory testing. 5. Development of recommendations for site preparation and grading as well as geotechnical design criteria for building foundations, retaining walls, pavement sections, underground utilities, and drainage facilities. Figure 2: Site Plan 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 3 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The field investigation, as described in the referenced report (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007), was conducted on October 10, 2007 using a track-mounted CME 55 drill rig. Three eight-inch diameter exploratory borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 50 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3: Field Investigation. Sampling methods included the Standard Penetration Test utilizing a standard split-spoon sampler (SPT) without liners and a Modified California sampler (CA) with liners. The CME 55 drill rig was equipped with an automatic hammer, which has an efficiency of approximately 80 percent and was used to obtain test blow counts in the form of N-values. A secondary field investigation as described in the referenced report (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2009), was conducted on April 13 and April 22, 2009. This additional field study included site reconnaissance and the advancement of three CPT soundings placed at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3: Field Investigation. The CPT soundings were advanced to provide a near continuous soil behavior profile to a maximum depth of approximately 50 feet bgs and to better characterize the Site. The CPT soundings (CPT-1, CPT- 2, and CPT-3) were advanced between April 13 and April 22, 2009 using a CME 55 drill rig. An electric cone, either cone DSA0865 or cone DSA0860, was used during the CPTs. The electric cone has a 35.7- Figure 3: Field Investigation 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 4 mm diameter cone-shaped tip with a 60-degree apex angle, a 35.7-mm diameter by 133.7-mm long cylindrical sleeve, and a pore pressure transducer in the u2 location. CPT-1 was advanced in the northern corner of the Site near the location of B-1, CPT-2 was advanced in the western corner of the Site near the location of B-2, and CPT-1 was advanced near the eastern corner of the Site. With a boring and a CPT sounding in close proximity, a direct comparison can be made between the CPT data to the recorded boring densities and the soils retrieved from the boring. This comparison allows for validation of the results. A vertical cross-section, whose plan-view location is shown on Figure 3: Field Investigation, of the sub-surface soils at the Site was estimated from the three CPT soundings and three borings (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007). During advancement of the CPT-1 sounding, the electric cone encountered the steel flight of the anchoring auger, which is used to anchor the CME 55 during CPT advancement, at approximately 5.75 feet bgs. At approximately 40 feet below ground surface contact was lost with the cone tip and the cone was assumed to be damaged. The CPT-2 and CPT-3 soundings were terminated at the recorded depths due to tip resistance in excesses of 400 to 500 tsf, which is approximately the upper limitation of the CME 55. Correlation between the CPT-2 and CPT-3, as shown in Figure 4: Cross-Section A-A’, data is high. Figure 4: Cross-Section A-A’ Data gathered during the field investigations, as described above, suggest that the Site soils consist of interbedded layers of alluvial materials overlying competent formational material. Surface materials at the Site generally consist of dark grayish brown sandy CLAY (CL) with gravel encountered in moist and 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 5 medium to hard conditions (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007). Sub-surface materials consist of interbedded layers of alluvial materials encountered in various conditions and thicknesses. The CPT data classifies most of the sub-surface soils as clay and silty clay materials with relatively low tip resistance but relatively high local friction parameters. Most layers were encountered at or above medium dense and/or dense consistencies (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007). An approximately 11-foot-thick layer of sandy SILT (ML) was encountered in a very soft consistency from approximately 22 to 33 feet bgs (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007); laboratory testing of this material showed that it contains approximately 61.2 percent fines (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007). The CPT data classifies this layer of soil as predominantly clay to silty clay material. Underlying the alluvial materials at approximately 41 to 43.5 feet bgs extending to approximately 46 to 51.5 feet bgs was greenish grayish brown gravelly SAND with clay (GW) encountered in a saturated and very dense condition. This material contained sub-rounded to sub-angular gravels and was classified utilizing the CPT data as generally sandy silt to sand with minor lenses of clayey silt and clay. The gravelly SAND with clay (GW) material is considered to have been derived from the underlying competent formational material. The underlying competent formational material (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007), encountered at approximately 46 to 51.5 feet bgs and in which boring B-2 (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) as well as in which CPT-2 and CPT-3 were terminated due to high tip resistance. This material was interpreted as Franciscan Assemblage material and is considered to be competent formational material (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007). Regional site geology was obtained from United States Geological Survey MapView internet application (USGS, 2013) which compiles existing geologic maps. Figure 5: Regional Geologic Map presents the geologic conditions in site vicinity as mapped on the Geologic map of the San Luis Obispo 7.5' quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California: (Wiegers, M.O., 2010). The CLAY and the majority of all underlying material at the Site was interpreted alluvial deposits. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 17 feet bgs in boring B-2 (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007). Interpretation of the data from CPT-3 indicate that groundwater was encountered at approximately 17.5 feet bgs. During the boring operations of the referenced report (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007), the soils encountered were continuously examined, visually classified, and sampled for general laboratory testing. A project engineer has reviewed a continuous log of the soils encountered at the time of field investigation. The Boring Logs from the referenced report (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) are attached in Appendix A. As part of the preparation of the referenced report (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007), laboratory tests were performed on soil samples obtained from the Site during boring operations. The results of these tests are listed below in Table 1: Engineering Properties. Laboratory data reports and detailed explanations of the laboratory tests performed during this investigation are provided in Appendix B. Figure 5: Regional Geologic Map 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 6 Table 1: Engineering Properties – (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) 4.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Estimating the design ground motions at the Site depends on many factors including the distance from the Site to known active faults; the expected magnitude and rate of recurrence of seismic events produced on such faults; the source-to-site ground motion attenuation characteristics; and the Site soil profile characteristics. According to section 1613 of the 2019 CBC (CBSC, 2019), all structures and portions of structures should be designed to resist the effects of seismic loadings caused by earthquake ground motions in accordance with the ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, hereafter referred to as ASCE 7-16 (ASCE, 2016). The Site soil profile classification (Site Class) can be determined by the average soil properties in the upper 100 feet of the Site profile and the criteria provided in Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. Spectral response accelerations and peak ground accelerations, provided in this report were obtained using the computer-based Seismic Design Maps tool available from the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 2019). This program utilizes the methods developed in ASCE 7-16 in conjunction with user-inputted Site location to calculate seismic design parameters and response spectra (both for period and displacement) for soil profile Site Classes A through E. Site coordinates of 35.277370 degrees north latitude and approximately -120.661885 degrees east longitude were used in the web-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (SEAOC, 2019). Based on the results from the in-situ tests performed during the field investigation, the Site was defined as Site Class D, “Stiff Soil” profile per ASCE7-16, Chapter 20. Relevant seismic design parameters obtained from the program area summarized in Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters. Sample Name Sample Description USCS Specification Expansion Index Expansion Potential Maximum Dry Density, γd (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) Angle of Internal Friction, φ (deg.) Cohesion, c (psf) Plasticity Index Fines Content (%) Compression Index, CC Recompression Index, Cr A Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY CL 19 Very Low 114.9 14.8 22.8 233 28 54.8 - - B Dark Grayish Brown CLAY CH - - - - - - 31 - - - B-2 @ 2 Ft. Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY CH - - - - - - - - B-2 @ 14 Ft. Black CLAY - - - - - - - - - B-2 @ 29 Ft. Yellowish Brown Sandy SILT ML - - - - - - - 61.2 B-2 @ 34 Ft. Brownish Yellow Sandy CLAY CL - - - - - - - 72.1 C Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY CL - - - - - - 25 - 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 7 Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters Site Class D, “Stiff Soil” Seismic Design Category D 1-Second Period Design Spectral Response Acceleration, SD1 0.761 Site Specific MCE Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.531g Note 1: It is assumed that this design-period acceleration will not be required for the project. 5.0 LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT Liquefaction occurs when saturated cohesionless soils lose shear strength due to earthquake shaking. Ground motion from an earthquake may induce cyclic reversals of shear stresses of large amplitude. Lateral and vertical movement of the soil mass combined with the loss of bearing strength can result from this phenomenon. Liquefaction potential of soil deposits during earthquake activity depends on soil type, void ratio, groundwater conditions, the duration of shaking, and confining pressures on the potentially liquefiable soil unit. Fine, poorly graded loose sand, shallow groundwater, high intensity earthquakes, and long duration of ground shaking are the principal factors leading to liquefaction. 5.1 Liquefaction Analysis The potential for liquefaction to occur at the Site was determined in general accordance with the guidelines set forth by Youd et al. (2001) which are based the on the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. The procedure is termed the “simplified procedure” and is the current standard of care for liquefaction analysis. GeoSolutions, Inc. determined the liquefaction and settlement potential at the Site using CPT data from the field investigation. The methodology recommended in the NCEER Workshops (Youd et al., 2001) and SP117 Implementation (CDMG, 2008). The program(s) require a user-defined peak ground acceleration, earthquake magnitude and depth to groundwater. For this analysis, the peak ground acceleration was taken as the site-specific mean peak ground acceleration PGAM = 0.551 g, as determined in Section 4.0. An earthquake magnitude Mw = 7.0 was assumed given our understanding of the seismicity in the region. Based on review of historical groundwater data in the Site vicinity, the depth to groundwater was assumed to be at 10 feet below ground surface for the liquefaction analysis. Based on the presence of loose saturated sandy soils encountered in the field exploration and the expected seismic demand assumed for the analysis, the potential for seismic liquefaction at the Site is high. Liquefaction was determined to predominantly occur in the sandy layers located beneath the Site below depths of about 35 feet bgs. The potential for liquefaction estimated from the two CPT soundings is shown in Figure 6: Liquefaction Potential, which was created using the software program RockWare and the results of our analysis. Please see Appendix D for the numerical factors of safety against liquefaction and additional analysis information. 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 8 Figure 6: Liquefaction Potential 5.2 Consequences of Liquefaction Based on our analyses, liquefaction will likely manifest at the surface as seismically induced settlements. Overall, liquefaction-induced seismic settlements on the order of about 1 inch were obtained from our analysis which considered liquefiable layers with a factor of safety against liquefaction less than 1.3. Seismic settlements are considered to be low at approximately 1 inch. In addition, the layers that may liquefy are deep and as a result differential seismic settlements are expected to approximately a half inch across the site. Due to the relatively level ground surface at the Site the potential for liquefaction-induced lateral spreading displacements to occur at the Site is considered not probable. 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 9 6.0 GENERAL SOIL-FOUNDATION DISCUSSION It is anticipated that graded engineered fill pad will be constructed for the proposed three 3 story residential building and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with all foundations excavated into engineered fill. All foundations are to be excavated into uniform material to limit the potential for distress of the foundation systems due to differential settlement. If cuts steeper than allowed by State of California Construction Safety Orders for “Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork” are proposed, a numerical slope stability analysis may be necessary for temporary construction slopes. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical concerns at the Site are: 1. The potential for small liquefaction-induced ground settlements. 2. The presence of potentially expansive material. 7.1 Preparation of Building Pad 1. It is anticipated that a graded engineered fill pad will be developed for the proposed three 3 story residential building and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with footings founded in engineered fill. 2. For the development of an engineered fill pad, the native material should be over- excavated at least 12 inches below the bottom of the footings (measured from the bottom of the deepest footing). 3. The limits of over-excavation should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter foundation, to property lines, or existing improvements, whichever is least. The exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches; moisture conditioned to 3% over optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent (ASTM D1557-12). 4. The over-excavated material may then be processed as engineered fill. Onsite soil and rock material is suitable as fill material provided it is processed to remove concentrations of organic material, debris, and other particles. 5. Imported fill should meet the requirements of the grading plan. GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified at least 72 hours prior to delivery to the site to sample and test proposed imported fill materials. Refer to Figure 8: Sub-Slab Detail for under-slab drainage material and Appendix E for more details on fill placement. 6. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5 percent slope) for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the exterior of the structure per Section 1804.3 of the 2019 CBC. 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 10 7.2 Conventional Foundations 1. Conventional continuous and spread footings with grade beams may be used for support of the proposed structure(s). Isolated pad footings are not permitted. Foundations must be designed in accordance to section 1808.6, 2019 CBC, Foundations on Expansive Soils. 2. Minimum footing and grade beam sizes and depths in engineered fill should conform to the following table, as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Table 3: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Recommendations Perimeter Footings Grade Beams Minimum Width 12 inches (one story) 15 inches (two story) 12 inches Embedment Depth 30 inches 18 inches Minimum Reinforcing* 6 #5 bars (3 top / 3 bottom) 4 #5 bars (2 top / 2 bottom) Spacing - 16 feet on-center each way * Steel should be held in place by stirrups at appropriate spacing to ensure proper positioning of the steel (see WRI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations and ACI 318, Section 26.6.6 – Placing Reinforcement). 3. Minimum reinforcing for footings should conform to the recommendations provided in Table 3: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Recommendations which meets the specifications of Section 1808.6 of the 2019 California Building Code for the soil conditions at the Site. Reinforcing steel should be held in place by stirrups at appropriate spacing to ensure proper positioning of the steel in accordance with WRI Design of Slab- on-Ground Foundations, and ACI 318, Section 26.6.6 – Placing Reinforcement. 4. A representative of this firm should observe and approve all foundation excavations for required embedment depth prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and/or concrete. Concrete should be placed only in excavations that are free of loose, soft soil and debris and that have been lightly pre-moistened, with associated testing required. 5. An allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 2,000 psf may be used for the design of footings founded in engineered fill. 6. Allowable bearing capacities may be increased by one-third when transient loads such as wind and/or seismicity are included. 7. A total settlement of less than 1 inch and a differential settlement of less than 1 inch in 30 feet are anticipated. 8. Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings and/or friction between the engineered fill and the bottom of the footings. For resistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.30 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of footings extending a minimum of 18 inches into engineered fill. 9. A passive pressure of 265-pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings in engineered fill. If friction and passive pressures are combined to resist lateral forces acting on shallow footings, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 11 10. Foundation excavations should be observed and approved by a representative of this firm prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and/or concrete. 11. Foundation design should conform to the requirements of Chapter 18 of the latest edition of the CBC (CBSC, 2019). 12. The base of all grade beams and footings should be level and stepped as required to accommodate any change in grade while still maintaining the minimum required footing embedment and slope setback distance. 13. The minimum footing setback distance from ascending or descending slope steeper than 3-to-1 (horizontal-to-vertical) but less than 1-to-1 must be maintained. See Figure 7: Setback Dimensions – Slope Gradients Between 3-to-1 and 1-to-1 Setback Dimensions – Slope Gradients Between 3-to-1 and 1-to-1 for the minimum horizontal setback distances from ascending and descending slopes steeper than 3-to-1 but not steeper than 1-to-1. Figure 7: Setback Dimensions – Slope Gradients Between 3-to-1 and 1-to-1 7.3 Slab-On-Grade Construction 1. Concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should not be placed directly on unprepared native materials. Preparation of sub-grade to receive concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should be processed as discussed in the preceding sections of this report. Concrete slabs should be placed only over sub-grade that is free of loose, soft soil and debris and that has been lightly pre-moistened, with no associated testing required. 2. Concrete slabs-on-grade should be in conformance with the recommendations provided in Table 4: Minimum Slab Recommendations. Reinforcing should be placed on-center both ways at or slightly above the center of the structural section. Reinforcing bars should have a minimum clear cover of 1.5 inches. Where lapping of the slab steel is required, laps in adjacent bars should be staggered a minimum of every five feet (see WRI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations, Steel Placement). The recommended reinforcement may be used for anticipated uniform floor loads not exceeding 200 psf. If floor loads greater than 200 psf are anticipated, a Structural Engineer should evaluate the slab design. 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 12 Table 4: Minimum Slab Recommendations Minimum Thickness 5 inches Reinforcing* #4 bars at 16 inches on-center each way * Where lapping of the slab steel is required, laps in adjacent bars should be staggered a minimum of every five feet (see WRI/CSRI-81 recommendations for Steel Placement, Section 2). 3. Concrete for all slabs should be placed at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. If fibers are used to aid in the control of cracking, a water-reducing admixture may be added to the concrete to increase slump while maintaining a water/cement ratio, which will limit excessive shrinkage. Control joints should be constructed as required to control cracking. 4. Where concrete slabs-on-grade are to be constructed for interior conditioned spaces, the slabs should be underlain by a minimum of four inches of clean free-draining material, such as a ¾ inch coarse aggregate mix, to serve as a cushion and a capillary break. Where moisture susceptible storage or floor coverings are anticipated, a 15-mil Stego Wrap membrane (or equivalent installed per manufacturer’s specifications) should be placed between the free-draining material and the slab to minimize moisture condensation under the floor covering. See Figure 8: Sub-Slab Detail for the placement of under-slab drainage material. It is suggested, but not required, that a two-inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete, increasing the depth of the under-slab material to a total of six inches. The sand should be lightly moistened prior to placing concrete. Figure 8: Sub-Slab Detail 5. It should be noted that for a vapor barrier installation to conform to manufacturer’s specifications, sealing of penetrations, joints and edges of the vapor barrier membrane are typically required. As required by the California Building Code, joints in the vapor barrier should be lapped a minimum of 6 inches. If the installation is not performed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, there is an increased potential for water vapor to affect the concrete slabs and floor coverings. 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 13 6. The most effective method of reducing the potential for moisture vapor transmission through concrete slabs-on-grade would be to place the concrete directly on the surface of the vapor barrier membrane. However, this method requires a concrete mix design specific to this application with low water-cement ratio in addition to special concrete finishing and curing practices, to minimize the potential for concrete cracks and surface defects. The contractor should be familiar with current techniques to finish slabs poured directly onto the vapor barrier membrane. 7. Moisture condensation under floor coverings has become critical due to the use of water- soluble adhesives. Therefore, it is suggested that moisture sensitive slabs not be constructed during inclement weather conditions. 7.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork 1. Due to the presence of expansive surface soils within the proposed development areas, there is a potential for considerable soil movement and distress to reinforced concrete flatwork if conventional measures are used, such as the placement of 4 to 6 inches of imported sand materials placed beneath concrete flatwork. Heaving and cracking are anticipated to occur. To reduce the potential for movement associated with expansive soils, we recommend the placement of a minimum of 12 inches of approved non- expansive import material placed as engineered fill beneath the flatwork. 2. Minimum flatwork for conventional pedestrian areas should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and consist of No. 3 (#3) rebar spaced at 24 inches on-center each-way at or slightly above the center of the structural section. 3. Flatwork should be constructed with frequent joints to allow for movement due to fluctuations in temperature and moisture content in the adjacent soils. Flatwork at doorways, driveways, curbs and other areas where restraining the elevation of the flatwork is desired, should be doweled to the perimeter foundation by a minimum of No. 3 reinforcing steel dowels, spaced at a maximum distance of 24 inches on-center. 4. As an alternative, interlocking concrete pavers may be utilized for exterior improvements in lieu of reinforced concrete flatwork. Concrete pavers, when installed in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations and industry standards (ICPI), allow for a greater degree of soil movement as they are part of a flexible system. If interlocking concrete pavers are selected for use in the driveway area, the structural section should be underlain by a woven geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500x or equivalent, to function as a separation layer and to provide additional support for vehicle tire loads. 7.5 Retaining Walls 1. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures from adjacent soils and surcharge loads applied behind the walls. We recommend using the lateral pressures presented in Table 5: Retaining Wall Design Parameters and Figure 9: Retaining Wall Detail for the design of retaining walls at the Site. The Active Case may be used for the design of unrestrained retaining walls, and the At-Rest Case may be used for the design of restrained retaining walls. 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 14 Table 5: Retaining Wall Design Parameters Lateral Pressure and Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf Static, Active Case, (γ'KA) 55 Static, At-Rest Case, (γ'KO) 75 Static, Passive Case, (γ'KP) 265 2. The above values for equivalent fluid pressure are based on retaining walls having level retained surfaces, having an approximately vertical surface against the retained material, and retaining granular backfill material or engineered fill composed of native soil within the active wedge. See Figure 9: Retaining Wall Detail and Figure 10: Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges for a description of the location of the active wedge behind a retaining wall. 3. Proposed retaining walls having a retained surface that slopes upward from the top of the wall should be designed for an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 1 pcf for the active case and 1.5 pcf for the at-rest case, for every degree of slope inclination. 4. We recommend that the proposed retaining walls at the Site have an approximately vertical surface against the retained material. If the proposed retaining walls are to have sloped surfaces against the retained material, the project designers should contact the Soils Engineer to determine the appropriate lateral earth pressure values for retaining walls located at the Site. Figure 9: Retaining Wall Detail 12” minimum Mirafi 140N or equivalent Ka = 55 pcf Ko = 75 pcf Permeable Drain Rock 4” Dia. Perf. Drain Pipe Max Toe Pressure: 2,400 psf Kp= 265 pcf 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 15 Figure 10: Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges 5. Retaining wall foundations should be founded a minimum of 30 inches below lowest adjacent grade in engineered fill as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used between engineered fill and concrete footings. Project designers may use a maximum toe pressure of 2,400 psf for the design of retaining wall footings founded in engineered fill. 6. For earthquake conditions, retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height should be designed to resist an additional seismic lateral soil pressure of 20 pcf equivalent fluid pressure for unrestrained walls (active condition). The pressure resultant force from earthquake loading should be assumed to act a distance of 1/3H above the base of the retaining wall, where H is the height of the retaining wall. 7. Seismically induced forces on retaining walls are considered to be short-term loadings. Therefore, when performing seismic analyses for the design of retaining wall footings, we recommend that the allowable bearing pressure and the passive pressure acting against the sides of retaining wall footings be increased by a factor of one-third. 8. In addition to the static lateral soil pressure values reported in Table 5: Retaining Wall Design Parameters, the retaining walls at the Site should be designed to support any design live load, such as from vehicle and construction surcharges, etc., to be supported by the wall backfill. If construction vehicles are required to operate within 10 feet of a retaining wall, supplemental pressures will be induced and should be taken into account in the design of the retaining wall. 9. The recommended lateral earth pressure values are based on the assumption that sufficient sub-surface drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. To achieve this we recommend that a granular filter material be placed behind all proposed walls. The blanket of granular filter material should be a minimum of 12 inches thick and should extend from the bottom of the wall to 12 inches from the ground surface. The top 12 inches should consist of moisture conditioned, compacted, clayey soil. Neither spread nor wall footings should be founded in the granular filter material used as backfill. 10. A 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted drainpipe (ASTM D1785 PVC) should be installed near the bottom of the filter blanket with perforations facing down. The drainpipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material and should daylight to discharge in suitably projected outlets with adequate gradients. The filter material should consist of a 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 16 clean free-draining aggregate, such as a coarse aggregate mix. If the retaining wall is part of a structural foundation, the drainpipe must be placed below finished slab sub- grade elevation. 11. The filter material should be encapsulated in a permeable geotextile fabric. A suitable permeable geotextile fabric, such as non-woven needle-punched Mirafi 140N or equal, may be utilized to encapsulate the retaining wall drain material and should conform to Caltrans Standard Specification 88-1.03 for underdrains. 12. For hydrostatic loading conditions (i.e. no free drainage behind retaining wall), an additional loading of 45-pcf equivalent fluid weight should be added to the active and at- rest lateral earth pressures. If it is necessary to design retaining structures for submerged conditions, the allowed bearing and passive pressures should be reduced by 50 percent. In addition, soil friction beneath the base of the foundations should be neglected. 13. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressure against, and movement of the walls. 14. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be used for any basement construction, and for building walls that retain earth. Damproofing and waterproofing shall meet the minimum standards of Section 1805 of the 2019 California Building Code. 7.6 Preparation of Paved Areas 1. Pavement areas should be excavated to 12 inches below sub-grade elevation (Class II base course). The exposed surface should be scarified an additional depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative density of 900 percent (ASTM D1557-12 test method). 2. The top 12 inches of sub-grade soil under all pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557-12 test method at slightly above optimum. 3. Sub-grade soils should not be allowed to dry out or have excessive construction traffic between moisture conditioning and compaction, and placement of the pavement structural section. 7.7 Pavement Design Standard 1. All pavement construction and materials used should conform to Sections 25, 26 and 39 of the latest edition of the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (State of California, 1999). 2. As indicated previously in Section 6.2, the top 12 inches of sub-grade soil under pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557-12 test method at slightly above optimum moisture content. Aggregate bases and sub-bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the aforementioned test method. 3. A minimum of twelve inches of Class II Aggregate Base is recommended for all pavement sections. All pavement sections should be crowned for good drainage. 8.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of borings and on the continuity of the sub-surface conditions encountered. GeoSolutions, Inc. assumes that it will be retained 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 17 to provide additional services during future phases of the proposed project. These services would be provided by GeoSolutions, Inc. as required by the City of San Luis Obispo, the 2019 CBC, and/or industry standard practices. These services would be in addition to those included in this report and would include, but are not limited to, the following services: 1. Consultation during plan development. 2. Plan review of grading and foundation documents prior to construction and a report certifying that the reviewed plans are in conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. 3. Construction inspections and testing, as required, during all grading and excavating operations beginning with the stripping of vegetation at the Site, at which time a site meeting or pre-job meeting would be appropriate. 4. Special inspection services during construction of reinforced concrete, structural masonry, high strength bolting, epoxy embedment of threaded rods and reinforcing steel, and welding of structural steel. 5. Preparation of construction reports certifying that building pad preparation and foundation excavations are in conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. 6. Preparation of special inspection reports as required during construction. 7. In addition to the construction inspections listed above, section 1705.6 of the 2019 CBC (CBSC, 2019) requires the following inspections by the Soils Engineer for controlled fill thicknesses greater than 12 inches as shown in Table 6: Required Special Inspections and Tests of Soils: Table 6: Required Special Inspections and Tests of Soils Verification and Inspection Task Continuous During Task Listed Periodically During Task Listed 1. Verify materials below footings are adequate to achieve the design bearing capacity. - X 2. Verify excavations are extended to proper depth and have reached proper material. - X 3. Perform classification and testing of controlled fill materials. - X 4. Verify use of proper materials, densities and lift thicknesses during placement and compaction of controlled fill. X - 5. Prior to placement of controlled fill, observe sub-grade and verify that site has been prepared properly. - X 9.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during our study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the Site, GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified immediately and GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The owner or his/her representative is responsible to ensure that the 1323 Garden Street January 11, 2022 Project SL06405-4 18 necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of 3 years without our review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. However many events such as floods, earthquakes, grading of the adjacent properties and building and municipal code changes could render sections of this report invalid in less than 3 years. \\192.168.1.100\s\SL06000-SL06499\SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street\Engineering\SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street SER UPDATE.doc REFERENCES REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-08), Chapter 7, Section 7.5, Placing Reinforcement, ACI Committee 318, 2008. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (7-16). 2017. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations. Title 24. Part 2. Vol. 2. California Building Standards Commission: July 2019. County of Luis Obispo. Assessor’s Map Book: 005, Page 05. August 15, 2016. <http://www.sbcvote.com/assessor/AssessorParcelMap.aspx>. Lew, M., Sitar, N., Al Atik, L., Paourzanjani, M., and Hudson, M. “Seismic Earth pressure on Deep Building Basements,” SEAOC 2010 Convention Proceedings, 2010. Soils Engineering Report, 1323 Garden Street, APN: 003-524-014, San Luis Obispo, California. GeoSolutions, Inc., Project SL06405-1. November 7, 2007. Soils Engineering Report Update, 1323 Garden Street, APN: 003-524-014, San Luis Obispo, California. GeoSolutions, Inc., Project SL06405-2. April 24, 2009. State of California. Department of Industrial Relations. California Code of Regulations. 2001 Edition. Title 8. Chapter 4: Division of Industrial Safety. Subchapter 4, Construction Safety Orders. Article 6: Excavations. http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sub4.html. State of California, Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications, California Department of Transportation, 2015. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seismic Design Maps, accessed December 4, 2019. <https://seismicmaps.org/>. United States Geological Survey. MapView – Geologic Maps of the Nation. Internet Application. USGS, accessed March 4, 2016. <http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/MapView/>. United States Geological Survey. TopoView – Geologic Maps of the Nation. Internet Application. USGS, accessed March 4, 2016. <http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/TopoView/>. Wiegers, M.O., 2010, Geologic map of the San Luis Obispo 7.5' quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California: A digital database: California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Maps , scale 1:24,000 Wire Reinforcement Institute, Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations, A Design, Construction $ Inspection Aid for Consulting Engineers, TF 700-R-03 Update, dated 2003. APPENDIX A Field Investigation Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) CPT Logs(GeoSolutions, Inc., 2009) Classification Data With Soil Behavior Types FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was conducted on October 10, 2007 (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) and between April 13 and 22, 2009 using a track-mounted CME 55 drill rig. The surface and sub-surface conditions were studied by advancing three exploratory borings (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) and three CPT soundings. These exploration was conducted in accordance with presently accepted geotechnical engineering procedures consistent with the scope of the services authorized to GeoSolutions, Inc. The CME 55 drill rig with an 8-inch diameter hollow-stem continuous flight auger bored three exploratory borings (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) and advanced three CPT soundings near the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3: Field Investigation. The drilling and field observation were performed under the direction of the project engineer. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. maintained a log of the soil conditions and obtained soil samples suitable for laboratory testing. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. See the Soil Classification Chart in this appendix. Standard Penetration Tests with a two-inch outside diameter standard split tube sampler (SPT) without liners (ASTM D1586) and a three-inch outside diameter Modified California (CA) split tube sampler with liners (ASTM D3550) were performed to obtain field indication of the in-situ density of the soil and to allow visual observation of at least a portion of the soil column. Soil samples obtained with the split spoon sampler are retained for further observation and testing. The split spoon samples are driven by a 140- pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The sampler is initially seated six inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and is then driven an additional 12 inches with the results recorded in the boring logs as N- values, which area the number of blows per foot required to advance the sample the final 12 inches. The CA sampler is a larger diameter sampler than the standard (SPT) sampler with a two-inch outside diameter and provides additional material for normal geotechnical testing such as in-situ shear and consolidation testing. Either sampler may be used in the field investigation, but the N-values obtained from using the CA sampler will be greater than that of the SPT. The N-values for samples collected using the CA can be roughly correlated to SPT N-values using a conversion factor that may vary from about 0.5 to 0.7. A commonly used conversion factor is 0.67 (2/3). More information about standardized samplers can be found in ASTM D1586 and ASTM D3550. The CPT soundings with a 20-ton electronic CPT cone are advanced with measurements for cone bearing (qC), sleeve friction (fS), and pore water pressure (u2) measurements recorded at approximately 5-cm intervals. This provides a near continuous hydro-geologic log. All CPT soundings are performed in accordance with ASTM D5778-95 (re-approved 2002) standards. Disturbed bulk samples are obtained from cuttings developed during boring operations. The bulk samples are selected for classification and testing purposes and may represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths. Recovered samples are placed in transport containers and returned to the laboratory for further classification and testing. Boring and CPT logs of the borings showing the depths and descriptions of the soils encountered, geologic structure where applicable, penetration resistance, and results of in-place density and moisture content tests are presented in this appendix. The logs represent the interpretation of field logs and tests, the interpolation of soil conditions between samples and the results of laboratory observations and tests. The noted stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between the surface soil types. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual. APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Soil Test Reports (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) LABORATORY TESTING This appendix includes a discussion of the test procedures and of the laboratory test results performed during the preparation of the referenced report(s) (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007). The purpose of the laboratory testing was to assess the engineering properties of the soil materials at the Site. The program was carried out employing, wherever practical, currently accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Undisturbed and disturbed bulk samples used in the laboratory tests were obtained from various locations during the course of the field exploration described in the referenced (s) (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007) and in Appendix A of this report. Each sample is identified by sample letter and depth. The Unified Soils Classification System is used to classify soils according to their engineering properties. The various laboratory tests performed during the referenced(s) (GeoSolutions, Inc., 2007). are described below; the associated Soil Test Reports are also included in this appendix: Expansion Index of Soils (ASTM D4829) is conducted in accordance with the ASTM test method and the California Building Code Standard, and are performed on representative bulk and undisturbed soil samples. The purpose of this test is to evaluate expansion potential of the site soils due to fluctuations in moisture content. The sample specimens are placed in a consolidometer, surcharged under a 144-psf vertical confining pressure, and then inundated with water. The amount of expansion is recorded over a 24-hour period with a dial indicator. The expansion index is calculated by determining the difference between final and initial height of the specimen divided by the initial height. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (ASTM D1557) is performed to determine the relationship between the moisture content and density of soils and soil-aggregate mixtures when compacted in a standard size mold with a 10-lbf hammer from a height of 18 inches. The test is performed on a representative bulk sample of bearing soil near the estimated footing depth. The procedure is repeated on the same soil sample at various moisture contents sufficient to establish a relationship between the maximum dry unit weight and the optimum water content for the soil. The data, when plotted, represents a curvilinear relationship known as the moisture density relations curve. The values of optimum water content and modified maximum dry unit weight can be determined from the plotted curve. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (ASTM D4318) are the water contents at certain limiting or critical stages in cohesive soil behavior. The liquid limit (LL or WL) is the lower limit of viscous flow, the plastic limit (PL or WP) is the lower limit of the plastic stage of clay and plastic index (PI or IP) is a range of water content where the soil is plastic. The Atterberg Limits are performed on samples that have been screened to remove any material retained on a No. 40 sieve. The liquid limit is determined by performing trials in which a portion of the sample is spread in a brass cup, divided in two by a grooving tool, and then allowed to flow together from the shocks caused by repeatedly dropping the cup in a standard mechanical device. To determine the Plastic Limit a small portion of plastic soil is alternately pressed together and rolled into a 1/8-inch diameter thread. This process is continued until the water content of the sample is reduced to a point at which the thread crumbles and can no longer be pressed together and re-rolled. The water content of the soil at this point is reported as the plastic limit. The plasticity index is calculated as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit. Direct Shear Tests of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions (ASTM D3080) is performed on undisturbed and remolded samples representative of the foundation material. The samples are loaded with a predetermined normal stress and submerged in water until saturation is achieved. The samples are then sheared horizontally at a controlled strain rate allowing partial drainage. The shear stress on the sample is recorded at regular strain intervals. This test determines the resistance to deformation, which is shear strength, inter-particle attraction or cohesion c, and resistance to interparticle slip called the angle of internal friction φ. Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422) is used to determine the particle-size distribution of fine and coarse aggregates. In the test method the sample is separated through a series of sieves of progressively smaller openings for determination of particle size distribution. The total percentage passing each sieve is reported and used to determine the distribution of fine and coarse aggregates in the sample. Density of Soil in Place by the Drive-Cylinder Method (ASTM D2937) and Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (ASTM D2216) are used to obtain values of in- place water content and in-place density. Undisturbed samples, brought from the field to the laboratory, are weighed, the volume is calculated, and they are placed in the oven to dry. Once the samples have been dried, they are weighed again to determine the water content, and the in-place density is then calculated. The moisture density tests allow the water content and in-place densities to be obtained at required depths. One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading (ASTM D2435) is used to determine the magnitude and rate of consolidation of a soil by applying a series of load increments to an undisturbed soil sample and recording sample deformation at selected time intervals. In this test method, a soil specimen is restrained laterally and drained axially while subjected to incrementally applied controlled-stress loading. Each stress increment is maintained until excess pore water pressures are completely dissipated. During the consolidation process, measurements are made of the change in the specimen height and this data is used to determine the relationship between the effective stress and void-ratio or strain, and the rate at which consolidation can occur by evaluating the coefficient of consolidation. The data from the consolidation test is used to estimate the magnitude and rate of both differential and total settlement of a structure or earth-fill. APPENDIX C Seismic Hazard Analysis Design Map Summary (SEAOC, 2019) SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS According to section 1613 of the 2019 CBC (CBSC, 2019), all structures and portions of structures should be designed to resist the effects of seismic loadings caused by earthquake ground motions in accordance with the ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, hereafter referred to as ASCE7-16 (ASCE, 2016). Estimating the design ground motions at the Site depends on many factors including the distance from the Site to known active faults; the expected magnitude and rate of recurrence of seismic events produced on such faults; the source-to-site ground motion attenuation characteristics; and the Site soil profile characteristics. As per section 1613.2.2 of the 2019 CBC, the Site soil profile classification is determined by the average soil properties in the upper 100 feet of the Site profile and can be determined based on the criteria provided in Table 20.3-1 of ASCE7-16. ASCE7-16 provides recommendations for estimating site-specific ground motion parameters for seismic design considering a Risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) in order to determine design spectral response accelerations and a Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) in order to determine probabilistic geometric mean peak ground accelerations. Spectral accelerations from the MCER are based on a 5% damped acceleration response spectrum and a 1% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Maximum short period (Ss) and 1-second period (S1) spectral accelerations are interpolated from the MCER-based ground motion parameter maps for bedrock, provided in ASCE7-16. These spectral accelerations are then multiplied by site-specific coefficients (Fa, Fv), based on the Site soil profile classification and the maximum spectral accelerations determined for bedrock, to yield the maximum short period (SMS) and 1-second period (SM1) spectral response accelerations at the Site. According to section 11 of ASCE7-16 and section 1613 of the 2019 CBC, buildings and structures should be specifically proportioned to resist design earthquake ground motions. Section 1613.2.4 of the 2019 CBC indicates the site-specific design spectral response accelerations for short (SDS) and 1-second (SD1) periods can be taken as two-thirds of maximum (SDS = 2/3*SMS and SD1 = 2/3*SM1). Per ASCE7-16, Section 21.5, the probabilistic maximum mean peak ground acceleration (PGA) corresponding to the MCEG can be computed assuming a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475-year return period) and is initially determined from mapped ground accelerations for bedrock conditions. The site-specific peak ground acceleration (PGAM) is then determined by multiplying the PGA by the site-specific coefficient Fh (where Fh is a function of Site Class and PGA). Spectral response accelerations and peak ground accelerations, provided in this report were obtained using the computer-based Seismic Design Maps tool available from the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 2019). This program utilizes the methods developed in ASCE 7-16 in conjunction with user-inputted Site location to calculate seismic design parameters and response spectra (both for period and displacement) for soil profile Site Classes A through E. APPENDIX D CPT-Based Liquefaction Analysis LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ANALYSIS The potential for liquefaction to occur at the Site was determined in general accordance with the guidelines set forth by Youd et al. (2001) which are based the on the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. The procedure is termed the “simplified procedure” and is the current standard of care for liquefaction analysis. GeoSolutions, Inc. determined the liquefaction and settlement potential at the Site using CPT data from the field investigation. The methodology recommended in the NCEER Workshops (Youd et al., 2001) and SP117 Implementation (CDMG, 2008). The program(s) require a user-defined peak ground acceleration, earthquake magnitude and depth to groundwater. For this analysis, the peak ground acceleration was taken as the site-specific mean peak ground acceleration PGAM = 0.551 g, as determined in Section 4.0. An earthquake magnitude Mw = 7.0 was assumed given our understanding of the seismicity in the region. Based on review of historical groundwater data in the Site vicinity, the depth to groundwater was assumed to be at 10 feet below ground surface for the liquefaction analysis. Based on the presence of loose saturated sandy soils encountered in the field exploration and the expected seismic demand assumed for the analysis, the potential for seismic liquefaction at the Site is high. Liquefaction was determined to predominantly occur in the sandy layers located beneath the Site below depths of about 35 feet bgs. APPENDIX E Preliminary Grading Specifications Key and Bench with Backdrain PRELIMINARY GRADING SPECIFICATIONS A. General 1. These preliminary specifications have been prepared for the subject site; GeoSolutions, Inc. should be consulted prior to the commencement of site work associated with site development to ensure compliance with these specifications. 2. GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified at least 72 hours prior to site clearing or grading operations on the property in order to observe the stripping of surface materials and to coordinate the work with the grading contractor in the field. 3. These grading specifications may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of this report and/or subsequent reports. 4. If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading specifications, the Soils Engineer shall provide the governing interpretation. B. Obligation of Parties 1. The Soils Engineer should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations to advise the client on geotechnical matters. The Soils Engineer should report the findings and recommendations to the client or the authorized representative. 2. The client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. The client or authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Soils Engineer. During grading the client or the authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. 3. The contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with project plans, specifications, and controlling agency requirements. C. Site Preparation 1. The client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a meeting which includes the grading contractor, the design Structural Engineer, the Soils Engineer, representatives of the local building department, as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 72 hours’ notice. 2. All surface and sub-surface deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed building and pavement areas and disposed of off-site or as approved by the Soils Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, any debris, organic materials, construction spoils, buried utility line, septic systems, building materials, and any other surface and subsurface structures within the proposed building areas. Trees designated for removal on the construction plans should be removed and their primary root systems grubbed under the observations of a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Voids left from site clearing should be cleaned and backfilled as recommended for structural fill. 3. Once the Site has been cleared, the exposed ground surface should be stripped to remove surface vegetation and organic soil. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should determine the required depth of stripping at the time of work being completed. Strippings may either be disposed of off-site or stockpiled for future use in landscape areas, if approved by the landscape architect. D. Site Protection 1. Protection of the Site during the period of grading and construction should be the responsibility of the contractor. 2. The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. 3. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the contractor should install check-dams, de-silting basins, sand bags, or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. E. Excavations 1. Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under the observation and recommendations of the Soils Engineer. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to: 1) dry, loose, soft, wet, organic, or compressible natural soils; 2) fractured, weathered, or soft bedrock; 3) non- engineered fill; 4) other deleterious materials; and 5) materials identified by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. 2. Unless otherwise recommended by the Soils Engineer and approved by the local building official, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Final slope configurations should conform to section 1804 of the 2019 California Building Code unless specifically modified by the Soil Engineer/Engineering Geologist. 3. The Soil Engineer/Engineer Geologist should review cut slopes during excavations. The contractor should notify the Soils Engineer/Engineer Geologist prior to beginning slope excavations. F. Structural Fill 1. Structural fill should not contain rocks larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension, and should have no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches in greatest dimension. 2. Imported fill should be free of organic and other deleterious material and should have very low expansion potential, with a plasticity index of 12 or less. Before delivery to the Site, a sample of the proposed import should be tested in our laboratory to determine its suitability for use as structural fill. G. Compacted Fill 1. Structural fill using approved import or native should be placed in horizontal layers, each approximately 8 inches in thickness before compaction. On-site inorganic soil or approved imported fill should be conditioned with water to produce a soil water content near optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent based on ASTM D1557- 12e1. 2. Fill slopes should not be constructed at gradients greater than 2-to-1 (horizontal to vertical). The contractor should notify the Soils Engineer/Engineer Geologist prior to beginning slope excavations. 3. If fill areas are constructed on slopes greater than 10-to-1 (horizontal to vertical), we recommend that benches be cut every 4 feet as fill is placed. Each bench shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide with a minimum of 2 percent gradient into the slope. 4. If fill areas are constructed on slopes greater than 5-to-1, we recommend that the toe of all areas to receive fill be keyed a minimum of 24 inches into underlying dense material. Key depths are to be observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Sub-drains shall be placed in the keyway and benches as required. H. Drainage 1. During grading, a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should evaluate the need for a sub-drain or back-drain system. Areas of observed seepage should be provided with sub-surface drains to release the hydrostatic pressures. Sub-surface drainage facilities may include gravel blankets, rock filled trenches or Multi-Flow systems or equal. The drain system should discharge in a non- erosive manner into an approved drainage area. 2. All final grades should be provided with a positive drainage gradient away from foundations. Final grades should provide for rapid removal of surface water runoff. Ponding of water should not be allowed on building pads or adjacent to foundations. Final grading should be the responsibility of the contractor, general Civil Engineer, or architect. 3. Concentrated surface water runoff within or immediately adjacent to the Site should be conveyed in pipes or in lined channels to discharge areas that are relatively level or that are adequately protected against erosion. 4. Water from roof downspouts should be conveyed in solid pipes that discharge in controlled drainage localities. Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and promote drainage of surface water away from building foundations, edges of pavements and sidewalks. For soil areas we recommend that a minimum of 2 percent gradient be maintained. 5. Attention should be paid by the contractor to erosion protection of soil surfaces adjacent to the edges of roads, curbs and sidewalks, and in other areas where hard edges of structures may cause concentrated flow of surface water runoff. Erosion resistant matting such as Miramat, or other similar products, may be considered for lining drainage channels. 6. Sub-drains should be placed in established drainage courses and potential seepage areas. The location of sub-drains should be determined after a review of the grading plan. The sub-drain outlets should extend into suitable facilities or connect to the proposed storm drain system or existing drainage control facilities. The outlet pipe should consist of a non-perforated pipe the same diameter as the perforated pipe. I. Maintenance 1. Maintenance of slopes is important to their long-term performance. Precautions that can be taken include planting with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect, and not over-irrigating, a primary source of surficial failures. 2. Property owners should be made aware that over-watering of slopes is detrimental to long term stability of slopes. J. Underground Facilities Construction 1. The attention of contractors, particularly the underground contractors, should be drawn to the State of California Construction Safety Orders for “Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork.” Trenches or excavations greater than 5 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back in accordance with OSHA Regulations prior to entry. 2. Bedding is defined as material placed in a trench up to 1 foot above a utility pipe and backfill is all material placed in the trench above the bedding. Unless concrete bedding is required around utility pipes, free-draining sand should be used as bedding. Sand to be used as bedding should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability and to measure its compaction characteristics. Sand bedding should be compacted by mechanical means to achieve at least 90 percent relative density based on ASTM D1557-12e1. 3. On-site inorganic soils, or approved import, may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs, and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be conditioned with water (or allowed to dry), to produce a soil water content of about 2 to 3 percent above the optimum value and placed in horizontal layers, each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness before compaction. Each layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative density based on ASTM D1557-12e1. The top lift of trench backfill under vehicle pavements should be compacted to the requirements given in report under Preparation of Paved Areas for vehicle pavement sub-grades. Trench walls must be kept moist prior to and during backfill placement. K. Completion of Work 1. After the completion of work, a report should be prepared by the Soils Engineer retained to provide such services. The report should including locations and elevations of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests, other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the approved Soils Engineering Report. 2. Soils Engineers shall submit a statement that, to the best of their knowledge, the work within their area of responsibilities is in accordance with the approved soils engineering report and applicable provisions within Chapter 18 of the 2019 CBC. khA keith hall Architect D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S P A C I F I C C O A S T C E N T E R 7 5 H I G U E R A S T R E E T S U I T E 1 6 5 S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 T 8 0 5 5 4 1 9 1 6 0 C 8 0 5 2 9 6 5 4 2 1 W w w w . p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m E k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW #1 Dear Once Upon a Time LP: This report presents the results of our geotechnical review of the project plans for the proposed three 3 story residential building and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be located at 1323 Garden Street, APN: 003-524-017, in San Luis Obispo, California. The purpose of our review was to evaluate the proposed plans with respect to geotechnical recommendations provided in the referenced report and with known site conditions. Our review was conducted for the sheets listed in Table 1 below. Table 1: List of Sheets Reviewed Title Date Sheet Prepared By Structural Notes December 9, 2021 S-1.0 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Structural Notes December 9, 2021 S-1.1 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Structural Notes December 9, 2021 S-1.2 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Foundation Plan December 9, 2021 S-2.0 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Foundation Details December 9, 2021 S-5.0 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP Foundation Details December 9, 2021 S-5.1 SSG Structural Engineers, LLP It is our opinion that the proposed plans (as listed in Table 1) are in general conformance with the recommendations presented in the referenced report. If subsequent changes are made to the reviewed plans, GeoSolutions, Inc. must be notified of said changes to verify continued compliance with the referenced report. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES It is assumed that GeoSolutions, Inc. will be retained to perform construction inspections and testing as required including, but not limited to, stripping, grading, over-excavating, subdrain placement, compaction, retaining wall backfill placement, imported materials, and foundation excavation. LIMITATIONS Our review was performed in accordance with the usual and current standards of the profession, as they relate to this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this plan review. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to notify GeoSolutions, Inc. a minimum of 72 hours before any stripping, grading, or foundation excavations can commence at this site. In addition to the construction inspections listed above, section 1705.6 of the 2019 (CBSC, 2019) requires the following inspections by the Soils Engineer for controlled fill thicknesses greater than 12 inches as shown in Table 2: Required Verification and Inspections of Soils: DATE: April 7, 2023 PROJECT NUMBER: SL06405-4 CLIENT: Once Upon a Time LP 750 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 PROJECT NAME: 1323 Garden Street APN: 003-524-017 San Luis Obispo, California 1323 Garden Street April 7, 2023 Project SL06405-4 2 Table 2: Required Verification and Inspections of Soils Verification and Inspection Task Continuous During Task Listed Periodically During Task Listed 1. Verify materials below footings are adequate to achieve the design bearing capacity. - X 2. Verify excavations are extended to proper depth and have reached proper material. - X 3. Perform classification and testing of controlled fill materials. - X 4. Verify use of proper materials, densities and lift thicknesses during placement and compaction of controlled fill. X - 5. Prior to placement of controlled fill, observe sub-grade and verify that site has been prepared properly. - X The recommendations of this review are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during the soil engineering study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the Site, GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. This review is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project. The owner or his/her representative is responsible to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. As of the present date, the findings of this review are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this review should not be relied upon after a period of one year without our subsequent review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. However, many events such as floods, earthquakes, grading of the adjacent properties and building and municipal code changes could render this review invalid in less than a year. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (805) 614-6333. Sincerely, GeoSolutions, Inc. Patrick B. McNeill, PE Principal \\192.168.1.100\s\SL06000-SL06499\SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street\Construction\SL06405-4 - 1323 Garden Street Plan Review #1.doc Reference: Soils Engineering Report, 1323 Garden Street, APN: 003-524-017, in San Luis Obispo, California, by GeoSolutions, Inc., Project SL06405-4, dated January 11, 2022. 1333 Garden St – Plan Check #1 Responses Bureau Veritas A6: Spot elevations along the face of the building have been adjusted to show finished ground at all necessary locations. Locations where the FG is not 8” or less will require a building curb/stem wall. Specific Construction Note #9 added to sheet C-1.1. Please follow the swale that takes the water from the northern section of the driveway to a swale along the north which then flows west until it turns south then turn back east to the existing drain inlet. A7: All slopes away from the building have been adjusted to ensure a minimum of 5.0% slope away from the building face to achieve a 6” fall for soil surfaces. Slopes and elevations have been modified within the driveway to achieve 2.0% minimum. A8: Specific Construction Note #10 added to C-1.1. Driveway is to be permeable pavers which will soak up the runoff from downspouts. The curbs at the face of the building shall extend down the full depth of the permeable pavers to prevent water intrusion onto the building foundation as seen in detail B of C-4.1. P1: See Erosion Control Plan that was provided which details out where fiber rolls, silt fence, etc should be placed. A construction site is constantly changing so it will be on the contractor to determine, based on what phase he is in construction, where best to place BMPs. City Departments: Public Works 3: The SWCP application was supposed to be submitted the following: (a) Total New impervious surface = 215 sf (b) Total Replaced impervious surface = 1,885 sf (c) Total Existing impervious surface = 4,169 sf (d) Total Impervious of Completed = 2,100 sf (in other words we removed 2,069 sf) (e) Net Impervious = 2,100 sf 4: Due to the above breakdown, we are Tier 1 and therefore no requirements for an O&M. 15: A new water service line is shown on sheet C-2.1. Disposition of the existing well per the Owner and Architect. 16: The rim elevations of the connecting sewer manholes are 200.17 and 200.42. A back water valve has been added, Specific Construction Note #9 on sheet C-2.1. 17: With the introduction of the permeable pavers and the reduction in the overall impervious area from Pre- construction to Post-construction, the runoff to the existing catch basin will actually be reduced, not increased. 18: Site is relatively flat so proposed contours were omitted due to not providing further clarity. Additional slope arrows have been provided along the swale and soils to the south and east edge of the building for more clarity. As the site did historically, the drainage pattern will continue to direct runoff to the existing catch basin located centrally along the southern property line. 19: Refer to sheet C-1.1. 20: Drainage swale detail is provided on sheet C-4.1, detail E. Spot elevations and slope arrows show how the drainage within the swale flows. Fees / Addressing 4: Sheets should be C-0.1 thru C-4.2 generated by Above Grade Engineering. Job No.: S20366 April 07, 2023 Page | 1 City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: Tom Baasch via: Thomas.baasch@bureauvertias.com RE: Structural Plan Review Response for 1321 Garden Street Lofts 1333 Garden Street (Application No. BLDG-0330-2022) Dear Building Official, The following items are this office’s responses to your Plan Review dated April 8, 2022, for the subject project. The items are responses to the structural portions of correction list, and correlate with the list numbering of your plan review. S1. The soils report that corresponds to this project has been referenced on S-1.0 as well as S-2.0 in the general foundation notes. S2. A soils review letter has been obtained (SL06405-4) and the plans have been found to be in general conformance with the soils report S3. The foundation details have been revised to reflect the most recent soils report that corresponds to this project. S4. The slab reinforcement has been changed to reflect the soils report on S-2.0 as well as detail 23/S-5.0 S5. The anchor bolt specifications may be found in note K of the general foundation notes on S-2.0 and the corresponding details. S6. The plate washer specifications may be found in note K of the general foundation notes on S -2.0 and the corresponding details. S7. The reference notes regarding the floor framing have been added on S-3.1. S8. The size of FB21 has been reflected on S-3.1 to match the calculations. Job No.: S20366 April 07, 2023 Page | 2 S9. The shearwall length at grid 5 has been revised per the calculations on S-4.0 S10. The statement of special inspections has been completed per the requirements of the structural drawings Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely yours, Michael F. Smith, P.E. CA License No. C35470 Review Comment Responses Item No.Response A22 EF-1.3 added to machine room. P1 Plumbing is design/build P2 Plumbing is design/build P3 Plumbing is design/build P9 Plumbing is design/build P10 Plumbing is design/build M1 See architectural response. ENG1 ENG2 Primary means of space heating is via heat pump. Please see Mechanical Plans & schedules. Refer to electrical response. ENG4 Revised CF-1R ENG5 Please refer to the orientations in the Opaque Surface table. ENG7 ID tags added to CF-1R forms. ENG9 Ventilation provided per Residential Compliance manual which is more stringant than ASHRAE Standard 62.2 Equation 4.1(a) See "Single Family Ventilation Calcs." Sheet M-0.0. Note added to C3 in Exhaust Fan Schedule for testing. ENG10 Plumbing is design/build Architectural Plumbing Mechanical Energy Forest Brannan Loft on Garden 3/29/2023 1 Project: Date: Plan Check Review No.: Responder: khA keith hall Architect D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S P A C I F I C C O A S T C E N T E R 7 5 H I G U E R A S T R E E T S U I T E 1 6 5 S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 T 8 0 5 5 4 1 9 1 6 0 C 8 0 5 2 9 6 5 4 2 1 W w w w . p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m E k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m Date: March 9, 2022 Plan Check Review # 1 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: _____yes ______no Print Name: If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: Project Address 1333 Garden St. Project Name Lofts on Garden Application Number BLDG-0330-2022 Review of New 3- Story SFR w/ attached ADU Occupancy Class R-3 Construction Type VB Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text. Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 2 Planning Division Graham Bultema gbultema@slocity.org 805-781-7111 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) 1. Payment of the completion fee (invoice #00022883) for minor architectural review application ARCH -0543-2019 is required prior to further planning review. Please contact the Community Development Department at 805-781- 7180 or contact me directly in order to pay the completion fee. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2. Provide an explanation for changes made from approved project plans, such as the extension of the first floor wall on the East Elevation and the removal of the balcony and railing from the third floor on the South Elevation. See my redlines in project plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): ARCH-0543-2019 - Conditions of Approval (dated Nov. 20, 2020) • Condition #1 – project plans are required to include a separate, full-size sheet that shows the approval letter specifying findings and conditions of approval. Reference should be made in the margin of this sheet to indicate where in the plans that required conditions are addressed. This sheet should be placed directly after the title sheet. Please contact me if you need another copy of the ARCH-0543-2019 approval letter. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): • Condition #4 – project plans shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing materials and/or design modifications to the roof deck walls and open railing along the roof deck. Provide a description of design changes made to satisfy Condition #4. The North Elevation and West Elevation sheets in project plans appear to show elimination and/or reduction of open railing along the roof deck, but reference keynotes (keynote 5 52 R2) on these sheets still reference a rectangular metal frame with wire mesh panels where project plans appear to show stucco. Please clarify and revise project plans accordingly. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): • Condition #5 – submit a final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans. Include a landscaping plan in the next project resubmittal. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): • Condition #6 – show the locations of all exterior lighting on project plans, sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the City’s lighting and night sky preservation regulations per Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.100. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 3 Engineering Development Review Richard Avila ravila@slocity.org Phone (805) 783-7734 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: These plans are considered incomplete and additional comments may apply when all minimum plan information and/or supporting documentation is provided through the plan review process. Provide responses to each comment, as appropriate, and note on what page(s) in the plan set each item is addressed. Include the name and phone # of the person(s) providing responses. The following items are required prior to building permit issuance: 3. The project shall show and document compliance with the 2014 Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building permit application shall include the required PCR checklist to show compliance with any pertinent standards. The checklist is available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5190. Correct the Stormwater Control Plan section (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area does not include replaced area. This number seems to be high. Section (e) should not be 0 4. If the PCR checklist triggers water quality requirements, then provide a Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) on a form provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Add this to cover sheet 5. Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the coversheet that identifies Stormwater Plan BMPs used for compliance for Performance Requirements 1-4 and required inspection by EOR during construction. Fill in the blank with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Refer to the project’s Post Construction Stormwater Plan. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: Project is subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Project is Exempt: _(yes or no)___ If no, Project meets: Performance Req. 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Performance Req. 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of _____________. Performance Req. 3 Runoff Retention through use of _____________ Performance Req. 4 Peak Management through use of _____________. Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 4 The following items need correction on the draft construction plans: General 6. Verify address of 1333 Garden. City maps show property as 1321 Garden. 7. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 8. The building plans shall clearly note if existing frontage improvements meet current compliance with city standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA driveway, etc. 9. Include reference on the cover sheet of the plans to the project soils report. Include reference to the soils engineering firm, report number, and report date. 10. Provide an update and/or final review letter from the soils engineer stating that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report. Sheet C-2 11. Clarify on this sheet if Building C or any of the utilities were ever installed? Site Plan A-0.1 12. Provide a legend to show what different hatching patterns represent. Utilities 13. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 14. No plumbing system, drainage system, building sewer, private sewage disposal system, or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities. CPC 307.1 15. The plan shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 16. Sewer laterals shall be protected with a backwater valve where in finish floor of the structure is located less than 1’ above the BFE at the next upstream sewer manhole [SLOMC 15.04.020.LL] Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 5 Grading 17. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. Site Drainage 18. Clarify the proposed drainage strategy. Provide complete details of all proposed drainage features. Show drainage arrows existing and proposed contours to clearly indicate the altered drainage. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed across property lines. The improved drainage may be retained/detained on site with a controlled outlet to mimic pre-construction historic run-off. Indicate if there is a specific location of the historic outlet. 19. Show the finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grades adjacent to building, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. CRC 300.2 20. Show drainage on site plan – slopes & direction of flow. The ground adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2%. 21. Provide a detail of the Drainage Swale. Show drainage swale flowline grades, high points and low points of the swales and drainage arrows, for reference, if applicable. 22. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. [§406.3.3 CBC] Show compliance 23. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas or swale. Induce sheet flow at outlet of swale to mimic historic sheet flows. Flood Zone Requirements: 24. Include a note on the cover sheet of the plans and/or at the project data defining the flood zone designation, depth or BFE, and ordinance requirements for minimum FF height or the height of floodproofing, wet floodproofing, and/or floodgates if applicable. Include any additional notes regarding the protection of any building service equipment 25. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The new garage structure must be raised or may be “wet” floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. See FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93 for “wet” floodproofing requirements. The building construction materials located below the elevation of the BFE plus one foot of freeboard shall be constructed with flood-resistant materials in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08 Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 6 and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Floodproofing of the office spaces located at the first floor is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 27. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 28. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and office spaces located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 29. Provide venting for all of the “wet” floodproofed areas. Venting shall be provided at the rate of 1 square inch per 1 square foot of floor area. Vents shall be located with the bottom of the opening located not more than 12” above grade. A minimum of two vents shall be provided. 30. The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer: • The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. • Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. • Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. In the case of the AO zone, the architect of record may complete the elevation certificate. • Prior to final inspection approval the contractor or owner shall provide documentation to the City Engineer certifying “wet” floodproofing per F.E.M.A. Technical Bulletin 7-93, page 4. • A non-conversion agreement for the garage shall be recorded prior to occupancy or final inspection approval in accordance with MC Section 17.84.040.B.10. 31. The contractor, architect, or owner responsible for construction and compliance with the approved plans, codes, and ordinances shall summarize in writing that the minimum following “wet” floodproofing requirements have been achieved: a. The portion of the structure located below the BFE + 1’ of freeboard has been constructed of flood-resistant materials meeting the requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08. b. The structure has been designed for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters or has otherwise been designed to resist the appropriate hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. c. Mechanical and utility equipment have been elevated to 1’ above the BFE or have been floodproofed. Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 7 d. The structure meets the wet floodproofing requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93. e. Statement that the architect observed the construction of the building to ensure it is in compliance with the above requirements. f. Include pictures of the flood-resistant construction, utility service equipment, and flood openings. Fees / Addressing Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org Phone (805) 781-7588 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: 1. APN reflects the address to be 1321 Garden Street. Please update all plan sheet accordingly. 2. Please clearly note the square footage of the new residence and ADU. Please breakdown the square footages for each dwelling and accessory spaces. 3. Address assigned to ADU is 1321 A Garden Street. Please add the newly assigned address to the plans. 4. The Civil sheets in the plan set that are stamped approved from 2010 need to be removed and replaced with updated plan sheets. 5. Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. khA keith hall Architect D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S P A C I F I C C O A S T C E N T E R 7 5 H I G U E R A S T R E E T S U I T E 1 6 5 S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 T 8 0 5 5 4 1 9 1 6 0 C 8 0 5 2 9 6 5 4 2 1 W w w w . p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m E k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m City of San Luis Obispo BVNA #13424582 April 8, 2022 Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Reviewer(s): Tom Baasch 805-410-0520; thomas.baasch@bureauveritas.com 5905 Capistrano Avenue Suite F, Atascadero, CA | 805.792.1109 | www.BVNA.com Owner: Robin Rossi, Once Upon a Time LP Project Description: SFR w/ attached ADU & Garage Owner Address/Phone: 750 Pismo, San Luis Obispo, CA Architect/Applicant: khA Architect, Keith Hall Contact Info: 805-548-0035 www.paraleldesignstudios.com Occupancy: R-3 / U Type of Construction: V-B Fire Sprinklers: Yes Stories: 3 Floor Area (sf): Habitable- 2,517, Garage/Storage-997, Deck-997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone/WUI: No Fire Alarm: Not Applicable Soils Report: GeoSolutions Project SLO6405-4, 2-11-2022 Bureau Veritas has completed the first plan review of the submitted documents on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo Building & Safety Department. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the jurisdiction. Codes in effect for this project include the 2019 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2018 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2018 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2017 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in th is list.  Before approval for code compliance and issuance of a building permit, the plans and supporting documents application the proposed construction require revisions or information in response to comments indicated on the following pages. The approval of plans and specifications does not permit the violation of any section of the building code, or other ordinance or law.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment resolution is located in the RESPONSE line. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes.  For additional plan reviewer comment at subsequent submittals, italic text refers to the second submittal, bold text on third submittals, and underlined bold text on fourth submittals. Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 2 of 14 PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES. NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ For resubmittal, provide TWO new physical sets of plans or ONE COMPLETE electronic submittal, with supporting documentation, and responses to ALL comments listed below and submit to: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, 919 PALM ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 JURISDICTIONAL COMMENTS J1. Provide an area for the storage of solid waste containers (trash, recycling and green waste) that is screened when viewed from the public right-of-way. The storage area shall have a minimum dimension of 3 feet by 8 feet or 6 feet by 6 feet and shall not conflict with required parking space. If the storage area is located in the front yard setback, the storage area shall be screened by a fence, partition or other enclosure not less than 48 inches in height above adjacent grade. [§112.5 CBC] RESPONSE: ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS A1. All sheets of the Final revised plans and the first sheet of structural calculations are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Civil sheets are also subject to this comment. Please include the California license number, seal, and the date the plans are signed. [§ 5536.1, 6735 California Business and Profession Code] RESPONSE: A2. Clarify the floor areas at project description for all occupancies and units. The Permitted and Proposed Areas Table is confusing. The Project Information should summarize the final result for the proposed project submittal. RESPONSE: A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4 story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A4. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “A licensed surveyor or engineer shall verify pad elevations, finish floor elevation, and setbacks prior to foundation inspection, and roof elevations, prior to roof sheeting inspection. Submit documentation and obtain approval prior to submitting request for inspection.” [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A5. Provide a utilities site plan showing location of all connections to public utilities. Include size of all water lines, sewer lines and fire service lines, as well electric service and gas meters. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 3 of 14 A6. Show on the site plan, or provide the grading plans, showing finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grade adjacent to buildings, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. Indicate by arrows and/or drainage piping the disposal of roof and surface water to the street. Spot elevations at grade adjacent to the finish floor elevation shall provide the minimum 8-inch separation between wood and earth. Provide a legend to indicate what the various cross-hatched patterns indicate. Arrows are shown that appear to indicate drainage flow, but no details are provided to show construction of swales and drainage piping to direct flow to a drainage easement. Arrows apparently indicate flow toward a curb at west side of building, but no outlet to a flow pattern is shown. See sheet A-0.1. [§107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A7. Provide surface water drainage away from foundation walls at a minimum fall of 6 inches within the first 10 feet. Where lot lines, walls slopes, or other physical barriers prohibit 6 inches of fall within 10 feet, drains or swales shall be constructed to ensure drainage away from the structure. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A8. Provide a controlled roof drainage system to collect and discharge runoff to the ground surface at least 5 feet from foundation walls or approved drainage system where expansive or collapsible soils exist. Soils report identifies expansive soil conditions. [§107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A9. Show the location of any designated flood plains, open space easements, or other development restricted areas on the site plan. Indicate extent and scope, and state on plans that all easements are shown. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A10. Provide a detail of the 1-hour fire-resistive assemblies referenced at 01 11 A1. RESPONSE: A11. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. RESPONSE: A12. Regardless of occupant load, a floor landing not more than ½ inch below the threshold is required on each side of an exit door. [§ 1010.1.7 CBC] RESPONSE: A13. Door landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches. [§ 1010.1.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A14. Basements, habitable attics, and every sleeping room shall have a door directly to the exterior or a window that will provide a clear space opening of at least 5.7 square feet in the open position (5 square feet at grade floor openings), a minimum clear opening width of 20 inches and clear opening height of 24 inches, and the bottom of the clear opening a maximum of 44 inches above the floor. The required openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that leads to a Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 4 of 14 public way. Provide method of operation and size of clear opening at each sleeping room. [§ 1030 CBC] RESPONSE: A15. Where the opening of the sill portion of an operable window is located more than 72 inches above finished grade, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be a minimum of 24 inches above the finish floor. Glazing between the floor and a height of 24 inches shall be fixed or have no openings such that a 4-inch diameter sphere cannot pass. Show the window sill heights. [§ 1015.8 CBC] RESPONSE: A16. Show minimum stairway width of 36 inches. [§ 1011.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A17. Show stairway railing/handrail on the floor plan. [§ 107.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A18. Handrails and extensions shall be 34 inches to 38 inches above nosing of treads and be continuous. [§ 1014.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A19. All interior stairways and ramps shall be enclosed as specified in CBC Section 1023 as follows: (see main stairway)  Constructed as two-hour fire barriers where connecting four or more stories and not less than one-hour fire barriers where connecting less than four stories. [§ 1023.2 CBC]  Openings in interior exit stairways shall be limited to those necessary for exit access and for egress from the enclosure. [§ 1023.4 CBC]  Penetrations into interior exit stairways are prohibited except for required exit doors, equipment, ductwork necessary for independent ventilation, sprinkler piping, standpipes, electrical raceway serving the stairway, and terminating at a steel box less than 16 square inches. [§ 1023.5 CBC]  Doors shall be labeled one and one-half hours for the two hour fire barriers and one-hour for the one hour fire. [§ 1023.4 CBC]  Interior exit stairways shall exit directly to the exterior of the building or shall include an exit passageway on the ground level leading from the exit enclosure directly to the exterior of the building. Openings into the exit passageway shall comply with CBC Section 715. [§ 1022.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A20. Elevator shafts shall be enclosed in a 2-hour fire barrier where connecting four stories or more, and not less than a 1-hour fire barrier where connecting less than four stories. [§ 713.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A21. Every opening into an elevator shaft enclosure shall be protected by a self-closing or automatic closing fire assembly having a 1-hour fire rating in 1-hour shafts and 1½- hour ratting in two-hour shafts. [TABLE 716.1(2), § 716.2.6.1 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 5 of 14 A22. Elevator machine rooms, machinery spaces that contain the driving machine, and control rooms or spaces that contain the operation or motion controller for elevator operation shall be provided with an independent ventilation or air-conditioning system to protect against the overheating of the electrical equipment. The system shall be capable of maintaining temperatures within the range established for the elevator equipment. [§ 3005.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A23. Elevators in buildings more than three stories shall have the size to accommodate a 24-inch by 84-inch stretcher. [§ 3002.4. 3002.4a CBC] RESPONSE: A24. An automatic fire sprinkler system is required for all new buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,000 square feet. Sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13R. Deferred submittals are not allowed. A separate permit is required for the fire sprinkler system, and the permit shall be issued concurrent with the building permit for the building. Provide plans and details; submit supporting calculations for proposed sprinkler system. Water service requirements shall be shown on the site plan/utility plan of the building plans for the project. [§ 903.2 CBC, as amended] RESPONSE: A25. Due to this building being an R2 occupancy, an approved manual fire alarm system is required. [§ 907.2.9.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A26. Required smoke alarms shall receive primary power from the building wiring where wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup. Smoke alarms shall emit a signal when the batteries are low. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than as required for overcurrent protection. [§ 907.2.11.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A27. The smoke alarms shall be interconnected in such a manner that the activation of one alarm will activate all of the alarms in the individual unit. The alarm shall be clearly audible in all sleeping rooms over background noise levels with all intervening doors closed. [§ 907.2.11.5 CBC] RESPONSE: A28. Carbon monoxide alarms shall receive primary power from the building wiring and shall be equipped with a battery backup. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than as required for overcurrent protection. [§ 915 CBC] RESPONSE: A29. Where more than one carbon monoxide alarm is required, the alarm shall be interconnected so that activation of one alarm activates all of the alarms in the individual unit. [§ 915 CBC] RESPONSE: A30. For the purpose of fire alarm and detection systems requirements, fire walls and fire barrier walls shall not define separate buildings. [§ 907.1.4 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 6 of 14 A31. Provide exterior opening(s) for natural ventilation with an area equal to 4 percent of the floor area. Indicate type of opening operation at all windows. [§ 1202.5 CBC] RESPONSE: A32. Indicate size of all skylights, window at studio near line C. RESPONSE: A33. Show safety glazing in the following locations; show on remarks column, Window Schedule, A- 5.2: [§ 2406 CBC] Glazing where the nearest edge is within a 24-inch arc of either side of a door in a closed position, (unless the glazing is 5 feet or higher above the walking surface) RESPONSE: Glazing greater than 9 square feet with the bottom edge less than 18 inches above the floor and the top edge greater than 36inches above the floor (unless the glazing is more than 36 inches horizontally away from walking surfaces or if a complying protective bar is installed) RESPONSE: Glazing in wall facing showers and tubs (less than 60 inches above standing surface). See tub at master bath RESPONSE: A34. Specify the slope at roof areas and exterior decks. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A35. Specify minimum ¼-inch per foot roof/deck slope for drainage or provide design to support accumulated water. [§ 1611.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A36. Overflow drains having the same size as roof drains and on independent drain lines are required. In lieu of this, overflow scuppers, 4 inches minimum high with a width equal to the circumference of the roof drain may be provided. Overflow system shall have inlets located two inches above the roof low points. Size the drains per CPC. [§ 1502.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A37. Provide skylight details to show compliance with CBC Sections 2610 and 2405 or provide ICC or other recognized approval listings. RESPONSE: A38. Show attic ventilation and rafter/joist space ventilation. Minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area (or 1/300, provided at least 40 percent of the required vent area is located at not more than least 3 feet below the ridge with the balance provided by eave or cornice vents). Provide calculations on a plan sheet (roof plan). [§ 1202.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 7 of 14 A39. Show how ventilation will be achieved at the enclosed rafter/deck space over habitable area. Minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area. Provide calculation to justify venting provided. Note: Filling cavity with fiberglass batt insulation is not acceptable. Spray-on impermeable foam insulation may be the solution at these areas. [§ 1202.2, 1202.3 CBC] RESPONSE: A40. Enclosed framing in exterior balconies/decks that are exposed to water shall be provided with ventilation at least 1/150 of the area of each separate space. [§2304.12.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A41. Specify roof/deck material and application. Clearly specify waterproofing, flashing, and method of attachment appropriate to the material being used. RESPONSE: A42. Note on a plan sheet: “Where balconies or other elevated walking surfaces are exposed to water from direct or blowing rain, snow, or irrigation, and the structural framing is required to be protected by an impervious moisture barrier, all elements of the impervious moisture barrier system shall not be concealed until inspected and approved.” [§ 110.3.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A43. Enclosed framing in exterior balconies/decks that are exposed to water shall be provided with ventilation at least 1/150 of the area of each separate space. [§2304.12.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A44. Specify roof/deck material and application. Clearly specify waterproofing, flashing, and method of attachment appropriate to the material being used. RESPONSE: A45. Note on a plan sheet: “Where balconies or other elevated walking surfaces are exposed to water from direct or blowing rain, snow, or irrigation, and the structural framing is required to be protected by an impervious moisture barrier, all elements of the impervious moisture barrier system shall not be concealed until inspected and approved.” [§ 110.3.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A46. Show location of attic access with a minimum size of 20 inches x 30 inches unless the maximum vertical headroom height in the attic is less than 30 inches. Where mechanical equipment is installed in the attic, the minimum dimensions are 22 inches x 30 inches and at least as large as the largest component of the appliance. Access must be provided to each separated attic area, with a 30-inch headroom clearance above the opening. [§ 1208.2 CBC, 904.11 CMC] RESPONSE: A47. Guardrails shall have a height of 42 inches. If it is part of an R-2 Occupancy stairway handrail, it shall have a height of 34 inches to 38 inches. [§ 1015.3 CBC] RESPONSE: A48. Openings in guardrails shall prevent a sphere 4 inches in diameter from passing through. From a height of 36 inches to 42 inches, openings shall be less than 4-3/8 inches. The triangular opening Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 8 of 14 formed by the riser, tread and bottom element of a guardrail at a stair shall be less than 6 inches. [§ 1015.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A49. Provide guardrail details and supporting calculations showing adequacy of connections to resist a single concentrated load of 200 pounds at any point along the top. [§ 1607.8.1.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A50. Walls and floor ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units and sleeping units from each other or from public or service areas shall provide airborne or structure-borne sound insulation equal to that required to meet a Sound Transmission Class (“STC”) rating in walls of 50. The project is also located within the 65 CNEL noise contour as determined by the Noise Element of the General Plan. Buildings exposed to this noise source shall have exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting an STC rating of at least 45, with exterior windows meeting a minimum STC of 40. For the performance method, provide an acoustical analysis supporting the construction to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level of 50dBA in occupied areas during any hour of operation. [§ 1206 CBC] RESPONSE: GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS P1. Provide details on plan to manage storm water drainage during construction. [§ 4.106.2 CGBC] RESPONSE: P2. At each dwelling unit with an attached garage, provide a 1-inch diameter raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for electric vehicle charging. The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and terminate into a listed box or enclosure in close proximity to a proposed location of an EV charger. The service panel and/or subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-amp minimum dedicated branch circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device. The panel shall identify the overcurrent protective device space reserved for future EV charging and the raceway termination location as “EV CAPABLE”. Show location at Unit 2 garage. [§ 4.106.4.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P3. Provide a water budget for landscape irrigation. See California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and water budget calculator at: https://www.water.ca.gov/. Calculate Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) based on the maximum ETAF allowed (0.55 for residential areas) and Evapotranspiration (ETo) Table in Appendix A. Express MAWA as annual gallons. Appendix B specifies how MAWA is calculated. Calculate the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) based on the plants used and irrigation method selected for the landscape design. ETWU must be below the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA). Appendix B specifies how ETWU is calculated. Provide automatic yard irrigation controllers for landscaping. [§ Title 23 Division 2 Chapter 2.7 California Code of Regulations, § 4.304.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P4. Provide information on plans requiring an operation and maintenance manual to be supplied at final inspection containing items 1 through 10 of the referenced section. [§ 4.410 CGBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 9 of 14 P5. Provide note on title sheet of plans: “At time of rough mechanical inspection, all duct and other related air distribution components shall be covered with tape, plastic, sheet metal or other acceptable method to reduce the amount of dust or debris that may collect in the system.” [§ 4.504.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P6. Note on plans that the gas fireplace shall be a direct-vent sealed-combustion type. [§ 4.503.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P7. Note on title sheet of plans: “Contractor shall provide at least three random moisture readings performed at wall and floor framing in the presence of the building inspector prior to approval to enclose the wall and floor framing to verify a maximum of 19 percent moisture content.” [§ 4.505.3 CGBC] RESPONSE: P8. Specify on plans the required maximum fixture flow rates at plumbing fixtures. [§ 4.303.1 CGBC, 420.2.2, 411.2, 408.2, 407.2 CPC] Tank-type Water Closet 1.28 gallons per flush Single Showerhead 1.8 gallons per minute @ 80 psi Multiple Showerheads @ one shower 1.8 gallons per minute combined flow rate (includes hand held showerhead) Residential Lavatory Faucet 1.2 gallons per minute @ 60 psi Kitchen Faucet 1.8 gallons per minute @ 60 psi RESPONSE: PLUMBING COMMENTS P1. Provide complete plumbing plans showing fixtures, water, vent, and waste lines and their sizes. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: P2. Indicate on the plans that hose bibs shall be fitted with a non-removable back-flow device. [§ 603.4.7 CPC] RESPONSE: P3. Show size of vents at all plumbing fixtures. The aggregate size of the cross-sectional area of all plumbing vents shall be not less than the -inch building sewer. [§ 904 CPC] RESPONSE: P9. Show routing for P&T relief valve discharge line to exterior for water heater. No part of such drain pipe shall be trapped. [§ 608 CPC] RESPONSE: P10. Showers and shower-tubs shall be provided with individual control valves of the pressure balance, thermostatic, or combination pressure balance/thermostatic mixing valve type that provide scald and thermal shock protection. [§ 418 CPC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 10 of 14 MECHANICAL COMMENTS M1. Clothes dryer moisture exhaust ducts shall terminate outside the building and have a back-draft damper. Exhaust duct length is limited to 14 feet with two elbows, which shall be reduced 2 feet for every elbow in excess of two. Indicate a minimum 4-inch diameter smooth metal duct and show duct route on plan. See second floor loft, M-3.0. [§504.3.2 CMC] RESPONSE: ELECTRICAL COMMENTS ENG1. All new electric, telephone, television and other communication service connections shall be provided by underground wiring. Specify and show routing on the site plan. [§ 112.4 CBC] RESPONSE: ENG2. Provide a single-line diagram for the 400-amp service and subpanels, including a panel schedule with load calculations. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: ENG3. Provide a level working space for equipment under 600 volts complying with CEC Table 110.26(A)(1) with a clear height of 6.5 feet and a minimum clear width of 30 inches. [§ 110.26 CEC] RESPONSE: ENG4. Show on the floor plan or on a separate electrical plan the location of electrical receptacles and lighting fixtures. At a dwelling unit, receptacles are to be located in a wall every 12 linear feet so that a fixture will not be more than 6 feet from any receptacle. See wall adjacent to stairway, grid line 4, sheet E-1.2. [§ 210.52 CEC] RESPONSE: ENG5. Show Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) receptacle protection at the following locations [§ 210.8 CEC]:  Garages- all receptacles RESPONSE: ENG6. Show a minimum of one wall switch controlled lighting outlet in every habitable room. In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch are permitted in lieu of lighting outlets. See second floor and 2nd floor loft, third floor. [§ 210.70 CEC] RESPONSE: ENERGY COMMENTS ENG1. Show compliance with the SLO Energy Reach Code (§15.04.110), which requires new mixed-fuel residential building to have 5% compliance margin (EDR for proposed building is less than Standard Design Building by at least 9) and mandatory features for future heat pump water heater and future electric range and future electric clothes dryer (§150.0(h)) Section 5. RESPONSE: ENG2. For newly constructed buildings in the City of San Luis Obispo, Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 11 of 14  Systems using gas space heating equipment to serve individual dwelling units shall provide for a designated exterior location for a future heat pump compressor unit and a dedicated 208/240 volt 30-amp or greater electrical circuit able to connect to the electrical panel that terminates within 3 feet from the designated future location of the compressor. The conductors shall be labeled with the designation “For Future Heat Pump Space Heater and a double pole circuit breaker provided in the electrical panel labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Space Heater”. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(h) CEnC]  Systems using gas water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall provide a dedicated 125V, 20A electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, 10 AWG copper branch circuit, within 3ft from the water heater and accessible with no obstructions. Both ends of the conductor shall be labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Water Heater” and a reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel shall be provided for the required branch circuit labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Water Heater”. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater allowing natural draining without pump assistance shall be provided. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(n) CEnC]  Buildings plumbed for natural gas clothes drying or cooking equipment shall include for each stub out a double pole circuit breaker in the electrical panel labeled with the words “For Future Electric Clothes Dryer” and a dedicated 208/240 volt 30 amp or greater electrical receptacle able to connect to the electrical panel and located within 3 feet of the appliance. Both ends of the conductor shall be labeled “For Future Electric Clothes Dryer”. At cooktop, range or oven locations, a dedicated 208/240 volt 40 amp or greater circuit and electrical receptacle that is able to connect to the electrical panel with conductors of adequate capacity located within 3 feet of the appliance shall be provided. Both ends of the conductors and corresponding circuit breakers shall be labeled “For Future Electric Range”. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(s) CEnC] RESPONSE: ENG3. Provide a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements as specified in Joint Appendix JA11 with an annual electrical output equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual usage as determined by Equation 150.1-C: kWpv=(CFA x A)/1000 + (NDwell x B) Where: kWpv = KWdc size of the PV system CFA = Conditioned floor area NDwell = Number of dwelling units A = Adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C (for Climate Zone 4) B = Dwelling adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C (for Climate Zone 4) Provide calculation on plan sheet and show location of PV system on roof plan and elevation views. Note on plans that a separate permit is required for the PV system. Submit a permit application and complete plans for the PV system. Deferred submittals are not allowed; the permit for the PV system shall be issued concurrent with the building permit for the residence. [§ 150.1(c)14 CEnC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 12 of 14 ENG4. The conditioned floor area assumed on the CF-1R does not match appear to match the building area shown on sheet T-1. It appears that the conditioned floor area is less than that assumed on the CF1R. Clarify/Revise. An earlier comment requests that the Architect clarify building area in Project Information. RESPONSE: ENG5. The building orientation assumed on the CF-1R (0 degrees) does not correlate with the property line bearings shown on C2 It appears that the azimuth of the front of the building (facing street) is approximately 53 degrees. Revise the CF1-R to reflect the correct azimuth for all opaque and fenestration surfaces. RESPONSE: ENG6. Clearly show on a section or details the insulation and its R-value. Verify a complete building envelope is provided. [§ R106.1.1 CRC] RESPONSE: ENG7. Indicate individual exterior window and door openings on the CF-1R form coinciding with the designations on the floor plan. Each window or door shall have a unique ID# or left, right, front or back wall location. Final plan review for compliance will be completed when the resubmittal is received. Orientation of the fenestration is critical to compliance; make sure that the assumed azimuth in the CF-1R will be the actual as-built condition. RESPONSE: ENG8. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “Energy compliance forms CF2R and CF3R will be completed and submitted to the Building Inspector at time of Inspection of related components.” RESPONSE: ENG9. The whole house shall have an exhaust fan ducted to the outside with a minimum ventilation rate calculated according to ASHRAE Standard 62.2 Equation 4.1(a): Qcfm = .01(floor area) + 7.5(# of bedrooms + 1). Show calculations on a plan sheet. The ducting shall be sized according to ASHRAE Standard 62.2 Table 7.1. One of the local exhaust fans in a bathroom or kitchen may be used, provided the exhaust fan meets the minimum ventilation rates for both the local and whole house ventilation requirements. Designate the exhaust fan to satisfy this requirement. Specify field verification and diagnostic testing of airflow performance per Residential Appendix RA3.7. [§ 150(o) CEnC] RESPONSE: ENG10. All domestic hot water piping shall be insulated as specified in CPC Section 609.11. The following domestic hot water system piping conditions shall have a minimum insulation wall thickness of 1 inch or a minimum R-value of 7.7:  The first 5 feet of cold water pipes from the storage tank.  All hot water piping with a nominal diameter equal to or greater than ¾ inch and less than 1 inch.  All hot water piping with a nominal diameter less than ¾ inch associated with recirculation systems, from the heating source to kitchen fixtures, or buried below grade. Note on plans. [§ 150(j)(2) CEnC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 13 of 14 STRUCTURAL COMMENTS S1. Note the following on the foundation plan: “Soils report number prepared by and dated is part of these plans and all recommendations there in shall be complied with.” RESPONSE: S2. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plans, retaining walls, slope setbacks, grading plans and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated in the plans. [§ 1803.1, 1803.6 CBC] RESPONSE: S3. The embedment depth of concrete perimeter footings shall be not less than the minimum dimension of 30 inches specified in the soils report. The details on S5.0 specify 24 inches. Also, the soils report requires 6 #5 rebar (3 top/3 bottom), which is greater than reinforcement shown on S5.0. Revise. RESPONSE: S4. The soils report slab reinforcement to be 16” o.c., but sheet S-2.0 specifies 18” o.c. Revise. RESPONSE: S5. Specify 5/8-inch diameter x 10-inch anchor bolts with 7 inches embedment spaced not more than 6 feet apart (4 feet apart for buildings more than one story) and not more than 12 inches or less than 4 inches from each end piece. [§ 2308.3.1.2 CBC] RESPONSE: S6. Specify steel plate washers at anchor bolts to be not less than .229 inch by 3 inches by 3 inches at sill plate anchor anchorage. [§ 2308.3.1.1 CBC] RESPONSE: S7. On sheet S-3.1, provide a callout for floor joists 4/5 at loft framing plan. Provide a legend for all callouts on S3.1. Also, provide a callout for deck joists. RESPONSE: S8. On sheet S-3.1, FB21 is shown as smaller beam size than required by the calcs. Clarify. RESPONSE: S9. On sheet S-4.0, provide length of shearwall at line 5 (15’). RESPONSE: S10. Complete the Statement of Special Inspections. See form at Building and Safety webpage. RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 14 of 14 S11. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “Prior to start of construction, the contractor shall schedule a preconstruction conference with all parties involved at the project site to review the special inspection requirements, procedures, and individual special inspectors that will be assigned to the project, as well as requirements for structural observation. Contractor shall contact the Building Division to confirm an acceptable meeting date and time.” RESPONSE: There are no red marks or comments on the plan sheets; all plan review comments are on this list. END OF COMMENTS 1 From:Danny McBride <sanluisobispocountyinspections@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2023 12:10 PM To:Henderson, Marcus; Alan Arvin Subject:Garden Green 2697-001 Attachments:Garden Green 2697-001.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. -- Danny McBride San Luis Obispo County Inspections PO. Box 13252 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406 805-441-5903 CSLB Lisc# 1042814 C-20, C-36 A.B.P.A Cert # 05-00657, BCxP, CBCP sanluisobispocountyinspections@gmail.com SIZE: MODEL: FACILITY PHONE: FACILITY NAME: FACILITY ADDRESS: CITY: ASSEMBLY LOCATION: FACILITY ID: OWNER / OPERATOR PHONE: OWNER ID: REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE ASSEMBLY PRESSURE VACUUM BREAKER CHECK VALVE NO. 1 CHECK VALVE NO. 2 TYPE II BYPASS CHECK VALVE TEST HELD AT: _____ PSID LEAKED LEAKED TEST DATE COMMENTS: DATE: TAG NO.: TESTER NUMBER: NAME: If the test PASSES or FAILS, the field testing report(s) shall be filed within 10 calendar days following completion of the field test. Failure to submit testing results within 10 calendar days may result in enforcement action. SUBMITTED ON __________________ [PROCESS DATE] OWNER/CONTACT: MAILING CARE OF: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, & ZIP: THIS IS A TEST AFTER REPAIRS: STATUS: AIR INLET VALVE DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY CHECK DIFFERENTIAL RELIEF VALVE RPASSEMBLY CATEGORY: SERVICE NO.:DUE DATE: TYPE:MFG: DEVICE USE: LEAKED TYPE OF SERVICE: SERIAL NO.: WATER PURVEYOR: ASEMBLY ID: AIR GAP AIR GAP CHECKED OPENED AT: _____ OPENED AT: _____ PSID HELD AT: _____ PSID HELD AT: _____ PSID CLOSED TIGHT (RP) LEAKED PSID HELD AT: _____ PSID BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TEST REPORT FAX: VALVE ASSEMLBY COMMENTS J034482 1.0RP 825YA FEBCO RP BD0007462 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GARDEN GREEN 1323 GARDEN ST SAN LUIS OBISPO GARDEN GREEN-1323 GARDEN STREET-IRRIG-FRONT OF BUILDING IN PLANTER FA0011451 GARDEN GREEN-LEE BREN OW0011710 3.09.0 8 08/25/2023 Passed 2697-001 PI0000023 MCBRIDE, DAN 08/27/2023 08/31/20242697-001 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Services Division San Luis Obispo crossconnection@co.slo.ca.us CA 2156 Sierra Way Ste. B 93401 (805) 781-4211(805) 781-5544 1 From:Matthew A Giuffrida <mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us> Sent:Friday, August 4, 2023 11:41 AM To:Utility, Billing Subject:RE: [EXT]RE: 1323 Garden St. Thanks, I’ll try that. Have a great weekend. Best, Matthew A. Giuffrida Cross-Connection Control Specialist County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Services Division 2156 Sierra Way Ste. B San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805) 781-5567 direct line|(805) 781-5544 receptionist|(805) 781-4211 fax mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us From: Utility, Billing <ub@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:00 AM To: Matthew A Giuffrida <mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us> Subject: [EXT]RE: 1323 Garden St. ATTENTION: This email originated from outside the County's network. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Good morning, We have the active account at 1325 Garden as: Alan Arvin 1325 Garden San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Let us know if you need anything else! Allison Deyo Utility Billing Assistant Public Utilities E ADeyo@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Matthew A Giuffrida <mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 4:48 PM To: Utility, Billing <ub@slocity.org> Subject: 1323 Garden St. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 2 Hello Again, Hope all is well in UƟliƟes Billing. We got the test noƟce for 1323 Garden returned. We mailed to at 1325 Garden. Is this correct? Thanks as always for your help. Best, Matthew A. Giuffrida Cross-Connection Control Specialist County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Services Division 2156 Sierra Way Ste. B San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805) 781-5567 direct line|(805) 781-5544 receptionist|(805) 781-4211 fax mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 1 From:Utility, Billing Sent:Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:00 AM To:Matthew A Giuffrida Subject:RE: 1323 Garden St. Good morning, We have the active account at 1325 Garden as: Let us know if you need anything else! Allison Deyo Utility Billing Assistant Public Utilities E ADeyo@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Matthew A Giuffrida <mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 4:48 PM To: Utility, Billing <ub@slocity.org> Subject: 1323 Garden St. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Again, Hope all is well in UƟliƟes Billing. We got the test noƟce for 1323 Garden returned. We mailed to at 1325 Garden. Is this correct? Thanks as always for your help. Best, Matthew A. Giuffrida Cross-Connection Control Specialist County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Services Division 2156 Sierra Way Ste. B San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805) 781-5567 direct line|(805) 781-5544 receptionist|(805) 781-4211 fax mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any 2 action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 1 From:Matthew A Giuffrida <mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us> Sent:Wednesday, August 2, 2023 4:48 PM To:Utility, Billing Subject:1323 Garden St. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Again, Hope all is well in UƟliƟes Billing. We got the test noƟce for 1323 Garden returned. We mailed to at 1325 Garden. Is this correct? Thanks as always for your help. Best, Matthew A. Giuffrida Cross-Connection Control Specialist County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Services Division 2156 Sierra Way Ste. B San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805) 781-5567 direct line|(805) 781-5544 receptionist|(805) 781-4211 fax mgiuffrida@co.slo.ca.us This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 1 From:Danny McBride <sanluisobispocountyinspections@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 20, 2022 2:36 PM To:CrossConnection; Henderson, Marcus Subject:Garden Green 2697-001 Attachments:Garden Green 2697-001.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Happy to fill out a fresh form if you like. Just send one over if need be. Thanks! -- Danny McBride San Luis Obispo County Inspections PO. Box 13252 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406 805-441-5903 CSLB Lisc# 1042814 C-20, C-36 A.B.P.A Cert # 05-00657, BCxP, CBCP sanluisobispocountyinspections@gmail.com 1 From:AtascaderoAdminmail <atascadero.admin@bureauveritas.com> Sent:Friday, April 8, 2022 9:53 AM To:Loew, Michael Cc:building; Scott Martini; AtascaderoAdminmail Subject:BLDG-0330-2022 [1] - NEW 3 STORY SFR W/ATTACHED ADU - CORRECTIONS Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022 [1] - 1333 Garden New 3 Story SFR with Attached ADU.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good Morning Michael, We have completed the first review for the project noted in the subject line, and have attached the correction comments. Please let us know if there are any questions. Thank you, and have a wonderful Friday ! Warmly, Lara Huskey Office Manager ICC Certified Permit Technician Bureau Veritas 5905 Capistrano Avenue, Suite F Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 805-792-1109 lara.huskey@bureauveritas.com atascadero.admin@bureauveritas.com www.us.bureauveritas.com Shaping a World of Trust This message contains confidential information. To know more, please click on the following link: http://disclaimer.bureauveritas.com City of San Luis Obispo BVNA #13424582 April 8, 2022 Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Reviewer(s): Tom Baasch 805-410-0520; thomas.baasch@bureauveritas.com 5905 Capistrano Avenue Suite F, Atascadero, CA | 805.792.1109 | www.BVNA.com Owner: Robin Rossi, Once Upon a Time LP Project Description: SFR w/ attached ADU & Garage Owner Address/Phone: 750 Pismo, San Luis Obispo, CA Architect/Applicant: khA Architect, Keith Hall Contact Info: 805-548-0035 www.paraleldesignstudios.com Occupancy: R-3 / U Type of Construction: V-B Fire Sprinklers: Yes Stories: 3 Floor Area (sf): Habitable- 2,517, Garage/Storage-997, Deck-997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone/WUI: No Fire Alarm: Not Applicable Soils Report: GeoSolutions Project SLO6405-4, 2-11-2022 Bureau Veritas has completed the first plan review of the submitted documents on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo Building & Safety Department. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the jurisdiction. Codes in effect for this project include the 2019 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2018 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2018 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2017 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in th is list.  Before approval for code compliance and issuance of a building permit, the plans and supporting documents application the proposed construction require revisions or information in response to comments indicated on the following pages. The approval of plans and specifications does not permit the violation of any section of the building code, or other ordinance or law.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment resolution is located in the RESPONSE line. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes.  For additional plan reviewer comment at subsequent submittals, italic text refers to the second submittal, bold text on third submittals, and underlined bold text on fourth submittals. Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 2 of 14 PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES. NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ For resubmittal, provide TWO new physical sets of plans or ONE COMPLETE electronic submittal, with supporting documentation, and responses to ALL comments listed below and submit to: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, 919 PALM ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 JURISDICTIONAL COMMENTS J1. Provide an area for the storage of solid waste containers (trash, recycling and green waste) that is screened when viewed from the public right-of-way. The storage area shall have a minimum dimension of 3 feet by 8 feet or 6 feet by 6 feet and shall not conflict with required parking space. If the storage area is located in the front yard setback, the storage area shall be screened by a fence, partition or other enclosure not less than 48 inches in height above adjacent grade. [§112.5 CBC] RESPONSE: ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS A1. All sheets of the Final revised plans and the first sheet of structural calculations are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Civil sheets are also subject to this comment. Please include the California license number, seal, and the date the plans are signed. [§ 5536.1, 6735 California Business and Profession Code] RESPONSE: A2. Clarify the floor areas at project description for all occupancies and units. The Permitted and Proposed Areas Table is confusing. The Project Information should summarize the final result for the proposed project submittal. RESPONSE: A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4 story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A4. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “A licensed surveyor or engineer shall verify pad elevations, finish floor elevation, and setbacks prior to foundation inspection, and roof elevations, prior to roof sheeting inspection. Submit documentation and obtain approval prior to submitting request for inspection.” [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A5. Provide a utilities site plan showing location of all connections to public utilities. Include size of all water lines, sewer lines and fire service lines, as well electric service and gas meters. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 3 of 14 A6. Show on the site plan, or provide the grading plans, showing finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grade adjacent to buildings, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. Indicate by arrows and/or drainage piping the disposal of roof and surface water to the street. Spot elevations at grade adjacent to the finish floor elevation shall provide the minimum 8-inch separation between wood and earth. Provide a legend to indicate what the various cross-hatched patterns indicate. Arrows are shown that appear to indicate drainage flow, but no details are provided to show construction of swales and drainage piping to direct flow to a drainage easement. Arrows apparently indicate flow toward a curb at west side of building, but no outlet to a flow pattern is shown. See sheet A-0.1. [§107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A7. Provide surface water drainage away from foundation walls at a minimum fall of 6 inches within the first 10 feet. Where lot lines, walls slopes, or other physical barriers prohibit 6 inches of fall within 10 feet, drains or swales shall be constructed to ensure drainage away from the structure. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A8. Provide a controlled roof drainage system to collect and discharge runoff to the ground surface at least 5 feet from foundation walls or approved drainage system where expansive or collapsible soils exist. Soils report identifies expansive soil conditions. [§107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A9. Show the location of any designated flood plains, open space easements, or other development restricted areas on the site plan. Indicate extent and scope, and state on plans that all easements are shown. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A10. Provide a detail of the 1-hour fire-resistive assemblies referenced at 01 11 A1. RESPONSE: A11. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. RESPONSE: A12. Regardless of occupant load, a floor landing not more than ½ inch below the threshold is required on each side of an exit door. [§ 1010.1.7 CBC] RESPONSE: A13. Door landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches. [§ 1010.1.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A14. Basements, habitable attics, and every sleeping room shall have a door directly to the exterior or a window that will provide a clear space opening of at least 5.7 square feet in the open position (5 square feet at grade floor openings), a minimum clear opening width of 20 inches and clear opening height of 24 inches, and the bottom of the clear opening a maximum of 44 inches above the floor. The required openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that leads to a Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 4 of 14 public way. Provide method of operation and size of clear opening at each sleeping room. [§ 1030 CBC] RESPONSE: A15. Where the opening of the sill portion of an operable window is located more than 72 inches above finished grade, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be a minimum of 24 inches above the finish floor. Glazing between the floor and a height of 24 inches shall be fixed or have no openings such that a 4-inch diameter sphere cannot pass. Show the window sill heights. [§ 1015.8 CBC] RESPONSE: A16. Show minimum stairway width of 36 inches. [§ 1011.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A17. Show stairway railing/handrail on the floor plan. [§ 107.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A18. Handrails and extensions shall be 34 inches to 38 inches above nosing of treads and be continuous. [§ 1014.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A19. All interior stairways and ramps shall be enclosed as specified in CBC Section 1023 as follows: (see main stairway)  Constructed as two-hour fire barriers where connecting four or more stories and not less than one-hour fire barriers where connecting less than four stories. [§ 1023.2 CBC]  Openings in interior exit stairways shall be limited to those necessary for exit access and for egress from the enclosure. [§ 1023.4 CBC]  Penetrations into interior exit stairways are prohibited except for required exit doors, equipment, ductwork necessary for independent ventilation, sprinkler piping, standpipes, electrical raceway serving the stairway, and terminating at a steel box less than 16 square inches. [§ 1023.5 CBC]  Doors shall be labeled one and one-half hours for the two hour fire barriers and one-hour for the one hour fire. [§ 1023.4 CBC]  Interior exit stairways shall exit directly to the exterior of the building or shall include an exit passageway on the ground level leading from the exit enclosure directly to the exterior of the building. Openings into the exit passageway shall comply with CBC Section 715. [§ 1022.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A20. Elevator shafts shall be enclosed in a 2-hour fire barrier where connecting four stories or more, and not less than a 1-hour fire barrier where connecting less than four stories. [§ 713.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A21. Every opening into an elevator shaft enclosure shall be protected by a self-closing or automatic closing fire assembly having a 1-hour fire rating in 1-hour shafts and 1½- hour ratting in two-hour shafts. [TABLE 716.1(2), § 716.2.6.1 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 5 of 14 A22. Elevator machine rooms, machinery spaces that contain the driving machine, and control rooms or spaces that contain the operation or motion controller for elevator operation shall be provided with an independent ventilation or air-conditioning system to protect against the overheating of the electrical equipment. The system shall be capable of maintaining temperatures within the range established for the elevator equipment. [§ 3005.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A23. Elevators in buildings more than three stories shall have the size to accommodate a 24-inch by 84-inch stretcher. [§ 3002.4. 3002.4a CBC] RESPONSE: A24. An automatic fire sprinkler system is required for all new buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,000 square feet. Sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13R. Deferred submittals are not allowed. A separate permit is required for the fire sprinkler system, and the permit shall be issued concurrent with the building permit for the building. Provide plans and details; submit supporting calculations for proposed sprinkler system. Water service requirements shall be shown on the site plan/utility plan of the building plans for the project. [§ 903.2 CBC, as amended] RESPONSE: A25. Due to this building being an R2 occupancy, an approved manual fire alarm system is required. [§ 907.2.9.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A26. Required smoke alarms shall receive primary power from the building wiring where wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup. Smoke alarms shall emit a signal when the batteries are low. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than as required for overcurrent protection. [§ 907.2.11.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A27. The smoke alarms shall be interconnected in such a manner that the activation of one alarm will activate all of the alarms in the individual unit. The alarm shall be clearly audible in all sleeping rooms over background noise levels with all intervening doors closed. [§ 907.2.11.5 CBC] RESPONSE: A28. Carbon monoxide alarms shall receive primary power from the building wiring and shall be equipped with a battery backup. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than as required for overcurrent protection. [§ 915 CBC] RESPONSE: A29. Where more than one carbon monoxide alarm is required, the alarm shall be interconnected so that activation of one alarm activates all of the alarms in the individual unit. [§ 915 CBC] RESPONSE: A30. For the purpose of fire alarm and detection systems requirements, fire walls and fire barrier walls shall not define separate buildings. [§ 907.1.4 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 6 of 14 A31. Provide exterior opening(s) for natural ventilation with an area equal to 4 percent of the floor area. Indicate type of opening operation at all windows. [§ 1202.5 CBC] RESPONSE: A32. Indicate size of all skylights, window at studio near line C. RESPONSE: A33. Show safety glazing in the following locations; show on remarks column, Window Schedule, A- 5.2: [§ 2406 CBC] Glazing where the nearest edge is within a 24-inch arc of either side of a door in a closed position, (unless the glazing is 5 feet or higher above the walking surface) RESPONSE: Glazing greater than 9 square feet with the bottom edge less than 18 inches above the floor and the top edge greater than 36inches above the floor (unless the glazing is more than 36 inches horizontally away from walking surfaces or if a complying protective bar is installed) RESPONSE: Glazing in wall facing showers and tubs (less than 60 inches above standing surface). See tub at master bath RESPONSE: A34. Specify the slope at roof areas and exterior decks. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A35. Specify minimum ¼-inch per foot roof/deck slope for drainage or provide design to support accumulated water. [§ 1611.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A36. Overflow drains having the same size as roof drains and on independent drain lines are required. In lieu of this, overflow scuppers, 4 inches minimum high with a width equal to the circumference of the roof drain may be provided. Overflow system shall have inlets located two inches above the roof low points. Size the drains per CPC. [§ 1502.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A37. Provide skylight details to show compliance with CBC Sections 2610 and 2405 or provide ICC or other recognized approval listings. RESPONSE: A38. Show attic ventilation and rafter/joist space ventilation. Minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area (or 1/300, provided at least 40 percent of the required vent area is located at not more than least 3 feet below the ridge with the balance provided by eave or cornice vents). Provide calculations on a plan sheet (roof plan). [§ 1202.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 7 of 14 A39. Show how ventilation will be achieved at the enclosed rafter/deck space over habitable area. Minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area. Provide calculation to justify venting provided. Note: Filling cavity with fiberglass batt insulation is not acceptable. Spray-on impermeable foam insulation may be the solution at these areas. [§ 1202.2, 1202.3 CBC] RESPONSE: A40. Enclosed framing in exterior balconies/decks that are exposed to water shall be provided with ventilation at least 1/150 of the area of each separate space. [§2304.12.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A41. Specify roof/deck material and application. Clearly specify waterproofing, flashing, and method of attachment appropriate to the material being used. RESPONSE: A42. Note on a plan sheet: “Where balconies or other elevated walking surfaces are exposed to water from direct or blowing rain, snow, or irrigation, and the structural framing is required to be protected by an impervious moisture barrier, all elements of the impervious moisture barrier system shall not be concealed until inspected and approved.” [§ 110.3.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A43. Enclosed framing in exterior balconies/decks that are exposed to water shall be provided with ventilation at least 1/150 of the area of each separate space. [§2304.12.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A44. Specify roof/deck material and application. Clearly specify waterproofing, flashing, and method of attachment appropriate to the material being used. RESPONSE: A45. Note on a plan sheet: “Where balconies or other elevated walking surfaces are exposed to water from direct or blowing rain, snow, or irrigation, and the structural framing is required to be protected by an impervious moisture barrier, all elements of the impervious moisture barrier system shall not be concealed until inspected and approved.” [§ 110.3.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A46. Show location of attic access with a minimum size of 20 inches x 30 inches unless the maximum vertical headroom height in the attic is less than 30 inches. Where mechanical equipment is installed in the attic, the minimum dimensions are 22 inches x 30 inches and at least as large as the largest component of the appliance. Access must be provided to each separated attic area, with a 30-inch headroom clearance above the opening. [§ 1208.2 CBC, 904.11 CMC] RESPONSE: A47. Guardrails shall have a height of 42 inches. If it is part of an R-2 Occupancy stairway handrail, it shall have a height of 34 inches to 38 inches. [§ 1015.3 CBC] RESPONSE: A48. Openings in guardrails shall prevent a sphere 4 inches in diameter from passing through. From a height of 36 inches to 42 inches, openings shall be less than 4-3/8 inches. The triangular opening Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 8 of 14 formed by the riser, tread and bottom element of a guardrail at a stair shall be less than 6 inches. [§ 1015.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A49. Provide guardrail details and supporting calculations showing adequacy of connections to resist a single concentrated load of 200 pounds at any point along the top. [§ 1607.8.1.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A50. Walls and floor ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units and sleeping units from each other or from public or service areas shall provide airborne or structure-borne sound insulation equal to that required to meet a Sound Transmission Class (“STC”) rating in walls of 50. The project is also located within the 65 CNEL noise contour as determined by the Noise Element of the General Plan. Buildings exposed to this noise source shall have exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting an STC rating of at least 45, with exterior windows meeting a minimum STC of 40. For the performance method, provide an acoustical analysis supporting the construction to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level of 50dBA in occupied areas during any hour of operation. [§ 1206 CBC] RESPONSE: GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS P1. Provide details on plan to manage storm water drainage during construction. [§ 4.106.2 CGBC] RESPONSE: P2. At each dwelling unit with an attached garage, provide a 1-inch diameter raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for electric vehicle charging. The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and terminate into a listed box or enclosure in close proximity to a proposed location of an EV charger. The service panel and/or subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-amp minimum dedicated branch circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device. The panel shall identify the overcurrent protective device space reserved for future EV charging and the raceway termination location as “EV CAPABLE”. Show location at Unit 2 garage. [§ 4.106.4.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P3. Provide a water budget for landscape irrigation. See California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and water budget calculator at: https://www.water.ca.gov/. Calculate Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) based on the maximum ETAF allowed (0.55 for residential areas) and Evapotranspiration (ETo) Table in Appendix A. Express MAWA as annual gallons. Appendix B specifies how MAWA is calculated. Calculate the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) based on the plants used and irrigation method selected for the landscape design. ETWU must be below the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA). Appendix B specifies how ETWU is calculated. Provide automatic yard irrigation controllers for landscaping. [§ Title 23 Division 2 Chapter 2.7 California Code of Regulations, § 4.304.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P4. Provide information on plans requiring an operation and maintenance manual to be supplied at final inspection containing items 1 through 10 of the referenced section. [§ 4.410 CGBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 9 of 14 P5. Provide note on title sheet of plans: “At time of rough mechanical inspection, all duct and other related air distribution components shall be covered with tape, plastic, sheet metal or other acceptable method to reduce the amount of dust or debris that may collect in the system.” [§ 4.504.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P6. Note on plans that the gas fireplace shall be a direct-vent sealed-combustion type. [§ 4.503.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P7. Note on title sheet of plans: “Contractor shall provide at least three random moisture readings performed at wall and floor framing in the presence of the building inspector prior to approval to enclose the wall and floor framing to verify a maximum of 19 percent moisture content.” [§ 4.505.3 CGBC] RESPONSE: P8. Specify on plans the required maximum fixture flow rates at plumbing fixtures. [§ 4.303.1 CGBC, 420.2.2, 411.2, 408.2, 407.2 CPC] Tank-type Water Closet 1.28 gallons per flush Single Showerhead 1.8 gallons per minute @ 80 psi Multiple Showerheads @ one shower 1.8 gallons per minute combined flow rate (includes hand held showerhead) Residential Lavatory Faucet 1.2 gallons per minute @ 60 psi Kitchen Faucet 1.8 gallons per minute @ 60 psi RESPONSE: PLUMBING COMMENTS P1. Provide complete plumbing plans showing fixtures, water, vent, and waste lines and their sizes. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: P2. Indicate on the plans that hose bibs shall be fitted with a non-removable back-flow device. [§ 603.4.7 CPC] RESPONSE: P3. Show size of vents at all plumbing fixtures. The aggregate size of the cross-sectional area of all plumbing vents shall be not less than the -inch building sewer. [§ 904 CPC] RESPONSE: P9. Show routing for P&T relief valve discharge line to exterior for water heater. No part of such drain pipe shall be trapped. [§ 608 CPC] RESPONSE: P10. Showers and shower-tubs shall be provided with individual control valves of the pressure balance, thermostatic, or combination pressure balance/thermostatic mixing valve type that provide scald and thermal shock protection. [§ 418 CPC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 10 of 14 MECHANICAL COMMENTS M1. Clothes dryer moisture exhaust ducts shall terminate outside the building and have a back-draft damper. Exhaust duct length is limited to 14 feet with two elbows, which shall be reduced 2 feet for every elbow in excess of two. Indicate a minimum 4-inch diameter smooth metal duct and show duct route on plan. See second floor loft, M-3.0. [§504.3.2 CMC] RESPONSE: ELECTRICAL COMMENTS ENG1. All new electric, telephone, television and other communication service connections shall be provided by underground wiring. Specify and show routing on the site plan. [§ 112.4 CBC] RESPONSE: ENG2. Provide a single-line diagram for the 400-amp service and subpanels, including a panel schedule with load calculations. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: ENG3. Provide a level working space for equipment under 600 volts complying with CEC Table 110.26(A)(1) with a clear height of 6.5 feet and a minimum clear width of 30 inches. [§ 110.26 CEC] RESPONSE: ENG4. Show on the floor plan or on a separate electrical plan the location of electrical receptacles and lighting fixtures. At a dwelling unit, receptacles are to be located in a wall every 12 linear feet so that a fixture will not be more than 6 feet from any receptacle. See wall adjacent to stairway, grid line 4, sheet E-1.2. [§ 210.52 CEC] RESPONSE: ENG5. Show Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) receptacle protection at the following locations [§ 210.8 CEC]:  Garages- all receptacles RESPONSE: ENG6. Show a minimum of one wall switch controlled lighting outlet in every habitable room. In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch are permitted in lieu of lighting outlets. See second floor and 2nd floor loft, third floor. [§ 210.70 CEC] RESPONSE: ENERGY COMMENTS ENG1. Show compliance with the SLO Energy Reach Code (§15.04.110), which requires new mixed-fuel residential building to have 5% compliance margin (EDR for proposed building is less than Standard Design Building by at least 9) and mandatory features for future heat pump water heater and future electric range and future electric clothes dryer (§150.0(h)) Section 5. RESPONSE: ENG2. For newly constructed buildings in the City of San Luis Obispo, Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 11 of 14  Systems using gas space heating equipment to serve individual dwelling units shall provide for a designated exterior location for a future heat pump compressor unit and a dedicated 208/240 volt 30-amp or greater electrical circuit able to connect to the electrical panel that terminates within 3 feet from the designated future location of the compressor. The conductors shall be labeled with the designation “For Future Heat Pump Space Heater and a double pole circuit breaker provided in the electrical panel labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Space Heater”. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(h) CEnC]  Systems using gas water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall provide a dedicated 125V, 20A electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, 10 AWG copper branch circuit, within 3ft from the water heater and accessible with no obstructions. Both ends of the conductor shall be labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Water Heater” and a reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel shall be provided for the required branch circuit labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Water Heater”. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater allowing natural draining without pump assistance shall be provided. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(n) CEnC]  Buildings plumbed for natural gas clothes drying or cooking equipment shall include for each stub out a double pole circuit breaker in the electrical panel labeled with the words “For Future Electric Clothes Dryer” and a dedicated 208/240 volt 30 amp or greater electrical receptacle able to connect to the electrical panel and located within 3 feet of the appliance. Both ends of the conductor shall be labeled “For Future Electric Clothes Dryer”. At cooktop, range or oven locations, a dedicated 208/240 volt 40 amp or greater circuit and electrical receptacle that is able to connect to the electrical panel with conductors of adequate capacity located within 3 feet of the appliance shall be provided. Both ends of the conductors and corresponding circuit breakers shall be labeled “For Future Electric Range”. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(s) CEnC] RESPONSE: ENG3. Provide a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements as specified in Joint Appendix JA11 with an annual electrical output equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual usage as determined by Equation 150.1-C: kWpv=(CFA x A)/1000 + (NDwell x B) Where: kWpv = KWdc size of the PV system CFA = Conditioned floor area NDwell = Number of dwelling units A = Adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C (for Climate Zone 4) B = Dwelling adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C (for Climate Zone 4) Provide calculation on plan sheet and show location of PV system on roof plan and elevation views. Note on plans that a separate permit is required for the PV system. Submit a permit application and complete plans for the PV system. Deferred submittals are not allowed; the permit for the PV system shall be issued concurrent with the building permit for the residence. [§ 150.1(c)14 CEnC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 12 of 14 ENG4. The conditioned floor area assumed on the CF-1R does not match appear to match the building area shown on sheet T-1. It appears that the conditioned floor area is less than that assumed on the CF1R. Clarify/Revise. An earlier comment requests that the Architect clarify building area in Project Information. RESPONSE: ENG5. The building orientation assumed on the CF-1R (0 degrees) does not correlate with the property line bearings shown on C2 It appears that the azimuth of the front of the building (facing street) is approximately 53 degrees. Revise the CF1-R to reflect the correct azimuth for all opaque and fenestration surfaces. RESPONSE: ENG6. Clearly show on a section or details the insulation and its R-value. Verify a complete building envelope is provided. [§ R106.1.1 CRC] RESPONSE: ENG7. Indicate individual exterior window and door openings on the CF-1R form coinciding with the designations on the floor plan. Each window or door shall have a unique ID# or left, right, front or back wall location. Final plan review for compliance will be completed when the resubmittal is received. Orientation of the fenestration is critical to compliance; make sure that the assumed azimuth in the CF-1R will be the actual as-built condition. RESPONSE: ENG8. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “Energy compliance forms CF2R and CF3R will be completed and submitted to the Building Inspector at time of Inspection of related components.” RESPONSE: ENG9. The whole house shall have an exhaust fan ducted to the outside with a minimum ventilation rate calculated according to ASHRAE Standard 62.2 Equation 4.1(a): Qcfm = .01(floor area) + 7.5(# of bedrooms + 1). Show calculations on a plan sheet. The ducting shall be sized according to ASHRAE Standard 62.2 Table 7.1. One of the local exhaust fans in a bathroom or kitchen may be used, provided the exhaust fan meets the minimum ventilation rates for both the local and whole house ventilation requirements. Designate the exhaust fan to satisfy this requirement. Specify field verification and diagnostic testing of airflow performance per Residential Appendix RA3.7. [§ 150(o) CEnC] RESPONSE: ENG10. All domestic hot water piping shall be insulated as specified in CPC Section 609.11. The following domestic hot water system piping conditions shall have a minimum insulation wall thickness of 1 inch or a minimum R-value of 7.7:  The first 5 feet of cold water pipes from the storage tank.  All hot water piping with a nominal diameter equal to or greater than ¾ inch and less than 1 inch.  All hot water piping with a nominal diameter less than ¾ inch associated with recirculation systems, from the heating source to kitchen fixtures, or buried below grade. Note on plans. [§ 150(j)(2) CEnC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 13 of 14 STRUCTURAL COMMENTS S1. Note the following on the foundation plan: “Soils report number prepared by and dated is part of these plans and all recommendations there in shall be complied with.” RESPONSE: S2. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plans, retaining walls, slope setbacks, grading plans and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated in the plans. [§ 1803.1, 1803.6 CBC] RESPONSE: S3. The embedment depth of concrete perimeter footings shall be not less than the minimum dimension of 30 inches specified in the soils report. The details on S5.0 specify 24 inches. Also, the soils report requires 6 #5 rebar (3 top/3 bottom), which is greater than reinforcement shown on S5.0. Revise. RESPONSE: S4. The soils report slab reinforcement to be 16” o.c., but sheet S-2.0 specifies 18” o.c. Revise. RESPONSE: S5. Specify 5/8-inch diameter x 10-inch anchor bolts with 7 inches embedment spaced not more than 6 feet apart (4 feet apart for buildings more than one story) and not more than 12 inches or less than 4 inches from each end piece. [§ 2308.3.1.2 CBC] RESPONSE: S6. Specify steel plate washers at anchor bolts to be not less than .229 inch by 3 inches by 3 inches at sill plate anchor anchorage. [§ 2308.3.1.1 CBC] RESPONSE: S7. On sheet S-3.1, provide a callout for floor joists 4/5 at loft framing plan. Provide a legend for all callouts on S3.1. Also, provide a callout for deck joists. RESPONSE: S8. On sheet S-3.1, FB21 is shown as smaller beam size than required by the calcs. Clarify. RESPONSE: S9. On sheet S-4.0, provide length of shearwall at line 5 (15’). RESPONSE: S10. Complete the Statement of Special Inspections. See form at Building and Safety webpage. RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 14 of 14 S11. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “Prior to start of construction, the contractor shall schedule a preconstruction conference with all parties involved at the project site to review the special inspection requirements, procedures, and individual special inspectors that will be assigned to the project, as well as requirements for structural observation. Contractor shall contact the Building Division to confirm an acceptable meeting date and time.” RESPONSE: There are no red marks or comments on the plan sheets; all plan review comments are on this list. END OF COMMENTS 1 From:Ramirez, Ivan Sent:Friday, April 8, 2022 2:19 PM To:khall@paralleldesignstudios.com Cc:building Subject:BLDG-0330-2022 1333 Garden St Attachments:BLDG-0330-2022 [1] - 1333 Garden New 3 Story SFR with Attached ADU.pdf; BLDG-0330-2022 _Review_v1.pdf Hello, The Initial plan review of the above referenced application has been completed. Attached are the plan comments that need to be addressed. Once you’ve addressed the plan review comments and updated the plans, please resubmit. Sincerely, Ivan Ramirez Contract Plans Examiner Community Development Building and Safety E iramirez@slocity.org T 805.783.7853 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications Date: March 9, 2022 Plan Check Review # 1 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: _____yes ______no Print Name: If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: Project Address 1333 Garden St. Project Name Lofts on Garden Application Number BLDG-0330-2022 Review of New 3- Story SFR w/ attached ADU Occupancy Class R-3 Construction Type VB Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text. Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 2 Planning Division Graham Bultema gbultema@slocity.org 805-781-7111 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) 1. Payment of the completion fee (invoice #00022883) for minor architectural review application ARCH -0543-2019 is required prior to further planning review. Please contact the Community Development Department at 805-781- 7180 or contact me directly in order to pay the completion fee. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2. Provide an explanation for changes made from approved project plans, such as the extension of the first floor wall on the East Elevation and the removal of the balcony and railing from the third floor on the South Elevation. See my redlines in project plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): ARCH-0543-2019 - Conditions of Approval (dated Nov. 20, 2020) • Condition #1 – project plans are required to include a separate, full-size sheet that shows the approval letter specifying findings and conditions of approval. Reference should be made in the margin of this sheet to indicate where in the plans that required conditions are addressed. This sheet should be placed directly after the title sheet. Please contact me if you need another copy of the ARCH-0543-2019 approval letter. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): • Condition #4 – project plans shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing materials and/or design modifications to the roof deck walls and open railing along the roof deck. Provide a description of design changes made to satisfy Condition #4. The North Elevation and West Elevation sheets in project plans appear to show elimination and/or reduction of open railing along the roof deck, but reference keynotes (keynote 5 52 R2) on these sheets still reference a rectangular metal frame with wire mesh panels where project plans appear to show stucco. Please clarify and revise project plans accordingly. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): • Condition #5 – submit a final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans. Include a landscaping plan in the next project resubmittal. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): • Condition #6 – show the locations of all exterior lighting on project plans, sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the City’s lighting and night sky preservation regulations per Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.100. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 3 Engineering Development Review Richard Avila ravila@slocity.org Phone (805) 783-7734 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: These plans are considered incomplete and additional comments may apply when all minimum plan information and/or supporting documentation is provided through the plan review process. Provide responses to each comment, as appropriate, and note on what page(s) in the plan set each item is addressed. Include the name and phone # of the person(s) providing responses. The following items are required prior to building permit issuance: 3. The project shall show and document compliance with the 2014 Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building permit application shall include the required PCR checklist to show compliance with any pertinent standards. The checklist is available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5190. Correct the Stormwater Control Plan section (a) Total New Impervious Surface Area does not include replaced area. This number seems to be high. Section (e) should not be 0 4. If the PCR checklist triggers water quality requirements, then provide a Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) on a form provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Add this to cover sheet 5. Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the coversheet that identifies Stormwater Plan BMPs used for compliance for Performance Requirements 1-4 and required inspection by EOR during construction. Fill in the blank with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Refer to the project’s Post Construction Stormwater Plan. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: Project is subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Project is Exempt: _(yes or no)___ If no, Project meets: Performance Req. 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Performance Req. 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of _____________. Performance Req. 3 Runoff Retention through use of _____________ Performance Req. 4 Peak Management through use of _____________. Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 4 The following items need correction on the draft construction plans: General 6. Verify address of 1333 Garden. City maps show property as 1321 Garden. 7. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed, or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 8. The building plans shall clearly note if existing frontage improvements meet current compliance with city standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA driveway, etc. 9. Include reference on the cover sheet of the plans to the project soils report. Include reference to the soils engineering firm, report number, and report date. 10. Provide an update and/or final review letter from the soils engineer stating that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report. Sheet C-2 11. Clarify on this sheet if Building C or any of the utilities were ever installed? Site Plan A-0.1 12. Provide a legend to show what different hatching patterns represent. Utilities 13. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 14. No plumbing system, drainage system, building sewer, private sewage disposal system, or parts thereof shall be located in a lot other than the lot that is the site of the building, structure, or premises served by such facilities. CPC 307.1 15. The plan shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 16. Sewer laterals shall be protected with a backwater valve where in finish floor of the structure is located less than 1’ above the BFE at the next upstream sewer manhole [SLOMC 15.04.020.LL] Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 5 Grading 17. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. Site Drainage 18. Clarify the proposed drainage strategy. Provide complete details of all proposed drainage features. Show drainage arrows existing and proposed contours to clearly indicate the altered drainage. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed across property lines. The improved drainage may be retained/detained on site with a controlled outlet to mimic pre-construction historic run-off. Indicate if there is a specific location of the historic outlet. 19. Show the finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grades adjacent to building, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. CRC 300.2 20. Show drainage on site plan – slopes & direction of flow. The ground adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2%. 21. Provide a detail of the Drainage Swale. Show drainage swale flowline grades, high points and low points of the swales and drainage arrows, for reference, if applicable. 22. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. [§406.3.3 CBC] Show compliance 23. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas or swale. Induce sheet flow at outlet of swale to mimic historic sheet flows. Flood Zone Requirements: 24. Include a note on the cover sheet of the plans and/or at the project data defining the flood zone designation, depth or BFE, and ordinance requirements for minimum FF height or the height of floodproofing, wet floodproofing, and/or floodgates if applicable. Include any additional notes regarding the protection of any building service equipment 25. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The new garage structure must be raised or may be “wet” floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. See FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93 for “wet” floodproofing requirements. The building construction materials located below the elevation of the BFE plus one foot of freeboard shall be constructed with flood-resistant materials in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08 Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 6 and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Floodproofing of the office spaces located at the first floor is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 27. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 28. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and office spaces located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 29. Provide venting for all of the “wet” floodproofed areas. Venting shall be provided at the rate of 1 square inch per 1 square foot of floor area. Vents shall be located with the bottom of the opening located not more than 12” above grade. A minimum of two vents shall be provided. 30. The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer: • The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. • Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. • Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. In the case of the AO zone, the architect of record may complete the elevation certificate. • Prior to final inspection approval the contractor or owner shall provide documentation to the City Engineer certifying “wet” floodproofing per F.E.M.A. Technical Bulletin 7-93, page 4. • A non-conversion agreement for the garage shall be recorded prior to occupancy or final inspection approval in accordance with MC Section 17.84.040.B.10. 31. The contractor, architect, or owner responsible for construction and compliance with the approved plans, codes, and ordinances shall summarize in writing that the minimum following “wet” floodproofing requirements have been achieved: a. The portion of the structure located below the BFE + 1’ of freeboard has been constructed of flood-resistant materials meeting the requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-08. b. The structure has been designed for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters or has otherwise been designed to resist the appropriate hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. c. Mechanical and utility equipment have been elevated to 1’ above the BFE or have been floodproofed. Plan Check Review #1 1333 Garden St. BLDG-0330-2022 Page 7 d. The structure meets the wet floodproofing requirements of FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93. e. Statement that the architect observed the construction of the building to ensure it is in compliance with the above requirements. f. Include pictures of the flood-resistant construction, utility service equipment, and flood openings. Fees / Addressing Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org Phone (805) 781-7588 ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) General Comments: 1. APN reflects the address to be 1321 Garden Street. Please update all plan sheet accordingly. 2. Please clearly note the square footage of the new residence and ADU. Please breakdown the square footages for each dwelling and accessory spaces. 3. Address assigned to ADU is 1321 A Garden Street. Please add the newly assigned address to the plans. 4. The Civil sheets in the plan set that are stamped approved from 2010 need to be removed and replaced with updated plan sheets. 5. Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. City of San Luis Obispo BVNA #13424582 April 8, 2022 Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Reviewer(s): Tom Baasch 805-410-0520; thomas.baasch@bureauveritas.com 5905 Capistrano Avenue Suite F, Atascadero, CA | 805.792.1109 | www.BVNA.com Owner: Robin Rossi, Once Upon a Time LP Project Description: SFR w/ attached ADU & Garage Owner Address/Phone: 750 Pismo, San Luis Obispo, CA Architect/Applicant: khA Architect, Keith Hall Contact Info: 805-548-0035 www.paraleldesignstudios.com Occupancy: R-3 / U Type of Construction: V-B Fire Sprinklers: Yes Stories: 3 Floor Area (sf): Habitable- 2,517, Garage/Storage-997, Deck-997 Fire Hazard Severity Zone/WUI: No Fire Alarm: Not Applicable Soils Report: GeoSolutions Project SLO6405-4, 2-11-2022 Bureau Veritas has completed the first plan review of the submitted documents on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo Building & Safety Department. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  This plan review has been made to verify conformance to minimum requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the jurisdiction. Codes in effect for this project include the 2019 editions of the California Building Code (CBC), California Residential Code (CRC), California Green Building Code (CGBC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Electrical Code (CEC), and California Energy Code (CEnC). The CBC is based on the 2018 editions of the International Building Code, which was published by the International Code Council. The CPC and CMC are based on the 2018 edition of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, respectively, which were published by IAPMO. The CEC is based on the 2017 edition of the National Electrical Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Applicable code sections are referenced after each item in th is list.  Before approval for code compliance and issuance of a building permit, the plans and supporting documents application the proposed construction require revisions or information in response to comments indicated on the following pages. The approval of plans and specifications does not permit the violation of any section of the building code, or other ordinance or law.  All comments shall be resolved on the plans prior to the recommendation to the governing body for approval.  Please write the sheet number, detail number, and/or location indicating where the comment resolution is located in the RESPONSE line. Please be specific as to where comment items have been addressed so that recheck may be expedited. Please “cloud” and/or “delta” all revisions made on plans due to this comment list as well as any other design changes.  For additional plan reviewer comment at subsequent submittals, italic text refers to the second submittal, bold text on third submittals, and underlined bold text on fourth submittals. Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 2 of 14 PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PREPARED THE PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES. NAME: _____________________________________ PHONE: ____________________________ For resubmittal, provide TWO new physical sets of plans or ONE COMPLETE electronic submittal, with supporting documentation, and responses to ALL comments listed below and submit to: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, 919 PALM ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 JURISDICTIONAL COMMENTS J1. Provide an area for the storage of solid waste containers (trash, recycling and green waste) that is screened when viewed from the public right-of-way. The storage area shall have a minimum dimension of 3 feet by 8 feet or 6 feet by 6 feet and shall not conflict with required parking space. If the storage area is located in the front yard setback, the storage area shall be screened by a fence, partition or other enclosure not less than 48 inches in height above adjacent grade. [§112.5 CBC] RESPONSE: ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS A1. All sheets of the Final revised plans and the first sheet of structural calculations are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Civil sheets are also subject to this comment. Please include the California license number, seal, and the date the plans are signed. [§ 5536.1, 6735 California Business and Profession Code] RESPONSE: A2. Clarify the floor areas at project description for all occupancies and units. The Permitted and Proposed Areas Table is confusing. The Project Information should summarize the final result for the proposed project submittal. RESPONSE: A3. The Loft area exceeds 1/3 of the floor area below and therefore is a story and subject to the CBC due to the 4 story condition. Revise the Project Information on sheet T-1 to indicate 4 stories and a maximum allowable height of 40 feet per Table 504.3. Reduction of the Loft area to 1/3 of the floor area below may change some code provisions and allow the building to be subject to the CRC. [§107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A4. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “A licensed surveyor or engineer shall verify pad elevations, finish floor elevation, and setbacks prior to foundation inspection, and roof elevations, prior to roof sheeting inspection. Submit documentation and obtain approval prior to submitting request for inspection.” [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A5. Provide a utilities site plan showing location of all connections to public utilities. Include size of all water lines, sewer lines and fire service lines, as well electric service and gas meters. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 3 of 14 A6. Show on the site plan, or provide the grading plans, showing finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grade adjacent to buildings, established street grades, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. Indicate by arrows and/or drainage piping the disposal of roof and surface water to the street. Spot elevations at grade adjacent to the finish floor elevation shall provide the minimum 8-inch separation between wood and earth. Provide a legend to indicate what the various cross-hatched patterns indicate. Arrows are shown that appear to indicate drainage flow, but no details are provided to show construction of swales and drainage piping to direct flow to a drainage easement. Arrows apparently indicate flow toward a curb at west side of building, but no outlet to a flow pattern is shown. See sheet A-0.1. [§107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A7. Provide surface water drainage away from foundation walls at a minimum fall of 6 inches within the first 10 feet. Where lot lines, walls slopes, or other physical barriers prohibit 6 inches of fall within 10 feet, drains or swales shall be constructed to ensure drainage away from the structure. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A8. Provide a controlled roof drainage system to collect and discharge runoff to the ground surface at least 5 feet from foundation walls or approved drainage system where expansive or collapsible soils exist. Soils report identifies expansive soil conditions. [§107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A9. Show the location of any designated flood plains, open space easements, or other development restricted areas on the site plan. Indicate extent and scope, and state on plans that all easements are shown. [§ 107.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A10. Provide a detail of the 1-hour fire-resistive assemblies referenced at 01 11 A1. RESPONSE: A11. Floors of garages used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway. RESPONSE: A12. Regardless of occupant load, a floor landing not more than ½ inch below the threshold is required on each side of an exit door. [§ 1010.1.7 CBC] RESPONSE: A13. Door landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches. [§ 1010.1.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A14. Basements, habitable attics, and every sleeping room shall have a door directly to the exterior or a window that will provide a clear space opening of at least 5.7 square feet in the open position (5 square feet at grade floor openings), a minimum clear opening width of 20 inches and clear opening height of 24 inches, and the bottom of the clear opening a maximum of 44 inches above the floor. The required openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that leads to a Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 4 of 14 public way. Provide method of operation and size of clear opening at each sleeping room. [§ 1030 CBC] RESPONSE: A15. Where the opening of the sill portion of an operable window is located more than 72 inches above finished grade, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be a minimum of 24 inches above the finish floor. Glazing between the floor and a height of 24 inches shall be fixed or have no openings such that a 4-inch diameter sphere cannot pass. Show the window sill heights. [§ 1015.8 CBC] RESPONSE: A16. Show minimum stairway width of 36 inches. [§ 1011.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A17. Show stairway railing/handrail on the floor plan. [§ 107.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A18. Handrails and extensions shall be 34 inches to 38 inches above nosing of treads and be continuous. [§ 1014.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A19. All interior stairways and ramps shall be enclosed as specified in CBC Section 1023 as follows: (see main stairway)  Constructed as two-hour fire barriers where connecting four or more stories and not less than one-hour fire barriers where connecting less than four stories. [§ 1023.2 CBC]  Openings in interior exit stairways shall be limited to those necessary for exit access and for egress from the enclosure. [§ 1023.4 CBC]  Penetrations into interior exit stairways are prohibited except for required exit doors, equipment, ductwork necessary for independent ventilation, sprinkler piping, standpipes, electrical raceway serving the stairway, and terminating at a steel box less than 16 square inches. [§ 1023.5 CBC]  Doors shall be labeled one and one-half hours for the two hour fire barriers and one-hour for the one hour fire. [§ 1023.4 CBC]  Interior exit stairways shall exit directly to the exterior of the building or shall include an exit passageway on the ground level leading from the exit enclosure directly to the exterior of the building. Openings into the exit passageway shall comply with CBC Section 715. [§ 1022.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A20. Elevator shafts shall be enclosed in a 2-hour fire barrier where connecting four stories or more, and not less than a 1-hour fire barrier where connecting less than four stories. [§ 713.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A21. Every opening into an elevator shaft enclosure shall be protected by a self-closing or automatic closing fire assembly having a 1-hour fire rating in 1-hour shafts and 1½- hour ratting in two-hour shafts. [TABLE 716.1(2), § 716.2.6.1 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 5 of 14 A22. Elevator machine rooms, machinery spaces that contain the driving machine, and control rooms or spaces that contain the operation or motion controller for elevator operation shall be provided with an independent ventilation or air-conditioning system to protect against the overheating of the electrical equipment. The system shall be capable of maintaining temperatures within the range established for the elevator equipment. [§ 3005.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A23. Elevators in buildings more than three stories shall have the size to accommodate a 24-inch by 84-inch stretcher. [§ 3002.4. 3002.4a CBC] RESPONSE: A24. An automatic fire sprinkler system is required for all new buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,000 square feet. Sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13R. Deferred submittals are not allowed. A separate permit is required for the fire sprinkler system, and the permit shall be issued concurrent with the building permit for the building. Provide plans and details; submit supporting calculations for proposed sprinkler system. Water service requirements shall be shown on the site plan/utility plan of the building plans for the project. [§ 903.2 CBC, as amended] RESPONSE: A25. Due to this building being an R2 occupancy, an approved manual fire alarm system is required. [§ 907.2.9.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A26. Required smoke alarms shall receive primary power from the building wiring where wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup. Smoke alarms shall emit a signal when the batteries are low. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than as required for overcurrent protection. [§ 907.2.11.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A27. The smoke alarms shall be interconnected in such a manner that the activation of one alarm will activate all of the alarms in the individual unit. The alarm shall be clearly audible in all sleeping rooms over background noise levels with all intervening doors closed. [§ 907.2.11.5 CBC] RESPONSE: A28. Carbon monoxide alarms shall receive primary power from the building wiring and shall be equipped with a battery backup. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than as required for overcurrent protection. [§ 915 CBC] RESPONSE: A29. Where more than one carbon monoxide alarm is required, the alarm shall be interconnected so that activation of one alarm activates all of the alarms in the individual unit. [§ 915 CBC] RESPONSE: A30. For the purpose of fire alarm and detection systems requirements, fire walls and fire barrier walls shall not define separate buildings. [§ 907.1.4 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 6 of 14 A31. Provide exterior opening(s) for natural ventilation with an area equal to 4 percent of the floor area. Indicate type of opening operation at all windows. [§ 1202.5 CBC] RESPONSE: A32. Indicate size of all skylights, window at studio near line C. RESPONSE: A33. Show safety glazing in the following locations; show on remarks column, Window Schedule, A- 5.2: [§ 2406 CBC] Glazing where the nearest edge is within a 24-inch arc of either side of a door in a closed position, (unless the glazing is 5 feet or higher above the walking surface) RESPONSE: Glazing greater than 9 square feet with the bottom edge less than 18 inches above the floor and the top edge greater than 36inches above the floor (unless the glazing is more than 36 inches horizontally away from walking surfaces or if a complying protective bar is installed) RESPONSE: Glazing in wall facing showers and tubs (less than 60 inches above standing surface). See tub at master bath RESPONSE: A34. Specify the slope at roof areas and exterior decks. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A35. Specify minimum ¼-inch per foot roof/deck slope for drainage or provide design to support accumulated water. [§ 1611.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A36. Overflow drains having the same size as roof drains and on independent drain lines are required. In lieu of this, overflow scuppers, 4 inches minimum high with a width equal to the circumference of the roof drain may be provided. Overflow system shall have inlets located two inches above the roof low points. Size the drains per CPC. [§ 1502.2 CBC] RESPONSE: A37. Provide skylight details to show compliance with CBC Sections 2610 and 2405 or provide ICC or other recognized approval listings. RESPONSE: A38. Show attic ventilation and rafter/joist space ventilation. Minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area (or 1/300, provided at least 40 percent of the required vent area is located at not more than least 3 feet below the ridge with the balance provided by eave or cornice vents). Provide calculations on a plan sheet (roof plan). [§ 1202.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 7 of 14 A39. Show how ventilation will be achieved at the enclosed rafter/deck space over habitable area. Minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area. Provide calculation to justify venting provided. Note: Filling cavity with fiberglass batt insulation is not acceptable. Spray-on impermeable foam insulation may be the solution at these areas. [§ 1202.2, 1202.3 CBC] RESPONSE: A40. Enclosed framing in exterior balconies/decks that are exposed to water shall be provided with ventilation at least 1/150 of the area of each separate space. [§2304.12.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A41. Specify roof/deck material and application. Clearly specify waterproofing, flashing, and method of attachment appropriate to the material being used. RESPONSE: A42. Note on a plan sheet: “Where balconies or other elevated walking surfaces are exposed to water from direct or blowing rain, snow, or irrigation, and the structural framing is required to be protected by an impervious moisture barrier, all elements of the impervious moisture barrier system shall not be concealed until inspected and approved.” [§ 110.3.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A43. Enclosed framing in exterior balconies/decks that are exposed to water shall be provided with ventilation at least 1/150 of the area of each separate space. [§2304.12.2.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A44. Specify roof/deck material and application. Clearly specify waterproofing, flashing, and method of attachment appropriate to the material being used. RESPONSE: A45. Note on a plan sheet: “Where balconies or other elevated walking surfaces are exposed to water from direct or blowing rain, snow, or irrigation, and the structural framing is required to be protected by an impervious moisture barrier, all elements of the impervious moisture barrier system shall not be concealed until inspected and approved.” [§ 110.3.6 CBC] RESPONSE: A46. Show location of attic access with a minimum size of 20 inches x 30 inches unless the maximum vertical headroom height in the attic is less than 30 inches. Where mechanical equipment is installed in the attic, the minimum dimensions are 22 inches x 30 inches and at least as large as the largest component of the appliance. Access must be provided to each separated attic area, with a 30-inch headroom clearance above the opening. [§ 1208.2 CBC, 904.11 CMC] RESPONSE: A47. Guardrails shall have a height of 42 inches. If it is part of an R-2 Occupancy stairway handrail, it shall have a height of 34 inches to 38 inches. [§ 1015.3 CBC] RESPONSE: A48. Openings in guardrails shall prevent a sphere 4 inches in diameter from passing through. From a height of 36 inches to 42 inches, openings shall be less than 4-3/8 inches. The triangular opening Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 8 of 14 formed by the riser, tread and bottom element of a guardrail at a stair shall be less than 6 inches. [§ 1015.4 CBC] RESPONSE: A49. Provide guardrail details and supporting calculations showing adequacy of connections to resist a single concentrated load of 200 pounds at any point along the top. [§ 1607.8.1.1 CBC] RESPONSE: A50. Walls and floor ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units and sleeping units from each other or from public or service areas shall provide airborne or structure-borne sound insulation equal to that required to meet a Sound Transmission Class (“STC”) rating in walls of 50. The project is also located within the 65 CNEL noise contour as determined by the Noise Element of the General Plan. Buildings exposed to this noise source shall have exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting an STC rating of at least 45, with exterior windows meeting a minimum STC of 40. For the performance method, provide an acoustical analysis supporting the construction to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level of 50dBA in occupied areas during any hour of operation. [§ 1206 CBC] RESPONSE: GREEN BUILDING COMMENTS P1. Provide details on plan to manage storm water drainage during construction. [§ 4.106.2 CGBC] RESPONSE: P2. At each dwelling unit with an attached garage, provide a 1-inch diameter raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for electric vehicle charging. The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and terminate into a listed box or enclosure in close proximity to a proposed location of an EV charger. The service panel and/or subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-amp minimum dedicated branch circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device. The panel shall identify the overcurrent protective device space reserved for future EV charging and the raceway termination location as “EV CAPABLE”. Show location at Unit 2 garage. [§ 4.106.4.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P3. Provide a water budget for landscape irrigation. See California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and water budget calculator at: https://www.water.ca.gov/. Calculate Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) based on the maximum ETAF allowed (0.55 for residential areas) and Evapotranspiration (ETo) Table in Appendix A. Express MAWA as annual gallons. Appendix B specifies how MAWA is calculated. Calculate the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) based on the plants used and irrigation method selected for the landscape design. ETWU must be below the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA). Appendix B specifies how ETWU is calculated. Provide automatic yard irrigation controllers for landscaping. [§ Title 23 Division 2 Chapter 2.7 California Code of Regulations, § 4.304.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P4. Provide information on plans requiring an operation and maintenance manual to be supplied at final inspection containing items 1 through 10 of the referenced section. [§ 4.410 CGBC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 9 of 14 P5. Provide note on title sheet of plans: “At time of rough mechanical inspection, all duct and other related air distribution components shall be covered with tape, plastic, sheet metal or other acceptable method to reduce the amount of dust or debris that may collect in the system.” [§ 4.504.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P6. Note on plans that the gas fireplace shall be a direct-vent sealed-combustion type. [§ 4.503.1 CGBC] RESPONSE: P7. Note on title sheet of plans: “Contractor shall provide at least three random moisture readings performed at wall and floor framing in the presence of the building inspector prior to approval to enclose the wall and floor framing to verify a maximum of 19 percent moisture content.” [§ 4.505.3 CGBC] RESPONSE: P8. Specify on plans the required maximum fixture flow rates at plumbing fixtures. [§ 4.303.1 CGBC, 420.2.2, 411.2, 408.2, 407.2 CPC] Tank-type Water Closet 1.28 gallons per flush Single Showerhead 1.8 gallons per minute @ 80 psi Multiple Showerheads @ one shower 1.8 gallons per minute combined flow rate (includes hand held showerhead) Residential Lavatory Faucet 1.2 gallons per minute @ 60 psi Kitchen Faucet 1.8 gallons per minute @ 60 psi RESPONSE: PLUMBING COMMENTS P1. Provide complete plumbing plans showing fixtures, water, vent, and waste lines and their sizes. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: P2. Indicate on the plans that hose bibs shall be fitted with a non-removable back-flow device. [§ 603.4.7 CPC] RESPONSE: P3. Show size of vents at all plumbing fixtures. The aggregate size of the cross-sectional area of all plumbing vents shall be not less than the -inch building sewer. [§ 904 CPC] RESPONSE: P9. Show routing for P&T relief valve discharge line to exterior for water heater. No part of such drain pipe shall be trapped. [§ 608 CPC] RESPONSE: P10. Showers and shower-tubs shall be provided with individual control valves of the pressure balance, thermostatic, or combination pressure balance/thermostatic mixing valve type that provide scald and thermal shock protection. [§ 418 CPC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 10 of 14 MECHANICAL COMMENTS M1. Clothes dryer moisture exhaust ducts shall terminate outside the building and have a back-draft damper. Exhaust duct length is limited to 14 feet with two elbows, which shall be reduced 2 feet for every elbow in excess of two. Indicate a minimum 4-inch diameter smooth metal duct and show duct route on plan. See second floor loft, M-3.0. [§504.3.2 CMC] RESPONSE: ELECTRICAL COMMENTS ENG1. All new electric, telephone, television and other communication service connections shall be provided by underground wiring. Specify and show routing on the site plan. [§ 112.4 CBC] RESPONSE: ENG2. Provide a single-line diagram for the 400-amp service and subpanels, including a panel schedule with load calculations. [§ 107.2.1 CBC] RESPONSE: ENG3. Provide a level working space for equipment under 600 volts complying with CEC Table 110.26(A)(1) with a clear height of 6.5 feet and a minimum clear width of 30 inches. [§ 110.26 CEC] RESPONSE: ENG4. Show on the floor plan or on a separate electrical plan the location of electrical receptacles and lighting fixtures. At a dwelling unit, receptacles are to be located in a wall every 12 linear feet so that a fixture will not be more than 6 feet from any receptacle. See wall adjacent to stairway, grid line 4, sheet E-1.2. [§ 210.52 CEC] RESPONSE: ENG5. Show Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) receptacle protection at the following locations [§ 210.8 CEC]:  Garages- all receptacles RESPONSE: ENG6. Show a minimum of one wall switch controlled lighting outlet in every habitable room. In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch are permitted in lieu of lighting outlets. See second floor and 2nd floor loft, third floor. [§ 210.70 CEC] RESPONSE: ENERGY COMMENTS ENG1. Show compliance with the SLO Energy Reach Code (§15.04.110), which requires new mixed-fuel residential building to have 5% compliance margin (EDR for proposed building is less than Standard Design Building by at least 9) and mandatory features for future heat pump water heater and future electric range and future electric clothes dryer (§150.0(h)) Section 5. RESPONSE: ENG2. For newly constructed buildings in the City of San Luis Obispo, Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 11 of 14  Systems using gas space heating equipment to serve individual dwelling units shall provide for a designated exterior location for a future heat pump compressor unit and a dedicated 208/240 volt 30-amp or greater electrical circuit able to connect to the electrical panel that terminates within 3 feet from the designated future location of the compressor. The conductors shall be labeled with the designation “For Future Heat Pump Space Heater and a double pole circuit breaker provided in the electrical panel labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Space Heater”. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(h) CEnC]  Systems using gas water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall provide a dedicated 125V, 20A electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, 10 AWG copper branch circuit, within 3ft from the water heater and accessible with no obstructions. Both ends of the conductor shall be labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Water Heater” and a reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel shall be provided for the required branch circuit labeled with the words “For Future Heat Pump Water Heater”. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater allowing natural draining without pump assistance shall be provided. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(n) CEnC]  Buildings plumbed for natural gas clothes drying or cooking equipment shall include for each stub out a double pole circuit breaker in the electrical panel labeled with the words “For Future Electric Clothes Dryer” and a dedicated 208/240 volt 30 amp or greater electrical receptacle able to connect to the electrical panel and located within 3 feet of the appliance. Both ends of the conductor shall be labeled “For Future Electric Clothes Dryer”. At cooktop, range or oven locations, a dedicated 208/240 volt 40 amp or greater circuit and electrical receptacle that is able to connect to the electrical panel with conductors of adequate capacity located within 3 feet of the appliance shall be provided. Both ends of the conductors and corresponding circuit breakers shall be labeled “For Future Electric Range”. Note on plans and show location. [§ 150.0(s) CEnC] RESPONSE: ENG3. Provide a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements as specified in Joint Appendix JA11 with an annual electrical output equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual usage as determined by Equation 150.1-C: kWpv=(CFA x A)/1000 + (NDwell x B) Where: kWpv = KWdc size of the PV system CFA = Conditioned floor area NDwell = Number of dwelling units A = Adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C (for Climate Zone 4) B = Dwelling adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C (for Climate Zone 4) Provide calculation on plan sheet and show location of PV system on roof plan and elevation views. Note on plans that a separate permit is required for the PV system. Submit a permit application and complete plans for the PV system. Deferred submittals are not allowed; the permit for the PV system shall be issued concurrent with the building permit for the residence. [§ 150.1(c)14 CEnC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 12 of 14 ENG4. The conditioned floor area assumed on the CF-1R does not match appear to match the building area shown on sheet T-1. It appears that the conditioned floor area is less than that assumed on the CF1R. Clarify/Revise. An earlier comment requests that the Architect clarify building area in Project Information. RESPONSE: ENG5. The building orientation assumed on the CF-1R (0 degrees) does not correlate with the property line bearings shown on C2 It appears that the azimuth of the front of the building (facing street) is approximately 53 degrees. Revise the CF1-R to reflect the correct azimuth for all opaque and fenestration surfaces. RESPONSE: ENG6. Clearly show on a section or details the insulation and its R-value. Verify a complete building envelope is provided. [§ R106.1.1 CRC] RESPONSE: ENG7. Indicate individual exterior window and door openings on the CF-1R form coinciding with the designations on the floor plan. Each window or door shall have a unique ID# or left, right, front or back wall location. Final plan review for compliance will be completed when the resubmittal is received. Orientation of the fenestration is critical to compliance; make sure that the assumed azimuth in the CF-1R will be the actual as-built condition. RESPONSE: ENG8. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “Energy compliance forms CF2R and CF3R will be completed and submitted to the Building Inspector at time of Inspection of related components.” RESPONSE: ENG9. The whole house shall have an exhaust fan ducted to the outside with a minimum ventilation rate calculated according to ASHRAE Standard 62.2 Equation 4.1(a): Qcfm = .01(floor area) + 7.5(# of bedrooms + 1). Show calculations on a plan sheet. The ducting shall be sized according to ASHRAE Standard 62.2 Table 7.1. One of the local exhaust fans in a bathroom or kitchen may be used, provided the exhaust fan meets the minimum ventilation rates for both the local and whole house ventilation requirements. Designate the exhaust fan to satisfy this requirement. Specify field verification and diagnostic testing of airflow performance per Residential Appendix RA3.7. [§ 150(o) CEnC] RESPONSE: ENG10. All domestic hot water piping shall be insulated as specified in CPC Section 609.11. The following domestic hot water system piping conditions shall have a minimum insulation wall thickness of 1 inch or a minimum R-value of 7.7:  The first 5 feet of cold water pipes from the storage tank.  All hot water piping with a nominal diameter equal to or greater than ¾ inch and less than 1 inch.  All hot water piping with a nominal diameter less than ¾ inch associated with recirculation systems, from the heating source to kitchen fixtures, or buried below grade. Note on plans. [§ 150(j)(2) CEnC] RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 13 of 14 STRUCTURAL COMMENTS S1. Note the following on the foundation plan: “Soils report number prepared by and dated is part of these plans and all recommendations there in shall be complied with.” RESPONSE: S2. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plans, retaining walls, slope setbacks, grading plans and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated in the plans. [§ 1803.1, 1803.6 CBC] RESPONSE: S3. The embedment depth of concrete perimeter footings shall be not less than the minimum dimension of 30 inches specified in the soils report. The details on S5.0 specify 24 inches. Also, the soils report requires 6 #5 rebar (3 top/3 bottom), which is greater than reinforcement shown on S5.0. Revise. RESPONSE: S4. The soils report slab reinforcement to be 16” o.c., but sheet S-2.0 specifies 18” o.c. Revise. RESPONSE: S5. Specify 5/8-inch diameter x 10-inch anchor bolts with 7 inches embedment spaced not more than 6 feet apart (4 feet apart for buildings more than one story) and not more than 12 inches or less than 4 inches from each end piece. [§ 2308.3.1.2 CBC] RESPONSE: S6. Specify steel plate washers at anchor bolts to be not less than .229 inch by 3 inches by 3 inches at sill plate anchor anchorage. [§ 2308.3.1.1 CBC] RESPONSE: S7. On sheet S-3.1, provide a callout for floor joists 4/5 at loft framing plan. Provide a legend for all callouts on S3.1. Also, provide a callout for deck joists. RESPONSE: S8. On sheet S-3.1, FB21 is shown as smaller beam size than required by the calcs. Clarify. RESPONSE: S9. On sheet S-4.0, provide length of shearwall at line 5 (15’). RESPONSE: S10. Complete the Statement of Special Inspections. See form at Building and Safety webpage. RESPONSE: Application #: BLDG-0330-2022 1st Review Location: 1333 Garden St Page 14 of 14 S11. Note on the title sheet of the plans: “Prior to start of construction, the contractor shall schedule a preconstruction conference with all parties involved at the project site to review the special inspection requirements, procedures, and individual special inspectors that will be assigned to the project, as well as requirements for structural observation. Contractor shall contact the Building Division to confirm an acceptable meeting date and time.” RESPONSE: There are no red marks or comments on the plan sheets; all plan review comments are on this list. END OF COMMENTS 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Monday, March 29, 2021 11:14 AM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:FW: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Attachments:Final Resolution 1321 Garden.docx; Final Resolution 1321 Garden.pdf Hi Shawna, Just was looking back on some old emails and remembered that you had been the secretary for this PC hearing. Had you been provided a copy to sign? I wasn’t sure and only an unsigned copy was attached to the plan case. Thank you, KVL From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 11:26 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Hi Kyle, I had trouble saving the reso with the link (when working remote, I sometimes run into that issue). I attached a new version, it may say unreadable content, but if you open it and save it, I hope that works). I attached the PDF as well for your records. Sorry about the inconvenience. Thanks, Donré From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:16 AM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Yes, they voted twice. The first motion was not carried. The second motion was passed, please use that for the resolution. From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 4:57 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Hey Kyle, 2 I am working on your resolution, and I am trying to make sense of the voting sheet, please see the screenshot below. This is isn’t included in the minutes (yet), so I am reaching out to you. Did they vote twice? Do I use the second one, where Kahn made the motion and Vice-Chair Jorgensen seconded? Thank you! From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 12:09 PM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Hi Donre, I am a little late but this resolution is ready for signature. Signature by Shawna. APPL-0607-2020 \\ Thanks KVL RESOLUTION NO. PC-1034-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY GARY AND CATHERINE MILLER) THEREBY APPROVING A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH AN 800-SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, TWO ATTACHED GARAGES, AND A 590-SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK AT THE CORNER OF THE ROOF DECK WHERE TEN FEET IS THE STANDARD, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2021 (1321 GARDEN STREET, APPL-0607-2020) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on September 14, 2020, recommending approval of the project to the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo based on consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0542-2019, Once Upon a Time LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, on November 20, 2020, approved the above referenced residential infill project; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, as a member of the public, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s November 20, 2020 decision approving the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on February 10, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL- 0607-2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, appellant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal (APPL- Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 2 0607-2020) of the Community Development Director’s decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-00543-2019), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with the site constraints and the character of the neighborhood, including buildings fronting Pismo and Broad Streets. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies related to neighborhood enhancement (Policy 2.2.7) because the project is an infill project that contributes positively to the existing neighborhood and surrounding area by efficiently utilizing the easements in place that provides access to the subject property and incorporating design elements and materials from both the adjacent residential development to the east and the historic fire station on the corner of Garden Street and Pismo Street. 3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on September 14, 2020 and found the project consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects because the project is compatible in scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings to the east and south that are two and three story buildings with minimum setbacks from property lines and a minimum amount of vertical articulation. The ARC’s recommended conditions are incorporated into this approval. 4. The project and the requested setback reduction is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies because the area receiving the reduction in setback is minor in nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure and complies with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 4.5.1). The setbacks are consistent with this policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south walls of adjacent properties will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice 5. The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because adjacent properties to the east are three stories in height and the colors and materials proposed are consistent with adjacent structures. 6. As conditioned, the project, inclusive of the requested setback reduction, provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects of noise and privacy on surrounding properties because the existing tall trees along the west property line will be maintained for screening and the project is conditioned to modify the materials and/or design of the east facing roof deck wall providing noise attenuation. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section 15303), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of the construction of one single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit within the Medium-Density Residential zone. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 3 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because the project consists of the construction of one single- family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit within the Office Zone, which allows single- family residential use. SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following 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. Planning 1. A building plan check submittal that is in substantial conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval for ARCH-0543-2019. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials on all elevation drawings of proposed building surfaces and on all other site improvements in substantial conformance to plans and documents provided and presented at the September 14, 2020 Architectural Review Commission hearing. 3. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall include the addition of opaque glass windows or other design feature to the east façade in order to break up the large blank wall, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing modifications to the roof deck walls and eliminate open railing facing Broad Street along the roof deck, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with the building permit application. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 4 locations on plans. All planting shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy. 6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard-style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. Public Works 7. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site plan showing all existing property lines and easements for reference. Easements shall include references to the map or easement recording reference document numbers. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 9. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 10. The utility plan shall show the required separation between the existing water well and any sewer or storm drain piping in accordance with the California Plumbing Code and prevailing regulations. 11. The site and/or utility plan shall show the PG&E Siren and appurtenances for reference. The site plan shall show and label the PG&E easement and the easement recording reference number. 12. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) floodzone. The building shall be constructed of flood resistant materials or floodproofed to a minimum Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 5 height of 3’ (1’ of freeboard), above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard is recommended for building protection and a potential reduction in flood insurance premiums. 13. Floodproofing of the first-floor hallways and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first-floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 14. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 15. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and first-floor hallway and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 16. The grading and drainage plan shall show the proposed site drainage. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements and easements for reference. The submittal shall include any drainage analysis or previously approved drainage analysis for reference. 17. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any trees that could be affected by proposed grading and/or vertical construction. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within a dripline of any tree. A City approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on building plans. Utilities 18. 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. 19. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the location size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. 20. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 6 21. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code. 22. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 23. A trash enclosure capable of storing the required bins for waste, recycling, and organics shall be provided. 24. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid waste material for both the residential and commercial components of the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Indemnification 25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including, but not limited to, environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner Kahn, seconded by Vice-Chair Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kahn, Quincey, Shoresman, Vice-Chair Joregensen, Chair Dandekar NOES: Commissioner Wulkan REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hopkins The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of February 2021. _____________________________ Shawna Scott, Secretary Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. PC-1034-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY GARY AND CATHERINE MILLER) THEREBY APPROVING A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH AN 800-SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, TWO ATTACHED GARAGES, AND A 590-SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK AT THE CORNER OF THE ROOF DECK WHERE TEN FEET IS THE STANDARD, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2021 (1321 GARDEN STREET, APPL-0607-2020) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on September 14, 2020, recommending approval of the project to the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo based on consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0542-2019, Once Upon a Time LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, on November 20, 2020, approved the above referenced residential infill project; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, as a member of the public, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s November 20, 2020 decision approving the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on February 10, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL- 0607-2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, appellant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal (APPL- Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 2 0607-2020) of the Community Development Director’s decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-00543-2019), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with the site constraints and the character of the neighborhood, including buildings fronting Pismo and Broad Streets. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies related to neighborhood enhancement (Policy 2.2.7) because the project is an infill project that contributes positively to the existing neighborhood and surrounding area by efficiently utilizing the easements in place that provides access to the subject property and incorporating design elements and materials from both the adjacent residential development to the east and the historic fire station on the corner of Garden Street and Pismo Street. 3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on September 14, 2020 and found the project consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects because the project is compatible in scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings to the east and south that are two and three story buildings with minimum setbacks from property lines and a minimum amount of vertical articulation. The ARC’s recommended conditions are incorporated into this approval. 4. The project and the requested setback reduction is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies because the area receiving the reduction in setback is minor in nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure and complies with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 4.5.1). The setbacks are consistent with this policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south walls of adjacent properties will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice 5. The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because adjacent properties to the east are three stories in height and the colors and materials proposed are consistent with adjacent structures. 6. As conditioned, the project, inclusive of the requested setback reduction, provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects of noise and privacy on surrounding properties because the existing tall trees along the west property line will be maintained for screening and the project is conditioned to modify the materials and/or design of the east facing roof deck wall providing noise attenuation. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section 15303), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of the construction of one single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit within the Medium-Density Residential zone. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 3 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because the project consists of the construction of one single- family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit within the Office Zone, which allows single- family residential use. SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following 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. Planning 1. A building plan check submittal that is in substantial conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval for ARCH-0543-2019. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials on all elevation drawings of proposed building surfaces and on all other site improvements in substantial conformance to plans and documents provided and presented at the September 14, 2020 Architectural Review Commission hearing. 3. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall include the addition of opaque glass windows or other design feature to the east façade in order to break up the large blank wall, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing modifications to the roof deck walls and eliminate open railing facing Broad Street along the roof deck, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with the building permit application. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 4 locations on plans. All planting shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy. 6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard-style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. Public Works 7. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site plan showing all existing property lines and easements for reference. Easements shall include references to the map or easement recording reference document numbers. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 9. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 10. The utility plan shall show the required separation between the existing water well and any sewer or storm drain piping in accordance with the California Plumbing Code and prevailing regulations. 11. The site and/or utility plan shall show the PG&E Siren and appurtenances for reference. The site plan shall show and label the PG&E easement and the easement recording reference number. 12. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) floodzone. The building shall be constructed of flood resistant materials or floodproofed to a minimum Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 5 height of 3’ (1’ of freeboard), above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard is recommended for building protection and a potential reduction in flood insurance premiums. 13. Floodproofing of the first-floor hallways and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first-floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 14. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 15. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and first-floor hallway and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 16. The grading and drainage plan shall show the proposed site drainage. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements and easements for reference. The submittal shall include any drainage analysis or previously approved drainage analysis for reference. 17. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any trees that could be affected by proposed grading and/or vertical construction. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within a dripline of any tree. A City approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on building plans. Utilities 18. 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. 19. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the location size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. 20. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 6 21. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code. 22. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 23. A trash enclosure capable of storing the required bins for waste, recycling, and organics shall be provided. 24. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid waste material for both the residential and commercial components of the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Indemnification 25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including, but not limited to, environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner Kahn, seconded by Vice-Chair Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kahn, Quincey, Shoresman, Vice-Chair Joregensen, Chair Dandekar NOES: Commissioner Wulkan REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hopkins The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of February 2021. _____________________________ Shawna Scott, Secretary Planning Commission 1 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Monday, March 29, 2021 11:26 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:FW: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Attachments:Final Resolution 1321 Garden (002).pdf Hi Kyle, Here you go. Thank you, Shawna From: Scott, Shawna Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:40 AM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) That always happens when I work in the G drive remotely. Please see attached with signature, thank you. From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:33 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) I had an error message with the link Kyle sent (happens sometimes when working remote, not sure why) so I saved another version, sorry about that. PDF is attached. Thank you! From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:28 AM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Hi Donré, For some reason I can’t open the attachment (error message about unreadable content). Do you want to try sending a PDF and I will see if I can digitally sign? Thank you, Shawna From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:04 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Hi Shawna, 2 The attached reso is ready for your signature. Would you be able to sign digitally? Or you would you like me to place it in your mailbox? (I will be in the office tomorrow morning). Please let me know what works best for you. Thank you! Donré RESOLUTION NO. PC-1034-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY GARY AND CATHERINE MILLER) THEREBY APPROVING A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH AN 800-SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, TWO ATTACHED GARAGES, AND A 590-SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK AT THE CORNER OF THE ROOF DECK WHERE TEN FEET IS THE STANDARD, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2021 (1321 GARDEN STREET, APPL-0607-2020) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on September 14, 2020, recommending approval of the project to the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo based on consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0542-2019, Once Upon a Time LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, on November 20, 2020, approved the above referenced residential infill project; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, as a member of the public, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s November 20, 2020 decision approving the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on February 10, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL- 0607-2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, appellant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal (APPL- Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 2 0607-2020) of the Community Development Director’s decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-00543-2019), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with the site constraints and the character of the neighborhood, including buildings fronting Pismo and Broad Streets. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies related to neighborhood enhancement (Policy 2.2.7) because the project is an infill project that contributes positively to the existing neighborhood and surrounding area by efficiently utilizing the easements in place that provides access to the subject property and incorporating design elements and materials from both the adjacent residential development to the east and the historic fire station on the corner of Garden Street and Pismo Street. 3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on September 14, 2020 and found the project consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects because the project is compatible in scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings to the east and south that are two and three story buildings with minimum setbacks from property lines and a minimum amount of vertical articulation. The ARC’s recommended conditions are incorporated into this approval. 4. The project and the requested setback reduction is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies because the area receiving the reduction in setback is minor in nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure and complies with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 4.5.1). The setbacks are consistent with this policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south walls of adjacent properties will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice 5. The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because adjacent properties to the east are three stories in height and the colors and materials proposed are consistent with adjacent structures. 6. As conditioned, the project, inclusive of the requested setback reduction, provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects of noise and privacy on surrounding properties because the existing tall trees along the west property line will be maintained for screening and the project is conditioned to modify the materials and/or design of the east facing roof deck wall providing noise attenuation. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section 15303), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of the construction of one single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit within the Medium-Density Residential zone. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 3 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because the project consists of the construction of one single- family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit within the Office Zone, which allows single- family residential use. SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following 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. Planning 1. A building plan check submittal that is in substantial conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval for ARCH-0543-2019. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials on all elevation drawings of proposed building surfaces and on all other site improvements in substantial conformance to plans and documents provided and presented at the September 14, 2020 Architectural Review Commission hearing. 3. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall include the addition of opaque glass windows or other design feature to the east façade in order to break up the large blank wall, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing modifications to the roof deck walls and eliminate open railing facing Broad Street along the roof deck, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with the building permit application. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 4 locations on plans. All planting shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy. 6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard-style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. Public Works 7. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site plan showing all existing property lines and easements for reference. Easements shall include references to the map or easement recording reference document numbers. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 9. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 10. The utility plan shall show the required separation between the existing water well and any sewer or storm drain piping in accordance with the California Plumbing Code and prevailing regulations. 11. The site and/or utility plan shall show the PG&E Siren and appurtenances for reference. The site plan shall show and label the PG&E easement and the easement recording reference number. 12. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) floodzone. The building shall be constructed of flood resistant materials or floodproofed to a minimum Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 5 height of 3’ (1’ of freeboard), above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard is recommended for building protection and a potential reduction in flood insurance premiums. 13. Floodproofing of the first-floor hallways and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first-floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 14. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 15. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and first-floor hallway and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 16. The grading and drainage plan shall show the proposed site drainage. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements and easements for reference. The submittal shall include any drainage analysis or previously approved drainage analysis for reference. 17. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any trees that could be affected by proposed grading and/or vertical construction. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within a dripline of any tree. A City approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on building plans. Utilities 18. 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. 19. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the location size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. 20. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 6 21. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code. 22. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 23. A trash enclosure capable of storing the required bins for waste, recycling, and organics shall be provided. 24. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid waste material for both the residential and commercial components of the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Indemnification 25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including, but not limited to, environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner Kahn, seconded by Vice-Chair Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kahn, Quincey, Shoresman, Vice-Chair Joregensen, Chair Dandekar NOES: Commissioner Wulkan REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hopkins The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of February 2021. _____________________________ Shawna Scott, Secretary Planning Commission 1 From:Webb, Donre Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 11:26 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Attachments:Final Resolution 1321 Garden.docx; Final Resolution 1321 Garden.pdf Hi Kyle, I had trouble saving the reso with the link (when working remote, I sometimes run into that issue). I attached a new version, it may say unreadable content, but if you open it and save it, I hope that works). I attached the PDF as well for your records. Sorry about the inconvenience. Thanks, Donré From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:16 AM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Yes, they voted twice. The first motion was not carried. The second motion was passed, please use that for the resolution. From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 4:57 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Hey Kyle, I am working on your resolution, and I am trying to make sense of the voting sheet, please see the screenshot below. This is isn’t included in the minutes (yet), so I am reaching out to you. Did they vote twice? Do I use the second one, where Kahn made the motion and Vice-Chair Jorgensen seconded? Thank you! 2 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 12:09 PM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Hi Donre, I am a little late but this resolution is ready for signature. Signature by Shawna. APPL-0607-2020 \\ Thanks KVL RESOLUTION NO. PC-1034-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY GARY AND CATHERINE MILLER) THEREBY APPROVING A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH AN 800-SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, TWO ATTACHED GARAGES, AND A 590-SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK AT THE CORNER OF THE ROOF DECK WHERE TEN FEET IS THE STANDARD, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2021 (1321 GARDEN STREET, APPL-0607-2020) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on September 14, 2020, recommending approval of the project to the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo based on consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0542-2019, Once Upon a Time LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, on November 20, 2020, approved the above referenced residential infill project; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, as a member of the public, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s November 20, 2020 decision approving the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on February 10, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL- 0607-2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, appellant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal (APPL- Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 2 0607-2020) of the Community Development Director’s decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-00543-2019), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with the site constraints and the character of the neighborhood, including buildings fronting Pismo and Broad Streets. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies related to neighborhood enhancement (Policy 2.2.7) because the project is an infill project that contributes positively to the existing neighborhood and surrounding area by efficiently utilizing the easements in place that provides access to the subject property and incorporating design elements and materials from both the adjacent residential development to the east and the historic fire station on the corner of Garden Street and Pismo Street. 3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on September 14, 2020 and found the project consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects because the project is compatible in scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings to the east and south that are two and three story buildings with minimum setbacks from property lines and a minimum amount of vertical articulation. The ARC’s recommended conditions are incorporated into this approval. 4. The project and the requested setback reduction is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies because the area receiving the reduction in setback is minor in nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure and complies with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 4.5.1). The setbacks are consistent with this policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south walls of adjacent properties will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice 5. The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because adjacent properties to the east are three stories in height and the colors and materials proposed are consistent with adjacent structures. 6. As conditioned, the project, inclusive of the requested setback reduction, provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects of noise and privacy on surrounding properties because the existing tall trees along the west property line will be maintained for screening and the project is conditioned to modify the materials and/or design of the east facing roof deck wall providing noise attenuation. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section 15303), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of the construction of one single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit within the Medium-Density Residential zone. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 3 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because the project consists of the construction of one single- family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit within the Office Zone, which allows single- family residential use. SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following 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. Planning 1. A building plan check submittal that is in substantial conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval for ARCH-0543-2019. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials on all elevation drawings of proposed building surfaces and on all other site improvements in substantial conformance to plans and documents provided and presented at the September 14, 2020 Architectural Review Commission hearing. 3. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall include the addition of opaque glass windows or other design feature to the east façade in order to break up the large blank wall, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing modifications to the roof deck walls and eliminate open railing facing Broad Street along the roof deck, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with the building permit application. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 4 locations on plans. All planting shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy. 6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard-style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. Public Works 7. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site plan showing all existing property lines and easements for reference. Easements shall include references to the map or easement recording reference document numbers. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 9. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 10. The utility plan shall show the required separation between the existing water well and any sewer or storm drain piping in accordance with the California Plumbing Code and prevailing regulations. 11. The site and/or utility plan shall show the PG&E Siren and appurtenances for reference. The site plan shall show and label the PG&E easement and the easement recording reference number. 12. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) floodzone. The building shall be constructed of flood resistant materials or floodproofed to a minimum Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 5 height of 3’ (1’ of freeboard), above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard is recommended for building protection and a potential reduction in flood insurance premiums. 13. Floodproofing of the first-floor hallways and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first-floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 14. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 15. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and first-floor hallway and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 16. The grading and drainage plan shall show the proposed site drainage. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements and easements for reference. The submittal shall include any drainage analysis or previously approved drainage analysis for reference. 17. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any trees that could be affected by proposed grading and/or vertical construction. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within a dripline of any tree. A City approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on building plans. Utilities 18. 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. 19. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the location size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. 20. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 6 21. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code. 22. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 23. A trash enclosure capable of storing the required bins for waste, recycling, and organics shall be provided. 24. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid waste material for both the residential and commercial components of the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Indemnification 25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including, but not limited to, environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner Kahn, seconded by Vice-Chair Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kahn, Quincey, Shoresman, Vice-Chair Joregensen, Chair Dandekar NOES: Commissioner Wulkan REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hopkins The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of February 2021. _____________________________ Shawna Scott, Secretary Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. PC-1034-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY GARY AND CATHERINE MILLER) THEREBY APPROVING A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH AN 800-SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, TWO ATTACHED GARAGES, AND A 590-SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK AT THE CORNER OF THE ROOF DECK WHERE TEN FEET IS THE STANDARD, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2021 (1321 GARDEN STREET, APPL-0607-2020) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on September 14, 2020, recommending approval of the project to the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo based on consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0542-2019, Once Upon a Time LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, on November 20, 2020, approved the above referenced residential infill project; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, as a member of the public, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s November 20, 2020 decision approving the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on February 10, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL- 0607-2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, appellant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal (APPL- Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 2 0607-2020) of the Community Development Director’s decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-00543-2019), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with the site constraints and the character of the neighborhood, including buildings fronting Pismo and Broad Streets. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies related to neighborhood enhancement (Policy 2.2.7) because the project is an infill project that contributes positively to the existing neighborhood and surrounding area by efficiently utilizing the easements in place that provides access to the subject property and incorporating design elements and materials from both the adjacent residential development to the east and the historic fire station on the corner of Garden Street and Pismo Street. 3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on September 14, 2020 and found the project consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects because the project is compatible in scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings to the east and south that are two and three story buildings with minimum setbacks from property lines and a minimum amount of vertical articulation. The ARC’s recommended conditions are incorporated into this approval. 4. The project and the requested setback reduction is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies because the area receiving the reduction in setback is minor in nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure and complies with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 4.5.1). The setbacks are consistent with this policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south walls of adjacent properties will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice 5. The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because adjacent properties to the east are three stories in height and the colors and materials proposed are consistent with adjacent structures. 6. As conditioned, the project, inclusive of the requested setback reduction, provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects of noise and privacy on surrounding properties because the existing tall trees along the west property line will be maintained for screening and the project is conditioned to modify the materials and/or design of the east facing roof deck wall providing noise attenuation. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section 15303), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of the construction of one single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit within the Medium-Density Residential zone. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 3 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because the project consists of the construction of one single- family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit within the Office Zone, which allows single- family residential use. SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following 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. Planning 1. A building plan check submittal that is in substantial conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval for ARCH-0543-2019. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials on all elevation drawings of proposed building surfaces and on all other site improvements in substantial conformance to plans and documents provided and presented at the September 14, 2020 Architectural Review Commission hearing. 3. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall include the addition of opaque glass windows or other design feature to the east façade in order to break up the large blank wall, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing modifications to the roof deck walls and eliminate open railing facing Broad Street along the roof deck, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with the building permit application. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 4 locations on plans. All planting shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy. 6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard-style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. Public Works 7. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site plan showing all existing property lines and easements for reference. Easements shall include references to the map or easement recording reference document numbers. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 9. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 10. The utility plan shall show the required separation between the existing water well and any sewer or storm drain piping in accordance with the California Plumbing Code and prevailing regulations. 11. The site and/or utility plan shall show the PG&E Siren and appurtenances for reference. The site plan shall show and label the PG&E easement and the easement recording reference number. 12. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) floodzone. The building shall be constructed of flood resistant materials or floodproofed to a minimum Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 5 height of 3’ (1’ of freeboard), above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard is recommended for building protection and a potential reduction in flood insurance premiums. 13. Floodproofing of the first-floor hallways and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first-floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 14. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 15. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and first-floor hallway and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 16. The grading and drainage plan shall show the proposed site drainage. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements and easements for reference. The submittal shall include any drainage analysis or previously approved drainage analysis for reference. 17. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any trees that could be affected by proposed grading and/or vertical construction. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within a dripline of any tree. A City approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on building plans. Utilities 18. 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. 19. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the location size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. 20. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 6 21. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code. 22. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 23. A trash enclosure capable of storing the required bins for waste, recycling, and organics shall be provided. 24. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid waste material for both the residential and commercial components of the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Indemnification 25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including, but not limited to, environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner Kahn, seconded by Vice-Chair Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kahn, Quincey, Shoresman, Vice-Chair Joregensen, Chair Dandekar NOES: Commissioner Wulkan REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hopkins The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of February 2021. _____________________________ Shawna Scott, Secretary Planning Commission 1 From:Webb, Donre Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:30 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Thank you, will do. From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:16 AM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Yes, they voted twice. The first motion was not carried. The second motion was passed, please use that for the resolution. From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 4:57 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Hey Kyle, I am working on your resolution, and I am trying to make sense of the voting sheet, please see the screenshot below. This is isn’t included in the minutes (yet), so I am reaching out to you. Did they vote twice? Do I use the second one, where Kahn made the motion and Vice-Chair Jorgensen seconded? Thank you! 2 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 12:09 PM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Hi Donre, I am a little late but this resolution is ready for signature. Signature by Shawna. APPL-0607-2020 \\ Thanks KVL 1 From:Webb, Donre Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:04 AM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:PC Reso (1321 Garden) Attachments:Final Resolution 1321 Garden.docx Hi Shawna, The attached reso is ready for your signature. Would you be able to sign digitally? Or you would you like me to place it in your mailbox? (I will be in the office tomorrow morning). Please let me know what works best for you. Thank you! Donré RESOLUTION NO. PC-1034-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY GARY AND CATHERINE MILLER) THEREBY APPROVING A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH AN 800-SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, TWO ATTACHED GARAGES, AND A 590-SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK AT THE CORNER OF THE ROOF DECK WHERE TEN FEET IS THE STANDARD, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2021 (1321 GARDEN STREET, APPL-0607-2020) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on September 14, 2020, recommending approval of the project to the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo based on consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0542-2019, Once Upon a Time LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, on November 20, 2020, approved the above referenced residential infill project; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, as a member of the public, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s November 20, 2020 decision approving the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on February 10, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL- 0607-2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, appellant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal (APPL- Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 2 0607-2020) of the Community Development Director’s decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-00543-2019), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with the site constraints and the character of the neighborhood, including buildings fronting Pismo and Broad Streets. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies related to neighborhood enhancement (Policy 2.2.7) because the project is an infill project that contributes positively to the existing neighborhood and surrounding area by efficiently utilizing the easements in place that provides access to the subject property and incorporating design elements and materials from both the adjacent residential development to the east and the historic fire station on the corner of Garden Street and Pismo Street. 3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on September 14, 2020 and found the project consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects because the project is compatible in scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings to the east and south that are two and three story buildings with minimum setbacks from property lines and a minimum amount of vertical articulation. The ARC’s recommended conditions are incorporated into this approval. 4. The project and the requested setback reduction is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies because the area receiving the reduction in setback is minor in nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure and complies with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 4.5.1). The setbacks are consistent with this policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south walls of adjacent properties will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice 5. The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because adjacent properties to the east are three stories in height and the colors and materials proposed are consistent with adjacent structures. 6. As conditioned, the project, inclusive of the requested setback reduction, provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects of noise and privacy on surrounding properties because the existing tall trees along the west property line will be maintained for screening and the project is conditioned to modify the materials and/or design of the east facing roof deck wall providing noise attenuation. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section 15303), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of the construction of one single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit within the Medium-Density Residential zone. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 3 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because the project consists of the construction of one single- family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit within the Office Zone, which allows single- family residential use. SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following 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. Planning 1. A building plan check submittal that is in substantial conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval for ARCH-0543-2019. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials on all elevation drawings of proposed building surfaces and on all other site improvements in substantial conformance to plans and documents provided and presented at the September 14, 2020 Architectural Review Commission hearing. 3. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall include the addition of opaque glass windows or other design feature to the east façade in order to break up the large blank wall, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing modifications to the roof deck walls and eliminate open railing facing Broad Street along the roof deck, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with the building permit application. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 4 locations on plans. All planting shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy. 6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard-style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. Public Works 7. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site plan showing all existing property lines and easements for reference. Easements shall include references to the map or easement recording reference document numbers. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 9. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 10. The utility plan shall show the required separation between the existing water well and any sewer or storm drain piping in accordance with the California Plumbing Code and prevailing regulations. 11. The site and/or utility plan shall show the PG&E Siren and appurtenances for reference. The site plan shall show and label the PG&E easement and the easement recording reference number. 12. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) floodzone. The building shall be constructed of flood resistant materials or floodproofed to a minimum Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 5 height of 3’ (1’ of freeboard), above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard is recommended for building protection and a potential reduction in flood insurance premiums. 13. Floodproofing of the first-floor hallways and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first-floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 14. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 15. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and first-floor hallway and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 16. The grading and drainage plan shall show the proposed site drainage. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements and easements for reference. The submittal shall include any drainage analysis or previously approved drainage analysis for reference. 17. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any trees that could be affected by proposed grading and/or vertical construction. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within a dripline of any tree. A City approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on building plans. Utilities 18. 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. 19. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the location size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. 20. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 6 21. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code. 22. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 23. A trash enclosure capable of storing the required bins for waste, recycling, and organics shall be provided. 24. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid waste material for both the residential and commercial components of the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Indemnification 25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including, but not limited to, environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner Kahn, seconded by Vice-Chair Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kahn, Quincey, Shoresman, Vice-Chair Joregensen, Chair Dandekar NOES: Commissioner Wulkan REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hopkins The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of February 2021. _____________________________ Shawna Scott, Secretary Planning Commission 1 From:Webb, Donre Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:45 AM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Yes it does, I place documents on my OneDrive, and that seems to work better, but with attachments I have had some luck…perfect, good to go, thank you! From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:40 AM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) That always happens when I work in the G drive remotely. Please see attached with signature, thank you. From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:33 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) I had an error message with the link Kyle sent (happens sometimes when working remote, not sure why) so I saved another version, sorry about that. PDF is attached. Thank you! From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:28 AM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Hi Donré, For some reason I can’t open the attachment (error message about unreadable content). Do you want to try sending a PDF and I will see if I can digitally sign? Thank you, Shawna From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:04 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Hi Shawna, The attached reso is ready for your signature. Would you be able to sign digitally? Or you would you like me to place it in your mailbox? (I will be in the office tomorrow morning). Please let me know what works best for you. Thank you! Donré 2 1 From:Webb, Donre Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:33 AM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Attachments:Final Resolution 1321 Garden.pdf I had an error message with the link Kyle sent (happens sometimes when working remote, not sure why) so I saved another version, sorry about that. PDF is attached. Thank you! From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:28 AM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Hi Donré, For some reason I can’t open the attachment (error message about unreadable content). Do you want to try sending a PDF and I will see if I can digitally sign? Thank you, Shawna From: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:04 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: PC Reso (1321 Garden) Hi Shawna, The attached reso is ready for your signature. Would you be able to sign digitally? Or you would you like me to place it in your mailbox? (I will be in the office tomorrow morning). Please let me know what works best for you. Thank you! Donré RESOLUTION NO. PC-1034-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY GARY AND CATHERINE MILLER) THEREBY APPROVING A NEW THREE-STORY, FIVE-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH AN 800-SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, TWO ATTACHED GARAGES, AND A 590-SQUARE FOOT ROOF DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK AT THE CORNER OF THE ROOF DECK WHERE TEN FEET IS THE STANDARD, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2021 (1321 GARDEN STREET, APPL-0607-2020) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on September 14, 2020, recommending approval of the project to the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo based on consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0542-2019, Once Upon a Time LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, on November 20, 2020, approved the above referenced residential infill project; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, as a member of the public, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s November 20, 2020 decision approving the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference, on February 10, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL- 0607-2020, Gary and Catherine Miller, appellant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal (APPL- Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 2 0607-2020) of the Community Development Director’s decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-00543-2019), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with the site constraints and the character of the neighborhood, including buildings fronting Pismo and Broad Streets. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies related to neighborhood enhancement (Policy 2.2.7) because the project is an infill project that contributes positively to the existing neighborhood and surrounding area by efficiently utilizing the easements in place that provides access to the subject property and incorporating design elements and materials from both the adjacent residential development to the east and the historic fire station on the corner of Garden Street and Pismo Street. 3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on September 14, 2020 and found the project consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to residential infill projects because the project is compatible in scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings to the east and south that are two and three story buildings with minimum setbacks from property lines and a minimum amount of vertical articulation. The ARC’s recommended conditions are incorporated into this approval. 4. The project and the requested setback reduction is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies because the area receiving the reduction in setback is minor in nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure and complies with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 4.5.1). The setbacks are consistent with this policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south walls of adjacent properties will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice 5. The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because adjacent properties to the east are three stories in height and the colors and materials proposed are consistent with adjacent structures. 6. As conditioned, the project, inclusive of the requested setback reduction, provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects of noise and privacy on surrounding properties because the existing tall trees along the west property line will be maintained for screening and the project is conditioned to modify the materials and/or design of the east facing roof deck wall providing noise attenuation. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section 15303), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of the construction of one single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit within the Medium-Density Residential zone. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 3 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because the project consists of the construction of one single- family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit within the Office Zone, which allows single- family residential use. SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following 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. Planning 1. A building plan check submittal that is in substantial conformance with submitted project plans and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval for ARCH-0543-2019. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials on all elevation drawings of proposed building surfaces and on all other site improvements in substantial conformance to plans and documents provided and presented at the September 14, 2020 Architectural Review Commission hearing. 3. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall include the addition of opaque glass windows or other design feature to the east façade in order to break up the large blank wall, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Consistent with the ARC’s motion, plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate noise and overlook reducing modifications to the roof deck walls and eliminate open railing facing Broad Street along the roof deck, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with the building permit application. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 4 locations on plans. All planting shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy. 6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard-style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. Public Works 7. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site plan showing all existing property lines and easements for reference. Easements shall include references to the map or easement recording reference document numbers. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements for reference. The inclusion of previously approved improvement and site development plan sheets noted “as for reference only” may be appropriate. Reference sheets should include reference to the corresponding building permit(s). 9. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether the existing water well will be retained and shall show and note any proposed use. If abandonment is proposed, a permit will be required from County Environmental Health and from the City of San Luis Obispo. If used and developed, the plan shall include all electrical, plumbing, storage systems, etc. for reference. If retained without use, the well shall be secured per City Codes and Standards. If the well is retained, the utility plan shall show the existing or proposed RP backflow prevention for the domestic water services. The well head shall be sealed or extended to 1’ above the BFE in accordance with State Water Resources Regulations regarding protection of the aquifer. 10. The utility plan shall show the required separation between the existing water well and any sewer or storm drain piping in accordance with the California Plumbing Code and prevailing regulations. 11. The site and/or utility plan shall show the PG&E Siren and appurtenances for reference. The site plan shall show and label the PG&E easement and the easement recording reference number. 12. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) floodzone. The building shall be constructed of flood resistant materials or floodproofed to a minimum Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 5 height of 3’ (1’ of freeboard), above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard is recommended for building protection and a potential reduction in flood insurance premiums. 13. Floodproofing of the first-floor hallways and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, is required. Passive flood-resistant construction may be prudent and is recommended for the first-floor areas otherwise provided with “dry” floodproofing. 14. The elevator and elevator equipment shall be shown to comply with the most current FEMA Technical Bulletin. Elevator equipment must be located above the BFE. Protection of the elevator equipment within a “dry” floodproofed shell is not recognized by FEMA. 15. A non-conversion agreement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the garage and first-floor hallway and rooms, identified on plans as “office(s)”, located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 16. The grading and drainage plan shall show the proposed site drainage. The plan shall show all existing and proposed improvements and easements for reference. The submittal shall include any drainage analysis or previously approved drainage analysis for reference. 17. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, including off-site trees that could be affected by the proposed construction. Tree canopies shall be shown to scale for reference. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for any trees that could be affected by proposed grading and/or vertical construction. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within a dripline of any tree. A City approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on building plans. Utilities 18. 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. 19. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the location size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. 20. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. Resolution No. PC-1034-20 1321 Garden Street, APPL-0607-2020 Page 6 21. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code. 22. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 23. A trash enclosure capable of storing the required bins for waste, recycling, and organics shall be provided. 24. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid waste material for both the residential and commercial components of the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Indemnification 25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including, but not limited to, environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner Kahn, seconded by Vice-Chair Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kahn, Quincey, Shoresman, Vice-Chair Joregensen, Chair Dandekar NOES: Commissioner Wulkan REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hopkins The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of February 2021. _____________________________ Shawna Scott, Secretary Planning Commission 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Friday, February 26, 2021 12:09 PM To:Webb, Donre Subject:Final PC resolution - PC meeting 2-10-21 Hi Donre, I am a little late but this resolution is ready for signature. Signature by Shawna. APPL-0607-2020 \\ Thanks KVL 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Monday, February 22, 2021 3:41 PM To:Purrington, Teresa Subject:FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Kevin From: Hileri Shand < Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:34 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 To: City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo Re: Your inquiry of any questions related to the Webinar held on February 10, 2021. Item #3 1321 Garden Street ( APPL-0607-2020). To Any person or additional committees that can help me, As the record will show there was a glitch in my ability to be heard during the meeting. This did not become apparent until it was time to share the concerns I have with a complete wall of windows, nine feet off the ground, looking directly into my home by this proposed building. Every attempt was made to call in and then to type in real time to bring this point to the Planning Commission. As I was typing, the builder said he was disinclined to make any changes and that was the end of that. As the letter I sent is expressed, the deciduous trees between the two property’s offer no protection. I still believe that the loss of privacy is an intrusion that will affect my health and the value of my property and still needs to be reviewed before this is finalized. The only way that I am aware of at this time is to file an appeal. This would be a financial hardship on me. Is there anything that I can do to have a chance to ask for this matter to be looked into? Are there any avenues left that can help with needed changes, so that they can build and I can be protected? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. 2 I have lived in this house for 50 years. First as a part of the Klauke Estate and now owned by me. I have seen many changes to San Luis Obispo’s growth and in that time I have seen many successful compromises managed by the City. Please help me. Sincerely, Edwina Olt Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Codron, Michael Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:39 PM To:Purrington, Teresa; Jorgensen, Markie Cc:Corey, Tyler (tcorey@slocity.org) Subject:RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Thanks, Teresa. I think she was able to get her point across to the Commission and they discussed the issue. I think the best thing would be for the project planner to engage with her to share the plans and explain our limitations in this regard. Hopefully we can avoid an appeal! From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:31 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Hi, Please see email below. This is concerning the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday. I am not sure how you would like to handle this. Teresa From: Hileri Shand < Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:34 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 To: City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo Re: Your inquiry of any questions related to the Webinar held on February 10, 2021. Item #3 1321 Garden Street ( APPL-0607-2020). To Any person or additional committees that can help me, As the record will show there was a glitch in my ability to be heard during the meeting. This did not become apparent until it was time to share the concerns I have with a complete wall of windows, nine feet off the ground, looking directly into my home by this proposed building. Every attempt was made to call in and then to type in real time to bring this point to the Planning Commission. As I was typing, the builder said he was disinclined to make any changes and that was the end of that. As the letter I sent is expressed, the deciduous trees between the two property’s offer no protection. I still believe that the loss of privacy is an intrusion that will affect my health and the value of my property and still needs to be reviewed before this is finalized. The only way 2 that I am aware of at this time is to file an appeal. This would be a financial hardship on me. Is there anything that I can do to have a chance to ask for this matter to be looked into? Are there any avenues left that can help with needed changes, so that they can build and I can be protected? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I have lived in this house for 50 years. First as a part of the Klauke Estate and now owned by me. I have seen many changes to San Luis Obispo’s growth and in that time I have seen many successful compromises managed by the City. Please help me. Sincerely, Edwina Olt Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Purrington, Teresa Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:46 PM To:Codron, Michael; Jorgensen, Markie Cc:Corey, Tyler Subject:RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Ok. Just so all of you know. I have decided to move the Planning Commission to Zoom as of the February 24 th meeting. I will be hosting the meeting with Kevin doing the clerking functions. Hopefully this will make it easier for members of the public to comment . Teresa From: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:39 PM To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Cc: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Thanks, Teresa. I think she was able to get her point across to the Commission and they discussed the issue. I think the best thing would be for the project planner to engage with her to share the plans and explain our limitations in this regard. Hopefully we can avoid an appeal! From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:31 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Hi, Please see email below. This is concerning the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday. I am not sure how you would like to handle this. Teresa From: Hileri Shand < Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:34 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 To: City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo Re: Your inquiry of any questions related to the Webinar held on February 10, 2021. Item #3 1321 Garden Street ( APPL-0607-2020). To Any person or additional committees that can help me, As the record will show there was a glitch in my ability to be heard during the meeting. This did not become apparent until it was time to share the concerns I have with a complete wall of windows, nine feet off the ground, looking directly into my home by this 2 proposed building. Every attempt was made to call in and then to type in real time to bring this point to the Planning Commission. As I was typing, the builder said he was disinclined to make any changes and that was the end of that. As the letter I sent is expressed, the deciduous trees between the two property’s offer no protection. I still believe that the loss of privacy is an intrusion that will affect my health and the value of my property and still needs to be reviewed before this is finalized. The only way that I am aware of at this time is to file an appeal. This would be a financial hardship on me. Is there anything that I can do to have a chance to ask for this matter to be looked into? Are there any avenues left that can help with needed changes, so that they can build and I can be protected? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I have lived in this house for 50 years. First as a part of the Klauke Estate and now owned by me. I have seen many changes to San Luis Obispo’s growth and in that time I have seen many successful compromises managed by the City. Please help me. Sincerely, Edwina Olt Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Purrington, Teresa Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:31 PM To:Codron, Michael; Jorgensen, Markie Subject:FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Hi, Please see email below. This is concerning the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday. I am not sure how you would like to handle this. Teresa From: Hileri Shand < Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:34 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 To: City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo Re: Your inquiry of any questions related to the Webinar held on February 10, 2021. Item #3 1321 Garden Street ( APPL-0607-2020). To Any person or additional committees that can help me, As the record will show there was a glitch in my ability to be heard during the meeting. This did not become apparent until it was time to share the concerns I have with a complete wall of windows, nine feet off the ground, looking directly into my home by this proposed building. Every attempt was made to call in and then to type in real time to bring this point to the Planning Commission. As I was typing, the builder said he was disinclined to make any changes and that was the end of that. As the letter I sent is expressed, the deciduous trees between the two property’s offer no protection. I still believe that the loss of privacy is an intrusion that will affect my health and the value of my property and still needs to be reviewed before this is finalized. The only way that I am aware of at this time is to file an appeal. This would be a financial hardship on me. Is there anything that I can do to have a chance to ask for this matter to be looked into? Are there any avenues left that can help with needed changes, so that they can build and I can be protected? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. 2 I have lived in this house for 50 years. First as a part of the Klauke Estate and now owned by me. I have seen many changes to San Luis Obispo’s growth and in that time I have seen many successful compromises managed by the City. Please help me. Sincerely, Edwina Olt Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Jorgensen, Markie Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:54 PM To:Purrington, Teresa; Codron, Michael Cc:Corey, Tyler Subject:RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Thanks, Markie From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:46 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Cc: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Ok. Just so all of you know. I have decided to move the Planning Commission to Zoom as of the February 24 th meeting. I will be hosting the meeting with Kevin doing the clerking functions. Hopefully this will make it easier for members of the public to comment . Teresa From: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:39 PM To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Cc: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Thanks, Teresa. I think she was able to get her point across to the Commission and they discussed the issue. I think the best thing would be for the project planner to engage with her to share the plans and explain our limitations in this regard. Hopefully we can avoid an appeal! From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:31 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Hi, Please see email below. This is concerning the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday. I am not sure how you would like to handle this. Teresa From: Hileri Shand < Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:34 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 To: City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo 2 Re: Your inquiry of any questions related to the Webinar held on February 10, 2021. Item #3 1321 Garden Street ( APPL-0607-2020). To Any person or additional committees that can help me, As the record will show there was a glitch in my ability to be heard during the meeting. This did not become apparent until it was time to share the concerns I have with a complete wall of windows, nine feet off the ground, looking directly into my home by this proposed building. Every attempt was made to call in and then to type in real time to bring this point to the Planning Commission. As I was typing, the builder said he was disinclined to make any changes and that was the end of that. As the letter I sent is expressed, the deciduous trees between the two property’s offer no protection. I still believe that the loss of privacy is an intrusion that will affect my health and the value of my property and still needs to be reviewed before this is finalized. The only way that I am aware of at this time is to file an appeal. This would be a financial hardship on me. Is there anything that I can do to have a chance to ask for this matter to be looked into? Are there any avenues left that can help with needed changes, so that they can build and I can be protected? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I have lived in this house for 50 years. First as a part of the Klauke Estate and now owned by me. I have seen many changes to San Luis Obispo’s growth and in that time I have seen many successful compromises managed by the City. Please help me. Sincerely, Edwina Olt Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Corey, Tyler Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:45 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Scott, Shawna Subject:FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 HI Kyle, Please see emails below. Not sure of our engagement with the person below but might be worth following up with her on this one. Happy to discuss. Thanks, Tyler From: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:39 PM To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Cc: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Thanks, Teresa. I think she was able to get her point across to the Commission and they discussed the issue. I think the best thing would be for the project planner to engage with her to share the plans and explain our limitations in this regard. Hopefully we can avoid an appeal! From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:31 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Hi, Please see email below. This is concerning the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday. I am not sure how you would like to handle this. Teresa From: Hileri Shand < Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:34 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 To: City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo Re: Your inquiry of any questions related to the Webinar held on February 10, 2021. Item #3 1321 Garden Street ( APPL-0607-2020). To Any person or additional committees that can help me, As the record will show there was a glitch in my ability to be heard during the meeting. This did not become apparent until it was time to share the concerns I have with a complete wall of windows, nine feet off the ground, looking directly into my home by this 2 proposed building. Every attempt was made to call in and then to type in real time to bring this point to the Planning Commission. As I was typing, the builder said he was disinclined to make any changes and that was the end of that. As the letter I sent is expressed, the deciduous trees between the two property’s offer no protection. I still believe that the loss of privacy is an intrusion that will affect my health and the value of my property and still needs to be reviewed before this is finalized. The only way that I am aware of at this time is to file an appeal. This would be a financial hardship on me. Is there anything that I can do to have a chance to ask for this matter to be looked into? Are there any avenues left that can help with needed changes, so that they can build and I can be protected? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I have lived in this house for 50 years. First as a part of the Klauke Estate and now owned by me. I have seen many changes to San Luis Obispo’s growth and in that time I have seen many successful compromises managed by the City. Please help me. Sincerely, Edwina Olt Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 4:19 PM To:Corey, Tyler Cc:Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Hi Tyler, I was in contact with her this morning. Everything is answered for now and they know they can reach out to me if need be. Thanks, KVL From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:45 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 HI Kyle, Please see emails below. Not sure of our engagement with the person below but might be worth following up with her on this one. Happy to discuss. Thanks, Tyler From: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:39 PM To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Cc: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Thanks, Teresa. I think she was able to get her point across to the Commission and they discussed the issue. I think the best thing would be for the project planner to engage with her to share the plans and explain our limitations in this regard. Hopefully we can avoid an appeal! From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:31 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 Hi, Please see email below. This is concerning the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday. I am not sure how you would like to handle this. Teresa From: Hileri Shand < Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:34 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Webinar Febauary 10, 2021 Re: APPL-0607-2020 2 To: City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo Re: Your inquiry of any questions related to the Webinar held on February 10, 2021. Item #3 1321 Garden Street ( APPL-0607-2020). To Any person or additional committees that can help me, As the record will show there was a glitch in my ability to be heard during the meeting. This did not become apparent until it was time to share the concerns I have with a complete wall of windows, nine feet off the ground, looking directly into my home by this proposed building. Every attempt was made to call in and then to type in real time to bring this point to the Planning Commission. As I was typing, the builder said he was disinclined to make any changes and that was the end of that. As the letter I sent is expressed, the deciduous trees between the two property’s offer no protection. I still believe that the loss of privacy is an intrusion that will affect my health and the value of my property and still needs to be reviewed before this is finalized. The only way that I am aware of at this time is to file an appeal. This would be a financial hardship on me. Is there anything that I can do to have a chance to ask for this matter to be looked into? Are there any avenues left that can help with needed changes, so that they can build and I can be protected? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I have lived in this house for 50 years. First as a part of the Klauke Estate and now owned by me. I have seen many changes to San Luis Obispo’s growth and in that time I have seen many successful compromises managed by the City. Please help me. Sincerely, Edwina Olt Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:34 AM To:Wilbanks, Megan; CityClerk Subject:Pick up any project report. Attachments:Script for PC Teleconference Meeting_02-10-2021.pdf Hello, Sorry for this late request. Could I pick up any project plans that might have been delivered to City Hall for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. 1. 862 Aerovista Drive 2. 1321 Garden Street152 Also, can someone print up for me the script for the meeting which I attach (my printer is not printing well!) and the following pages from the packet today. Thank you: Highlighted script form attachedx Pgs. 1-9 25-28 147-158 I can come pick them up at your convenience. Thank you. Hema Hemalata C. Dandekar, Ph.D. Professor. Department of City and Regional Planning College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93407-0283 tel: 805-756-7553. fax: 805-756-1340 Chair, Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:51 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Bell, Kyle Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Pick up any project report. Thank you both for the quick responses! From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:50 AM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Pick up any project report. I’ll bring one over KVL From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:44 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Pick up any project report. Hey Kyles, I don’t see any plans here for Aerovista or Garden Street. Do you have any that I can pass along to Chair Dandekar? Kevin From: Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:34 AM To: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Pick up any project report. Hello, Sorry for this late request. Could I pick up any project plans that might have been delivered to City Hall for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. 1. 862 Aerovista Drive 2. 1321 Garden Street152 Also, can someone print up for me the script for the meeting which I attach (my printer is not printing well!) and the following pages from the packet today. Thank you: Highlighted script form attachedx Pgs. 1-9 25-28 147-158 2 I can come pick them up at your convenience. Thank you. Hema Hemalata C. Dandekar, Ph.D. Professor. Department of City and Regional Planning College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93407-0283 tel: 805-756-7553. fax: 805-756-1340 Chair, Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:44 AM To:Bell, Kyle; Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:CityClerk Subject:FW: Pick up any project report. Attachments:Script for PC Teleconference Meeting_02-10-2021.pdf Hey Kyles, I don’t see any plans here for Aerovista or Garden Street. Do you have any that I can pass along to Chair Dandekar? Kevin From: Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:34 AM To: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Pick up any project report. Hello, Sorry for this late request. Could I pick up any project plans that might have been delivered to City Hall for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. 1. 862 Aerovista Drive 2. 1321 Garden Street152 Also, can someone print up for me the script for the meeting which I attach (my printer is not printing well!) and the following pages from the packet today. Thank you: Highlighted script form attachedx Pgs. 1-9 25-28 147-158 I can come pick them up at your convenience. Thank you. Hema Hemalata C. Dandekar, Ph.D. Professor. Department of City and Regional Planning College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo 2 CA 93407-0283 tel: 805-756-7553. fax: 805-756-1340 Chair, Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:46 AM To:Christian, Kevin; Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Pick up any project report. I do not have any physical copies of the project plans for Aerovista. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:44 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Pick up any project report. Hey Kyles, I don’t see any plans here for Aerovista or Garden Street. Do you have any that I can pass along to Chair Dandekar? Kevin From: Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:34 AM To: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Pick up any project report. Hello, Sorry for this late request. Could I pick up any project plans that might have been delivered to City Hall for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. 1. 862 Aerovista Drive 2. 1321 Garden Street152 Also, can someone print up for me the script for the meeting which I attach (my printer is not printing well!) and the following pages from the packet today. Thank you: Highlighted script form attachedx Pgs. 1-9 25-28 147-158 I can come pick them up at your convenience. Thank you. 2 Hema Hemalata C. Dandekar, Ph.D. Professor. Department of City and Regional Planning College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93407-0283 tel: 805-756-7553. fax: 805-756-1340 Chair, Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:57 AM To:Christian, Kevin; Bell, Kyle Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Pick up any project report. Kevin, Here are the names of possible presenters for item 3 tonight. Appellants: Gary Miller Catherine Miller Applicants: Rob Rossi Keith Hall Thank you, KVL From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:44 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Pick up any project report. Hey Kyles, I don’t see any plans here for Aerovista or Garden Street. Do you have any that I can pass along to Chair Dandekar? Kevin From: Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:34 AM To: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Pick up any project report. Hello, Sorry for this late request. Could I pick up any project plans that might have been delivered to City Hall for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. 1. 862 Aerovista Drive 2. 1321 Garden Street152 Also, can someone print up for me the script for the meeting which I attach (my printer is not printing well!) and the following pages from the packet today. Thank you: Highlighted script form attachedx Pgs. 1-9 2 25-28 147-158 I can come pick them up at your convenience. Thank you. Hema Hemalata C. Dandekar, Ph.D. Professor. Department of City and Regional Planning College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93407-0283 tel: 805-756-7553. fax: 805-756-1340 Chair, Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:59 AM To:Hemalata C. Dandekar; CityClerk Subject:RE: Pick up any project report. I have printed out the items you requested and have a copy of the Garden Street project. No hard copies are available for Aerovista. Kevin From: Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:34 AM To: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Pick up any project report. Hello, Sorry for this late request. Could I pick up any project plans that might have been delivered to City Hall for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. 1. 862 Aerovista Drive 2. 1321 Garden Street152 Also, can someone print up for me the script for the meeting which I attach (my printer is not printing well!) and the following pages from the packet today. Thank you: Highlighted script form attachedx Pgs. 1-9 25-28 147-158 I can come pick them up at your convenience. Thank you. Hema Hemalata C. Dandekar, Ph.D. Professor. Department of City and Regional Planning College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93407-0283 tel: 805-756-7553. fax: 805-756-1340 2 Chair, Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Wilbanks, Megan Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:51 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: Pick up any project report. Hey Kyle, So far, I don’t see those names on the registration list; you may want to remind them to reference the agenda for the webinar link and register ahead of time. From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:57 AM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Pick up any project report. Kevin, Here are the names of possible presenters for item 3 tonight. Appellants: Gary Miller Catherine Miller Applicants: Rob Rossi Keith Hall Thank you, KVL From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:44 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Pick up any project report. Hey Kyles, I don’t see any plans here for Aerovista or Garden Street. Do you have any that I can pass along to Chair Dandekar? Kevin From: Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:34 AM To: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Pick up any project report. Hello, Sorry for this late request. Could I pick up any project plans that might have been delivered to City Hall for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. 2 1. 862 Aerovista Drive 2. 1321 Garden Street152 Also, can someone print up for me the script for the meeting which I attach (my printer is not printing well!) and the following pages from the packet today. Thank you: Highlighted script form attachedx Pgs. 1-9 25-28 147-158 I can come pick them up at your convenience. Thank you. Hema Hemalata C. Dandekar, Ph.D. Professor. Department of City and Regional Planning College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93407-0283 tel: 805-756-7553. fax: 805-756-1340 Chair, Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:10 PM To:Hemalata C. Dandekar Subject:RE: Pick up any project report. I’m here! From: Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:08 PM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Pick up any project report. Hi Kevin, thanks so much! Can I come now to pick up? Hema Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2021, at 11:59 AM, Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> wrote: I have printed out the items you requested and have a copy of the Garden Street project. No hard copies are available for Aerovista. Kevin From: Hemalata C. Dandekar <hdandeka@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:34 AM To: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Pick up any project report. Hello, Sorry for this late request. Could I pick up any project plans that might have been delivered to City Hall for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. 1. 862 Aerovista Drive 2. 1321 Garden Street152 Also, can someone print up for me the script for the meeting which I attach (my printer is not printing well!) and the following pages from the packet today. Thank you: Highlighted script form attachedx Pgs. 1-9 25-28 147-158 I can come pick them up at your convenience. 2 Thank you. Hema Hemalata C. Dandekar, Ph.D. Professor. Department of City and Regional Planning College of Architecture and Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93407-0283 tel: 805-756-7553. fax: 805-756-1340 Chair, Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo, CA 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:03 PM To:Steve Kahn; Wilbanks, Megan; CityClerk Cc:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: Agenda Correspondence for 02/10/2021 PC Meeting I’m working on that now. It’ll be about 20 minutes. Kevin From: Steve Kahn <skahn4@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:02 PM To: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Agenda Correspondence for 02/10/2021 PC Meeting Megan, Please send me a link to tonight’s Planning Commission Meeting. Thanks From: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:58 AM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: Agenda Correspondence for 02/10/2021 PC Meeting Hello, Linked below is Agenda Correspondence for the 02/10/2021 Planning Commission Meeting. Item 3 - 1321 Garden (APPL-0607-2020) Olt Bcc: Planning Commission Group Megan Wilbanks Deputy City Clerk City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mwilbank@slocity.org T 805.781.7103 slocity.org 2 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Steve Kahn < Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:02 PM To:Wilbanks, Megan; CityClerk Cc:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: Agenda Correspondence for 02/10/2021 PC Meeting Megan, Please send me a link to tonight’s Planning Commission Meeting. Thanks From: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:58 AM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: Agenda Correspondence for 02/10/2021 PC Meeting Hello, Linked below is Agenda Correspondence for the 02/10/2021 Planning Commission Meeting. Item 3 - 1321 Garden (APPL-0607-2020) Olt Bcc: Planning Commission Group Megan Wilbanks Deputy City Clerk City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mwilbank@slocity.org T 805.781.7103 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Hileri Shand < Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:56 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Hileri Shand Subject:de nono rewiew of appl-0607-2020 To Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2021 Item Number 3 Subject: de novo review of 1321 Garden Street, File Number: APPL-0607-2020 I have read the report regarding the 1321 Garden Street project and its attached packet. The decision that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare or property values of adjacent properties leaves me with additional questions. The privacy and safety of the properties to the west (Broad Street) are severely impacted by this project. Before this project receives approval please consider the concern items listed below. 1. Property lines are in dispute as presented in this application. No survey has been conducted that actually proves that 1321 Garden Street actually has the amount of land stated for a project of this scope. All four corners need to be established with a current survey. This survey should be required before this project moves forward. The results could change all plans as currently proposed. 2. “Existing trees” will mitigate both the overlook impact and provide screening to adjacent properties. a. The trees mentioned are Chinese Trees from Heaven. These are DECIDUOUS trees, leaving the properties to the west (Broad Street) 2 exposed to this overlarge build as well as no privacy for six months a year. The trees are providing no reduction in the mass of the proposed structures. Open walking deck and extensive windows results in not a reduction of privacy; it is an elimination of it. b. The trees you are planning to use as the only barrier for privacy are an invasive non approved species that do not like their roots disturbed. So any grading, scraping or digging will disrupt their root structure. This can or will result in considerable damages to adjacent properties from instability. What long term requirement will there be in place to protect properties and to require that this project and any subsequent owners be required to maintain and replace trees to provide said “screening”. Without privacy the adjacent property values are reduced creating an undue hardship and reduction to the quality of life. c. Downhill Drainage from this site will flow and pool at the base of the “screening trees” causing rot. 3. Opaque Windows are only mentioned in this report and in the packet to be required on the east façade of the build. Any and all windows facing Broad Street would need to be non-opening and opaque on all buildings proposed to provide any surety of privacy. As well as any doors that are glass or have glass windows would need to be opaque as well. The walking deck siding materials should be opaque as well. Providing zero visibility of people using it to the people in the homes and yards below. 4. Chimney height on the Accessory One Story unit as shown will allow gas and or smoke to permeate the yards, bedrooms and kitchens of properties on Broad Street. These emissions will flow directly into the adjacent homes affecting the quality of life and decreasing the value of the said properties. Please consider eliminating this feature or moving it to the Garden Street side where it can be stabilized using the other building to raise the height of the chimney this would raise the gas or smoke emissions above the surrounding properties. 3 5. Drainage from this build site will flow directly onto the rear of the property, this and will result in the screening trees demise as will as potential flooding.This area is a dedicated flood zone. Any groundwater allowed to drain freely and not collected and removed aggressively will result in flooding and damage to both the "screening trees" and the adjacent property. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my concerns. Respectfully, Edwina Olt To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:52 AM To:Hileri Shand Cc:Wilbanks, Megan Subject:RE: de nono rewiew of appl-0607-2020 Hello Edwina, Thank you for your email. I am sending this email over to the Clerk’s office so that it may be included as official correspondence. Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Hileri Shand < Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:56 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Hileri Shand <shandgrila@gmail.com> Subject: de nono rewiew of appl-0607-2020 To Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2021 Item Number 3 Subject: de novo review of 1321 Garden Street, File Number: APPL-0607-2020 2 I have read the report regarding the 1321 Garden Street project and its attached packet. The decision that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare or property values of adjacent properties leaves me with additional questions. The privacy and safety of the properties to the west (Broad Street) are severely impacted by this project. Before this project receives approval please consider the concern items listed below. 1. Property lines are in dispute as presented in this application. No survey has been conducted that actually proves that 1321 Garden Street actually has the amount of land stated for a project of this scope. All four corners need to be established with a current survey. This survey should be required before this project moves forward. The results could change all plans as currently proposed. 2. “Existing trees” will mitigate both the overlook impact and provide screening to adjacent properties. a. The trees mentioned are Chinese Trees from Heaven. These are DECIDUOUS trees, leaving the properties to the west (Broad Street) exposed to this overlarge build as well as no privacy for six months a year. The trees are providing no reduction in the mass of the proposed structures. Open walking deck and extensive windows results in not a reduction of privacy; it is an elimination of it. b. The trees you are planning to use as the only barrier for privacy are an invasive non approved species that do not like their roots disturbed. So any grading, scraping or digging will disrupt their root structure. This can or will result in considerable damages to adjacent properties from instability. What long term requirement will there be in place to protect properties and to require that this project and any subsequent owners be required to maintain and replace trees to provide said “screening”. Without privacy the adjacent property values are reduced creating an undue hardship and reduction to the quality of life. c. Downhill Drainage from this site will flow and pool at the base of the “screening trees” causing rot. 3 3. Opaque Windows are only mentioned in this report and in the packet to be required on the east façade of the build. Any and all windows facing Broad Street would need to be non-opening and opaque on all buildings proposed to provide any surety of privacy. As well as any doors that are glass or have glass windows would need to be opaque as well. The walking deck siding materials should be opaque as well. Providing zero visibility of people using it to the people in the homes and yards below. 4. Chimney height on the Accessory One Story unit as shown will allow gas and or smoke to permeate the yards, bedrooms and kitchens of properties on Broad Street. These emissions will flow directly into the adjacent homes affecting the quality of life and decreasing the value of the said properties. Please consider eliminating this feature or moving it to the Garden Street side where it can be stabilized using the other building to raise the height of the chimney this would raise the gas or smoke emissions above the surrounding properties. 5. Drainage from this build site will flow directly onto the rear of the property, this and will result in the screening trees demise as will as potential flooding.This area is a dedicated flood zone. Any groundwater allowed to drain freely and not collected and removed aggressively will result in flooding and damage to both the "screening trees" and the adjacent property. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my concerns. Respectfully, Edwina Olt 4 Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 From:Wilbanks, Megan Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:58 AM To:CityClerk Cc:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Shawna Scott (sscott@slocity.org) Subject:Agenda Correspondence for 02/10/2021 PC Meeting Hello, Linked below is Agenda Correspondence for the 02/10/2021 Planning Commission Meeting. Item 3 - 1321 Garden (APPL-0607-2020) Olt Bcc: Planning Commission Group Megan Wilbanks Deputy City Clerk City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mwilbank@slocity.org T 805.781.7103 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:16 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Kyle, Per our phone conversation this morning… 1. I will join the zoom Planning Commission meeting tomorrow at approximately 6:30pm 2. I will sign in with the computer & use the computer mic for audio 3. Here is my cell phone number for you to use as a back up audio connection if there is a problem turning my mic on like there was at the ARC meeting. 805 296 5421 4. I met with Rob Rossi after you & I spoke. Rob, instead of me, will be sending you the files that he wants to have access to at the meeting incase discussion goes in a direction where his comments may be aided by the files he sends. Thanks for you assistance with this meeting, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 9:40 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Hello Keith, The full staff report is now avail able on line: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission If you have any presentation materials for the hearing please email those to me by the end of the day on Tuesday. Thank you, KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:02 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect 2 A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 1:25 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Hello Keith, The staff reports were finalized this morning and are typically uploaded to the website by the end of the day (noon on Thursday at the latest). My staff report is attached. KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:32 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Kyle, Just checking in on… 1. Planning Commission Agenda : Feb 10 mtg does not show online yet. I left a message for Tyler Corey to see when to expect it 2. Staff Report : I am guessing that you are close to releasing the report & I am checking in on what you think your timing will be. Thanks Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 12:35 PM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Thank you Keith, I will look for Rob’s email. Best, KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:16 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Kyle, Per our phone conversation this morning… 1. I will join the zoom Planning Commission meeting tomorrow at approximately 6:30pm 2. I will sign in with the computer & use the computer mic for audio 3. Here is my cell phone number for you to use as a back up audio connection if there is a problem turning my mic on like there was at the ARC meeting. 805 296 5421 4. I met with Rob Rossi after you & I spoke. Rob, instead of me, will be sending you the files that he wants to have access to at the meeting incase discussion goes in a direction where his comments may be aided by the files he sends. Thanks for you assistance with this meeting, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 9:40 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Hello Keith, The full staff report is now avail able on line: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission If you have any presentation materials for the hearing please email those to me by the end of the day on Tuesday. Thank you, 2 KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:02 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 1:25 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Hello Keith, The staff reports were finalized this morning and are typically uploaded to the website by the end of the day (noon on Thursday at the latest). My staff report is attached. KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:32 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Kyle, Just checking in on… 1. Planning Commission Agenda : Feb 10 mtg does not show online yet. I left a message for Tyler Corey to see when to expect it 2. Staff Report : I am guessing that you are close to releasing the report & I am checking in on what you think your timing will be. Thanks Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:gary miller < Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:23 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; gary miller; Catherine Miller Subject:Fw: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 Attachments:Pages from 02102021PCAgendaPacket 1.pdf; Pages from 02102021PCAgendaPacket.pdf Kyle, A couple of other points: See my markup. 1) Figure 1 on page 150 appears to show not just the deck in the set back but also a portion of wall framing for habitable space. This is not an allowable setback exception. 2) Paragraph 2 on page 150 recommended that rail be modified to reduce noise and overlook. When/how is this taken care of? Are the plans going to be modified? Thank you. Gary Miller From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: February 4, 2021 at 9:38:46 AM PST To: gary miller < , catherine miller < Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 Hello Gary and Catherine Miller, The appeal hearing for 1321 Garden Street is still on schedule for this coming Wednesday. The staff report for the appeal is now available online. Linked here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/planning- commission At the hearing, you will be able to make a statement or presentation to the Planning Commission. If you have any slides, pictures or other materials you would like to be displayed, please do email those to me by the end of the day on Tuesday. This will be a e- conference type of hearing, hosted by the City Clerk. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about the hearing or any other aspects of the appeal. 2 Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 Uncovered deckprojection,reference City ofSLO Zoning17.70.170.C.5.bkhA keith hall Architect ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES khall@parallelDesignStudios.com T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 PROJECTIONS INTO HEIGHT/SETBACKVIEW FROM NORTH WESTGarden Green Bldg. 31321 Garden Street, SLO CA 2020-07-27Discretionary exception to thesetback/height requirementsproposed per city zoning17.70.170.D.2.e for anexception of minor natureinvolving an insignificantportion of the total availablesolar exposure.Item 3Packet Page 177 PROJECTIONS INTO HEIGHT/SETBACKVIEW FROM SOUTH WESTGarden Green Bldg. 31321 Garden Street, SLO CA 2020-07-24khA keith hall Architect ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES khall@parallelDesignStudios.com T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 Uncovered deckprojection,reference City ofSLO Zoning17.70.170.C.5.bStair & Elevatorstructures allowed anadditional 10' of height,reference City of SLOZoning 17.70.080.C.2Chimneyprojection,reference City ofSLO Zoning17.70.170.C.5.bItem 3Packet Page 176 1 From:gary miller < Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:27 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; gary miller; Catherine Miller Subject:Fw: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 Kyle, More photos showing how our yard will have total invasion of privacy after the new 4 story building will be 8 feet from our back fence. Gary From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: February 4, 2021 at 9:38:46 AM PST To: gary miller < , catherine miller < Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 Hello Gary and Catherine Miller, The appeal hearing for 1321 Garden Street is still on schedule for this coming Wednesday. The staff report for the appeal is now available online. Linked here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission At the hearing, you will be able to make a statement or presentation to the Planning Commission. If you have any slides, pictures or other materials you would like to be displayed, please do email those to me by the end of the day on Tuesday. This will be a e-conference type of hearing, hosted by the City Clerk. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about the hearing or any other aspects of the appeal. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> 2 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 <Pages from 02102021PCAgendaPacket 1.pdf> <Pages from 02102021PCAgendaPacket.pdf> 1 From:Gary < Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:20 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; gary miller; Catherine Miller Subject:Fwd: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 3 4 Kyle Thanks for the update. I read the report and it has not addressed any of our concerns on noise and invasion of privacy. Here is a photo looking over our yard from a 6 foot height . Imagine now a large deck 30 feet up 8 feet from our back fence . It is a total invasion of our privacy . We will not be able to go into the back yard without the feeling of being in a fishbowl . Also the size of the deck is very large and so when full of people the noise will be an issue. The building also has habitable space in the set back which I believe is not allowed .I will send you a separate email . Also in our opinion the building is ugly with the chimney add ons and not in the Slo character . Please specify how the privacy and sound will be mitigated. I will call you later. Thank you. Gary and catherine Miller Begin forwarded message: From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: February 4, 2021 at 9:38:46 AM PST To: gary miller < , catherine miller < 5 Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10- 21 Hello Gary and Catherine Miller, The appeal hearing for 1321 Garden Street is still on schedule for this coming Wednesday. The staff report for the appeal is now available online. Linked here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory- bodies/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission At the hearing, you will be able to make a statement or presentation to the Planning Commission. If you have any slides, pictures or other materials you would like to be displayed, please do email those to me by the end of the day on Tuesday. This will be a e-conference type of hearing, hosted by the City Clerk. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about the hearing or any other aspects of the appeal. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> 6 <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 <Pages from 02102021PCAgendaPacket 1.pdf> <Pages from 02102021PCAgendaPacket.pdf> 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 12:20 PM To:gary miller; Catherine Miller Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 Hello Gary, You had stated in a previous email that you would be calling later today. Just wanting to make sure that is the case. I should be available by phone between 12:30 and 3, and again after 4. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: gary miller < Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:27 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; gary miller < ; Catherine Miller < Subject: Fw: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 Kyle, More photos showing how our yard will have total invasion of privacy after the new 4 story building will be 8 feet from our back fence. Gary From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: February 4, 2021 at 9:38:46 AM PST To: gary miller < , catherine miller < 2 Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 Hello Gary and Catherine Miller, The appeal hearing for 1321 Garden Street is still on schedule for this coming Wednesday. The staff report for the appeal is now available online. Linked here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/planning- commission At the hearing, you will be able to make a statement or presentation to the Planning Commission. If you have any slides, pictures or other materials you would like to be displayed, please do email those to me by the end of the day on Tuesday. This will be a e-conference type of hearing, hosted by the City Clerk. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about the hearing or any other aspects of the appeal. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 <Pages from 02102021PCAgendaPacket 1.pdf> <Pages from 02102021PCAgendaPacket.pdf> 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 9:40 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Hello Keith, The full staff report is now avail able on line: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission If you have any presentation materials for the hearing please email those to me by the end of the day on Tuesday. Thank you, KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:02 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 1:25 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Hello Keith, The staff reports were finalized this morning and are typically uploaded to the website by the end of the day (noon on Thursday at the latest). My staff report is attached. KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:32 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Kyle, Just checking in on… 1. Planning Commission Agenda : Feb 10 mtg does not show online yet. I left a message for Tyler Corey to see when to expect it 2 2. Staff Report : I am guessing that you are close to releasing the report & I am checking in on what you think your timing will be. Thanks Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 9:39 AM To:gary miller; catherine miller Subject:1321 Garden Street - Appeal Hearing 2-10-21 Hello Gary and Catherine Miller, The appeal hearing for 1321 Garden Street is still on schedule for this coming Wednesday. The staff report for the appeal is now available online. Linked here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory- bodies/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission At the hearing, you will be able to make a statement or presentation to the Planning Commission. If you have any slides, pictures or other materials you would like to be displayed, please do email those to me by the end of the day on Tuesday. This will be a e-conference type of hearing, hosted by the City Clerk. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about the hearing or any other aspects of the appeal. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 11:50 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Thanks, Kyle – looks like there’s just some clean-up items. You can clean up and finalize. From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:34 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: FW: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Final Review for you From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 3:05 PM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: FW: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Tyler, Made edits and additions per Shawna and Markie’s comments. I can address any additional comments form you tomorrow afternoon. Thanks KVL From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 3:01 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Thank you, Kyle. My review is complete, and my comments are straightforward (but let me know if you have questions). Markie has good comments in the document, as well. From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:27 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Good Afternoon, Linked here is the share point folder with the staff report and resolution for your review. 1321 Garden St. Appeal Thank you, 2 Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:25 PM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Attachments:APPL-0607-2020 Draft Staff Report .pdf Hello Keith, The staff reports were finalized this morning and are typically uploaded to the website by the end of the day (noon on Thursday at the latest). My staff report is attached. KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:32 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Kyle, Just checking in on… 1. Planning Commission Agenda : Feb 10 mtg does not show online yet. I left a message for Tyler Corey to see when to expect it 2. Staff Report : I am guessing that you are close to releasing the report & I am checking in on what you think your timing will be. Thanks Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of an appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of a new three- story, five-bedroom, single-family residence, with an 800-square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, two attached garages, and a 590-square foot roof deck. The project includes a request for a reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight-foot setback at the corner of the roof deck where ten feet is the standard. This project was previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, with a recommendation to the Director for approval based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA). PROJECT ADDRESS: 1321 Garden Street BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7091 E-mail: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: APPL-0607-2020 FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal (Attachment 2) and uphold the Community Development Director’s design review approval of the single-family residential infill project in the Office (O) zone. SITE DATA SUMMARY On November 20, 2020, the Community Development Director approved the project as proposed (Attachments 3 & 4, Project Plans & ARCH-0543-2019 approval letter). Prior to the Director’s approval, the project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on September 14, 2020. The ARC recommended the Community Development Director approve the proposed project (4-0-2) (Attachments 5 & 6, ARC Staff Report & Minutes). On November 30, 2020, the decision was appealed by Gary & Catherine Miller, the adjacent property owner (“Appellant”). The letter submitted by the Appellant identifies four main points of concern with the approval of the Appellant Gary & Catherine Miller Applicant Once Upon a Time LP Zoning Office (O) General Plan Office Site Area ~5,826 square feet. Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines § 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) Meeting Date: February 10, 2021 Item Number: 3 APPL-0607-2020 1321 Garden Street Page 2 project (Attachment 2, Appeal Form and Letter). The Appellant’s stated concerns about the project are summarized as follows: 1) The height and position of the proposed structure violates setback standards and violates privacy and sound norms in relation to the adjacent home. Specifically, the roof deck is an invasion of privacy and should be removed from the project, and windows facing the residences to the west should be frosted. 2) The design of the structure does not match the existing structure on Garden Street or the fire station on Pismo Street. 3) The design of the structure appears to support three functions; two separate living spaces and that of office rental., Further stating that the additional “second” staircase is not necessary. The appellant does not believe that the structure will be used by one tenant and the second staircase should be removed. 4) The structure is too large to be located adjacent to single-story homes, especially a structure with a roof deck that looks down on adjacent properties. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW Per Chapter 17.126 of the Zoning Regulations, decisions of the Director shall be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed project, the concerns of the appeal, and provide a final determination of the proposed project; however, the hearing is a de novo review and the Planning Commission is not limited to only acting on the items brought up in the appeal. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s approval of the project. If the Planning Commission denies the appeal and approves the project, the project will have all necessary entitlements needed to move forward for building permits. If the Planning Commission upholds the appeal, the project as it is current proposed is denied. The following report provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project and the appeal. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Setbacks: North South East West 18 feet 9.25 feet (exception) 10 feet 8 feet (exception) 9 feet 10 feet (third floor) 10 feet (no-build easement) 10 feet (third floor) Maximum Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet Max Building Coverage 39% 60% Total # Parking Spaces 5 3 Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) APPL-0607-2020 1321 Garden Street Page 3 Project Description The proposed project is a new three-story single-family residential structure, which includes a 3,732- square foot, five-bedroom home, an 800-square foot accessory dwelling unit, a 590-square foot roof deck, and two garages that would accommodate three vehicles in total. The project is located on a lot with no street frontage and was created through a previously approved common interest subdivision (MS 59-08), which takes access from Garden Street through a recorded easement. The project includes a request for a reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight -foot setback where ten feet is the standard for the upper portion of the structure’s third story walls. The first and second floors are consistent with setback requirements. Site Information and Setting The 5,826-square foot project site is an existing parcel within the Office zone, with access to Garden Street through an access easement. The property is located in the center of the block between Pismo and Pacific Streets and Garden and Broad Streets. The property immediately to the east contains three individually owned airspace condominium units, which share the access easement that serves the subject property. All other adjacent properties consist of residential and office uses, which are all allowed uses within the Office (O) zone. 3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL Staff has provided an analysis below of the points outlined in the Appeal Letter. Privacy Concerns: The appeal states that, “The height and position of the proposed building violates setbacks and violates privacy and sound norms for our house,” and that the proposed roof deck should be removed from the project and any overlooking windows should be frosted. Staff Response: The project does include a request for reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight-foot setback at the third story where ten feet is the standard requirement based on the height of the structure (32 feet). Per Zoning Regulations (§17.70.170 D.2.e.(2)), an exception to the side and rear setback standards can be granted when the exception is minor in nature, involving an insignificant portion of solar exposure. Due to the angle of the eastern and southern lot lines and the positioning of the structure’s walls (not parallel to the lot lines), the requested exception involves only the corners of the structure. This represents an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure (.06% of the third-story roof and roof-deck area is not compliant), with the majority of the building mass consistent with the setback requirement. The applicant has represented the standard setback lines in the provided project plans (Figure 1. & Attachment 3, Project Plans). Notably, the Zoning Regulations allows for uncovered balconies and decks to extend into the required setback up to four feet. (§17.70.170.C.5.b). While this section can be interpreted to allow a portion of the walls and railings around the deck to project into the required setback, the building mass below the roof deck would not be subject to this allowance and must be consistent with standard requirements or receive an exception. APPL-0607-2020 1321 Garden Street Page 4 Figure 1: Standard Setback Lines While the exception to the objective standards for setbacks can be supported given the language in Zoning Regulations (§17.70.170 D.2.e.(2)), this does not imply that the area receiving the exception is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The sections of the CDG that speak to the potential impacts between buildings, including privacy, were specifically highlighted in the ARC staff report (Attachment 5) for consideration by the ARC. The ARC, whose main purview is to review projects for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, unanimously recommended the project for approval by the Community Development Director based on consistency with the CDG. The ARC included in its recommendation a condition for the structure to incorporate noise reducing material to the open railing along the roof deck (Attachment 5, ARC Minutes). The final approval of the project by the Community Development Director took ARC’s recommendation a step further, requiring noise and overlook reducing materials and/or design modifications to the roof deck walls and the open railing along the roof deck (Attachment 3, Director Approval, Condition #4). No other conditions addressing privacy and overlook impacts were recommended by the ARC. Incompatible Design and Size of Structure: The appeal states that, “the design does not match the existing structure on Garden Street or the fire station,” and that, “a four-story building behind single story family homes should not be allowed.” The CDG calls for infill projects to be compatible in scale, siting, detailing and overall character with adjacent buildings1. There is no language calling for the design of new structures to match existing structures. The ARC, whose main purview is to review projects for consistency with the CDG, and who specifically discussed compatibility and size, unanimously recommend the project for approval 1 Community Design Guidelines, 5.3 Infill Development (A.1): Be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. This is crucial when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the neighborhood. When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings. APPL-0607-2020 1321 Garden Street Page 5 by the Community Development Director (Attachment 5, ARC Minutes) based on consistency with the CDG. The proposed structure was found consistent with the CDG and is compatible with the neighborhood in many aspects. The primary materials proposed for the structure are brick veneer and smooth troweled stucco, which are both used as primary material for the structure to the east on Garden Street. While the project’s massing is similar to this adjacent structure and the historic firehouse, which have two- and three-story vertical exterior walls with minimal articulation. Furthermore, the existing tall mature trees along the west property line are proposed to be retained with the project, which will aid in reducing the perceived mass of the new structure when viewed from Broad Street, behind the existing single-story residences. Use of the Structure: The appeal states that, “the design of the building looks more like it will support at least three functions at the same time; office rental, and 2 living spaces.” The appeal further states that there is no need for the second staircase and speculates that the second living space will not be used by the family building the structure. The applicant has included rooms in the project plans (Attachment 2) labeled “office” and has expressed the need for these rooms to be used as offices to support his personal business activities. These spaces can be used by the residents as a home office, either informally or in connection to a Home Occupation permit as allowed per section 17.86.140 of the Zoning Regulations, so long as the business activities do not reduce neighboring residents’ enjoyment of their neighborhood. However, no space in the structure can be rented to other entities as commercial office space. The Zoning Regulations does not specifically recognize “office” as a type of space or room associated with a residential building and instead these spaces must be counted as bedrooms, as they are consistent with the definition of bedroom. Due to this, those spaces have been counted as bedrooms for the purposes of calculating residential density and parking requirements. The proposed structure also includes a second-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) that is 800 square feet and includes a loft bedroom. ADUs are considered accessory uses to Single-Unit Dwellings2, and per City ordinance (Municipal Code, section 17.86.020) and State Law, must be ministerially approved within a proposed residential structure. ADUs are required to have a separate entrance, which is provided by way of the “second” staircase. Accessory Dwelling Units can maintain a connection to the main residence if desired. The proposed ADU is consistent with all applicable City and State standards and requirements. The ADU can be rented separately or used in connection to the main residence. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because it consists of one single-family residence in a zone which permits residential uses. 2 Zoning Regulations, Single-Unit Dwelling Use Definition: A dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one household which is not attached to or located on a lot with commercial uses or other dwelling units, other than an accessory dwelling unit. For the purpose of accounting for housing units pursuant to Chapter 17.144 (Residential Growth Management Regulations), a single -unit dwelling may also include, as an accessory use, one legally established accessory dwelling unit. This definition also includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18551 APPL-0607-2020 1321 Garden Street Page 6 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS All City Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments that are incorporated into the staff report and recommended resolution as conditions of approval. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 6.2 Uphold the appeal, denying the project. The Planning Commission can uphold the appeal and deny the project, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations and policies. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Appeal Form and Letter 3. Project Plans 4. ARCH-0543-2019 approval letter 5. ARC Staff Report 6. ARC Minutes, September 14, 2020 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:02 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 1:25 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Hello Keith, The staff reports were finalized this morning and are typically uploaded to the website by the end of the day (noon on Thursday at the latest). My staff report is attached. KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:32 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Kyle, Just checking in on… 1. Planning Commission Agenda : Feb 10 mtg does not show online yet. I left a message for Tyler Corey to see when to expect it 2. Staff Report : I am guessing that you are close to releasing the report & I am checking in on what you think your timing will be. Thanks Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:32 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden Street - Feb 10 Planning Commission Kyle, Just checking in on… 1. Planning Commission Agenda : Feb 10 mtg does not show online yet. I left a message for Tyler Corey to see when to expect it 2. Staff Report : I am guessing that you are close to releasing the report & I am checking in on what you think your timing will be. Thanks Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 3:05 PM To:Corey, Tyler Subject:FW: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Flag Status:Completed Tyler, Made edits and additions per Shawna and Markie’s comments. I can address any additional comments form you tomorrow afternoon. Thanks KVL From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 3:01 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Thank you, Kyle. My review is complete, and my comments are straightforward (but let me know if you have questions). Markie has good comments in the document, as well. From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:27 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Good Afternoon, Linked here is the share point folder with the staff report and resolution for your review. 1321 Garden St. Appeal Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 2 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Friday, January 29, 2021 3:01 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Jorgensen, Markie Subject:RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Thank you, Kyle. My review is complete, and my comments are straightforward (but let me know if you have questions). Markie has good comments in the document, as well. From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:27 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Good Afternoon, Linked here is the share point folder with the staff report and resolution for your review. 1321 Garden St. Appeal Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:webmaster@slocity.org on behalf of City of San Luis Obispo, CA <webmaster@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:01 AM To:Horn, Matt Subject:City of San Luis Obispo, CA: Planning Commission Public Hearing Planning Commission Public Hearing Post Date: 01/28/2021 9:37 AM The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission will hold a Regular Meeting, Wednesday, February 10, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., via teleconference, on the items listed below. While the City encourages public participation, growing concern about the COVID-19 pandemic has required that public meetings be held via teleconference. Meetings can be viewed on Government Access Channel 20 or streamed live from the City’s YouTube channel at http://youtube.slo.city. Public comment, prior to the start of the meeting, may be submitted in writing via U.S. Mail delivered to the City Clerk’s Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 or by email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Review of a new two-story office development consisting of 35,908 square feet of office space and associated site improvements including parking lots, site access upgrades, landscaping upgrades, the installation of bioretention basins, and minor realignment and enhancements to the unnamed ephemeral drainage that daylights along the north and west property lines. The project also includes a minor use permit request to allow a medical office use with the Business Park zone within the Airport Area Specific Plan. The project includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (CEQA); Project address: 862 Aerovista; Case #: USE-0522-2019, ARCH-0430-2019, EID-0055- 2020; Zone: BP-SP; Quaglino Properties, LLC, owner/applicant. Contact Information: Kyle Bell – (805) 781-7524 – kbell@slocity.org 2. Review of an appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of a new three-story, five-bedroom, single- family residence, with an 800-square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, two attached garages, and a 590-square foot roof deck. Project includes a request for a reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight-foot setback at the corner of the roof deck where ten feet is the standard. This project was previously reviewed by the Architectural Review 2 Commission, with a recommendation to the Director for approval based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA); Project address: 1321 Garden; Case #: APPL-0607-2020; Zones: Office (O); Gary & Catherine Miller, appellant; Once Upon a Time LP, owner/applicant. Contact Information: Kyle Van Leeuwen – (805) 781-7091 – kleeuwen@slocity.org The Planning Commission may also discuss other hearing or business items before or after the item(s) listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all City of San Luis Obispo, CA eNotifications. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:27 PM To:Scott, Shawna; Jorgensen, Markie Subject:FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Good Afternoon, Linked here is the share point folder with the staff report and resolution for your review. 1321 Garden St. Appeal Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Jorgensen, Markie Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:16 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Finished my review. Left a few comments, let me know if you want to discuss. Thanks! From: Jorgensen, Markie Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:37 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Ok, sounds good. Thanks! From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:36 PM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report End of Day Friday. Or even Monday, end of Day if needed. From: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:34 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Thanks, Kyle. When do you need my review by? From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:27 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgensen@slocity.org> Subject: FOR YOUR REVIEW - Planning Commission Staff Report Good Afternoon, Linked here is the share point folder with the staff report and resolution for your review. 1321 Garden St. Appeal Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 2 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:16 AM To:Rob Rossi Cc:Keith Hall; Vickey Farley Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Attachments:PlanningAppealFormmiller.docx Hello Rob, The City did receive an appeal of the Director’s Approval yesterday. The appeal of Director’s approval has been tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on February 10, 2021. Please be aware that this is a tentative date. If room on the agenda becomes available on the January 27th meeting, it will be moved up to this date. If this change of date happens, you will receive notice of this change from me via email no later than the 12 th of January. A copy of the appeal is attached. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 3:39 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Can it be heard sooner if filed, I hate to loose 4 months Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. 2 On Nov 19, 2020, at 12:25 PM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Adjacent to Cal West. From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:54 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Which neighbor Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Keith, The approval letter will be signed today or tomorrow. The neighbor does plan to appeal the approval. This will likely end up in front of the Planning Commission in January or February if appealed. Best, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:48 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> 3 Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Any news? I am meeting with Rob at 10:30 am today and need to be able to give him an update. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:43 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I am following up on our phone conversation from 11/13. I have not received the signed Director’s approval that you were going to send last Friday. Can we get that today? We have some important schedule dates to meet and time is slipping away. Based on the unanimous ARC approval we really should be able to move ahead. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance: High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahead & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09-17) 4 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org 5 T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543-2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:12 AM To:gary miller; catherine miller Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Good Morning, The appeal of Director’s approval has been tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on February 10, 2021. Please be aware that this is a tentative date. If room on the agenda becomes available on the January 27 th meeting, it will be moved up to this date. If this change of date happens, you will receive notice of this change from me via email no later than the 12th of January. I will keep you informed of any other changes or pertinent information as well. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 10:15 AM To: gary miller < ; catherine miller < Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Thank you, I am confirming receipt of payment. Since the request will be assigned to Kyle, he will be able to provide a projected timeline of next steps once he returns to the office tomorrow. Hannah Nguyen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hannahn@slocity.org 2 T 805.781.7576 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: gary miller < Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:57 AM To: Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org>; catherine miller < Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; gary miller < Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Hannah, Thank you. I paid online. Please check. Attached is a cleaned up form. Please let us know what is the next step. We will be in the SLO area for a couple of weeks so could come in (with masks) if that would help. Thank you. Catherine and Gary Miller From: Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:15 PM To: gary miller < ; catherine miller < Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Good morning Gary, 3 I am following up on my voicemail regarding payment for the appeal. When you have a moment, please pay for the request here. Your invoice number is 00023075, and will be for a total of $334.18. Please make payment before of the end of the day, and the request will be processed shortly afterwards. Hannah Nguyen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hannahn@slocity.org T 805.781.7576 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: gary miller < Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 2:15 PM To: catherine miller < ; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org>; gary miller < Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Kyle and Hannah, Please find attached our appeal. We will not be coming in person due to covid concerns. Please call me on so that you can collect the fee over the phone. Thank you Catherine and Gary Miller 4 From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: November 20, 2020 at 4:40:50 PM PST To: gary miller < , Catherine Miller < Cc: "Nguyen, Hannah" <> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Hello Gary, Please find the attached approval letter of the project at 1321 Garden Street. If you would like to pursue an appeal of this approval, the appeal form is also attached. This would be a Tier 3 (non-applicant) appeal, with an appeal fee of $334.18. Due to our office not being open to the public. Your appeal can be filed via email response to this email. I have copied my coworker to this email, in case I am not available. We would need to receive the appeal by 5:00 on November 30th. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Gary and Catherine Name Mailing Address Miller Phone Fax APPEAL FORM Department of Community Development Planning Division In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17, Chapter 17.126 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: Zoning Hearing Officer- Administrative Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) Minor and Moderate Architectural Review (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 2 Applicant Appeal: $954.02 Non-Applicant Appeal: $381.60 Community Development Director (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 3 Applicant Appeal: $334.18 xNon-Applicant Appeal: $334.18 Community Development Director- Minor (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 4 Applicant Appeal: $143.38 Non-Applicant Appeal: $143.38 If an action by the Architectural Review commission, Cultural Heritage Committee or Planning Commission is being appealed, an “Appeal to the City Council” form is needed and can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Fee must accompany original signed appeal form Received by: _____ Date Received Signature of Appellant Date Revised 7-1-20 SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL: The date the decision being appealed was rendered: ___Nov 29, 2020______________________________________ Project address: ___1321 Garden Street Project__________________________Application number: ________________________ ARCH -0543-2019 Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: _____________________________________________________________________________ _We are the owners of 1372 Broad st which is directly adjacent to the proposed project at 1321 broad street. We watched the video of the proceedings and appeal the approval under the following grounds. 1. The properties adjacent on Broad street were continually referred to as offices. This is not the case at all and the 2 closest are lived in by single families. Was this to minimize impact ? 2. The height and position of the proposed building violates set backs and violates privacy and sound norms for our house. Having the 4th story deck is a complete invasion of our privacy and looks straight into our master bedroom and kitchen and completely overlooks our back yard. It will not be possible to not feel overlooked or violated by the ability to look down from the deck. 3. The design does not match the existing structure on garden street or the fire station. 4. The design of the building looks more like it will support at least 3 functions at the same time. Office rental, and 2 living spaces. We do not understand the additional staircase. We do not believe this will simply be used as extra space for the family building it. 5. We would request that the roof deck is eliminated to remove the violation of our privacy, the extra staircase removed. Any windows overlooking our yard be frosted. 6. Having a 4 storey building behind single storey family homes should not be allowed especially in this case where the roof deck is huge and completely overlooks the yards below with just a simple railing. 7. 8. Thank you for your consideration. Due to COVID we only received the post card notification of the virtual meeting after it had taken place. 9. 10. 11. Gary and Catherine Miller Nov 29, 2020 12. _______________________________________________________________________ Chapter 17.126 APPEALS Sections: 17.126.010 Standing to appeal. 17.126.020 Time to file appeal. 17.126.030 Content of appeal filing. 17.126.040 Course of appeals. 17.126.050 Hearings and notice. 17.126.010 Standing to appeal. Any person may appeal a decision of any official body, except that administrative decisions requiring no discretionary judgment, as provided in Chapter 1.20, may not be appealed. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.020 Time to file appeal. Appeals must be filed within ten calendar days of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. If the tenth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the appeal period shall extend to the next business day. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.030 Content of appeal filing. The appeal shall concern a specific action and shall state the grounds for appeal. Applicable fees for the appeal shall be paid as established by council resolution. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.040 Course of appeals. A. Decisions of the director shall be appealed to the planning commission. Such appeals shall be filed with the director. B. Decisions of the planning commission shall be appealed to the council. Such appeals shall be filed with the city clerk. C. The director or city clerk, as applicable, shall have the authority to combine multiple appeal filings for a single public hearing. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.050 Hearings and notice. A. Action on appeals shall be “de novo” review and shall be considered at the same type of hearing and after the same notice that is required for the original decision. B. Once an appeal has been filed, it shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements and scheduled hearings, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1662 and legislation passed through May 7, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.slocity.org City Telephone: (805) 781-7100 Code Publishing Company 1 From:Corey, Tyler Sent:Monday, November 30, 2020 3:53 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Scott, Shawna Subject:FW: APPL-0607-2020 (1321 Garden) - paid and ready for assignment New assignment. I scheduled this appeal for 2/10 but might be able to move it up to 1/27 if something slips. Let me know if we should discuss and forward a preliminary staff report to the attorney’s office early for review. Tyler From: Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:35 PM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: APPL-0607-2020 (1321 Garden) - paid and ready for assignment Hannah Nguyen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hannahn@slocity.org T 805.781.7576 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Nguyen, Hannah Sent:Monday, November 30, 2020 12:35 PM To:Corey, Tyler Subject:APPL-0607-2020 (1321 Garden) - paid and ready for assignment Hannah Nguyen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hannahn@slocity.org T 805.781.7576 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Nguyen, Hannah Sent:Monday, November 30, 2020 9:15 AM To:gary miller; catherine miller Cc:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Good morning Gary, I am following up on my voicemail regarding payment for the appeal. When you have a moment, please pay for the request here. Your invoice number is 00023075, and will be for a total of $334.18. Please make payment before of the end of the day, and the request will be processed shortly afterwards. Hannah Nguyen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hannahn@slocity.org T 805.781.7576 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: gary miller < Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 2:15 PM To: catherine miller < ; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org>; gary miller < Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Kyle and Hannah, Please find attached our appeal. We will not be coming in person due to covid concerns. Please call me on so that you can collect the fee over the phone. 2 Thank you Catherine and Gary Miller From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: November 20, 2020 at 4:40:50 PM PST To: gary miller < , Catherine Miller < Cc: "Nguyen, Hannah" <> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Hello Gary, Please find the attached approval letter of the project at 1321 Garden Street. If you would like to pursue an appeal of this approval, the appeal form is also attached. This would be a Tier 3 (non-applicant) appeal, with an appeal fee of $334.18. Due to our office not being open to the public. Your appeal can be filed via email response to this email. I have copied my coworker to this email, in case I am not available. We would need to receive the appeal by 5:00 on November 30th. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner 1 From:gary miller < Sent:Monday, November 30, 2020 9:57 AM To:Nguyen, Hannah; catherine miller Cc:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; gary miller Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Attachments:PlanningAppealFormmiller.docx Hannah, Thank you. I paid online. Please check. Attached is a cleaned up form. Please let us know what is the next step. We will be in the SLO area for a couple of weeks so could come in (with masks) if that would help. Thank you. Catherine and Gary Miller From: Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:15 PM To: gary miller < ; catherine miller < Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Good morning Gary, I am following up on my voicemail regarding payment for the appeal. When you have a moment, please pay for the request here. Your invoice number is 00023075, and will be for a total of $334.18. 2 Please make payment before of the end of the day, and the request will be processed shortly afterwards. Hannah Nguyen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hannahn@slocity.org T 805.781.7576 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: gary miller < Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 2:15 PM To: catherine miller < ; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org>; gary miller < Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Kyle and Hannah, Please find attached our appeal. We will not be coming in person due to covid concerns. Please call me on so that you can collect the fee over the phone. Thank you Catherine and Gary Miller From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: November 20, 2020 at 4:40:50 PM PST To: gary miller < , Catherine Miller < 3 Cc: "Nguyen, Hannah" <> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Hello Gary, Please find the attached approval letter of the project at 1321 Garden Street. If you would like to pursue an appeal of this approval, the appeal form is also attached. This would be a Tier 3 (non-applicant) appeal, with an appeal fee of $334.18. Due to our office not being open to the public. Your appeal can be filed via email response to this email. I have copied my coworker to this email, in case I am not available. We would need to receive the appeal by 5:00 on November 30th. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Gary and Catherine Name Mailing Address Miller Phone Fax APPEAL FORM Department of Community Development Planning Division In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17, Chapter 17.126 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: Zoning Hearing Officer- Administrative Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) Minor and Moderate Architectural Review (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 2 Applicant Appeal: $954.02 Non-Applicant Appeal: $381.60 Community Development Director (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 3 Applicant Appeal: $334.18 xNon-Applicant Appeal: $334.18 Community Development Director- Minor (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 4 Applicant Appeal: $143.38 Non-Applicant Appeal: $143.38 If an action by the Architectural Review commission, Cultural Heritage Committee or Planning Commission is being appealed, an “Appeal to the City Council” form is needed and can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Fee must accompany original signed appeal form Received by: _____ Date Received Signature of Appellant Date Revised 7-1-20 SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL: The date the decision being appealed was rendered: ___Nov 29, 2020______________________________________ Project address: ___1321 Garden Street Project__________________________Application number: ________________________ ARCH -0543-2019 Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: _____________________________________________________________________________ _We are the owners of 1372 Broad st which is directly adjacent to the proposed project at 1321 broad street. We watched the video of the proceedings and appeal the approval under the following grounds. 1. The properties adjacent on Broad street were continually referred to as offices. This is not the case at all and the 2 closest are lived in by single families. Was this to minimize impact ? 2. The height and position of the proposed building violates set backs and violates privacy and sound norms for our house. Having the 4th story deck is a complete invasion of our privacy and looks straight into our master bedroom and kitchen and completely overlooks our back yard. It will not be possible to not feel overlooked or violated by the ability to look down from the deck. 3. The design does not match the existing structure on garden street or the fire station. 4. The design of the building looks more like it will support at least 3 functions at the same time. Office rental, and 2 living spaces. We do not understand the additional staircase. We do not believe this will simply be used as extra space for the family building it. 5. We would request that the roof deck is eliminated to remove the violation of our privacy, the extra staircase removed. Any windows overlooking our yard be frosted. 6. Having a 4 storey building behind single storey family homes should not be allowed especially in this case where the roof deck is huge and completely overlooks the yards below with just a simple railing. 7. 8. Thank you for your consideration. Due to COVID we only received the post card notification of the virtual meeting after it had taken place. 9. 10. 11. Gary and Catherine Miller Nov 29, 2020 12. _______________________________________________________________________ Chapter 17.126 APPEALS Sections: 17.126.010 Standing to appeal. 17.126.020 Time to file appeal. 17.126.030 Content of appeal filing. 17.126.040 Course of appeals. 17.126.050 Hearings and notice. 17.126.010 Standing to appeal. Any person may appeal a decision of any official body, except that administrative decisions requiring no discretionary judgment, as provided in Chapter 1.20, may not be appealed. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.020 Time to file appeal. Appeals must be filed within ten calendar days of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. If the tenth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the appeal period shall extend to the next business day. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.030 Content of appeal filing. The appeal shall concern a specific action and shall state the grounds for appeal. Applicable fees for the appeal shall be paid as established by council resolution. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.040 Course of appeals. A. Decisions of the director shall be appealed to the planning commission. Such appeals shall be filed with the director. B. Decisions of the planning commission shall be appealed to the council. Such appeals shall be filed with the city clerk. C. The director or city clerk, as applicable, shall have the authority to combine multiple appeal filings for a single public hearing. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.050 Hearings and notice. A. Action on appeals shall be “de novo” review and shall be considered at the same type of hearing and after the same notice that is required for the original decision. B. Once an appeal has been filed, it shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements and scheduled hearings, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1662 and legislation passed through May 7, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.slocity.org City Telephone: (805) 781-7100 Code Publishing Company 1 From:Nguyen, Hannah Sent:Monday, November 30, 2020 10:15 AM To:gary miller; catherine miller Cc:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Thank you, I am confirming receipt of payment. Since the request will be assigned to Kyle, he will be able to provide a projected timeline of next steps once he returns to the office tomorrow. Hannah Nguyen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hannahn@slocity.org T 805.781.7576 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: gary miller < Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:57 AM To: Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org>; catherine miller < Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; gary miller < Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Hannah, Thank you. I paid online. Please check. Attached is a cleaned up form. Please let us know what is the next step. 2 We will be in the SLO area for a couple of weeks so could come in (with masks) if that would help. Thank you. Catherine and Gary Miller From: Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:15 PM To: gary miller < ; catherine miller < Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Good morning Gary, I am following up on my voicemail regarding payment for the appeal. When you have a moment, please pay for the request here. Your invoice number is 00023075, and will be for a total of $334.18. Please make payment before of the end of the day, and the request will be processed shortly afterwards. Hannah Nguyen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hannahn@slocity.org T 805.781.7576 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: gary miller < Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 2:15 PM To: catherine miller < ; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org>; gary miller < Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Kyle and Hannah, 3 Please find attached our appeal. We will not be coming in person due to covid concerns. Please call me on so that you can collect the fee over the phone. Thank you Catherine and Gary Miller From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: November 20, 2020 at 4:40:50 PM PST To: gary miller < , Catherine Miller < Cc: "Nguyen, Hannah" <> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Hello Gary, Please find the attached approval letter of the project at 1321 Garden Street. If you would like to pursue an appeal of this approval, the appeal form is also attached. This would be a Tier 3 (non-applicant) appeal, with an appeal fee of $334.18. Due to our office not being open to the public. Your appeal can be filed via email response to this email. I have copied my coworker to this email, in case I am not available. We would need to receive the appeal by 5:00 on November 30th. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner 1 From:gary miller < Sent:Sunday, November 29, 2020 2:15 PM To:catherine miller; Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Nguyen, Hannah; gary miller Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Attachments:PlanningAppealFormmiller.docx Kyle and Hannah, Please find attached our appeal. We will not be coming in person due to covid concerns. Please call me on so that you can collect the fee over the phone. Thank you Catherine and Gary Miller From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: November 20, 2020 at 4:40:50 PM PST To: gary miller < , Catherine Miller < Cc: "Nguyen, Hannah" <> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Hello Gary, Please find the attached approval letter of the project at 1321 Garden Street. If you would like to pursue an appeal of this approval, the appeal form is also attached. This would be a Tier 3 (non-applicant) appeal, with an appeal fee of $334.18. Due to our office not being open to the public. Your appeal can be filed via email response to this email. I have copied my coworker to this email, in case I am not available. We would need to receive the appeal by 5:00 on November 30th. 2 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner 1 From:Gary < Sent:Sunday, November 29, 2020 2:25 PM To:gary miller; Nguyen, Hannah; catherine miller; Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Kyle and Hannah, If you would like to see a remodel we did which fits in with and enhances classical Slo architecture and culture , please look at what we did to 865 Buchon at considerable expense. Thank you Catherine and Gary Sent from my iPhone On Nov 29, 2020, at 2:14 PM, gary miller < wrote: Kyle and Hannah, Please find attached our appeal. We will not be coming in person due to covid concerns. Please call me on so that you can collect the fee over the phone. Thank you Catherine and Gary Miller From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: November 20, 2020 at 4:40:50 PM PST 2 To: gary miller < , Catherine Miller < Cc: "Nguyen, Hannah" <> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Hello Gary, Please find the attached approval letter of the project at 1321 Garden Street. If you would like to pursue an appeal of this approval, the appeal form is also attached. This would be a Tier 3 (non-applicant) appeal, with an appeal fee of $334.18. Due to our office not being open to the public. Your appeal can be filed via email response to this email. I have copied my coworker to this email, in case I am not available. We would need to receive the appeal by 5:00 on November 30th. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <PlanningAppealFormmiller.docx> SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Gary and Catherine Name Mailing Address Miller Phone Fax APPEAL FORM Department of Community Development Planning Division In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17, Chapter 17.126 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: Zoning Hearing Officer- Administrative Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) Minor and Moderate Architectural Review (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 2 Applicant Appeal: $954.02 Non-Applicant Appeal: $381.60 Community Development Director (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 3 Applicant Appeal: $334.18 xNon-Applicant Appeal: $334.18 Community Development Director- Minor (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 4 Applicant Appeal: $143.38 Non-Applicant Appeal: $143.38 If an action by the Architectural Review commission, Cultural Heritage Committee or Planning Commission is being appealed, an “Appeal to the City Council” form is needed and can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Fee must accompany original signed appeal form Received by: _____ Date Received Signature of Appellant Date Revised 7-1-20 SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL: The date the decision being appealed was rendered: ___Nov 29, 2020______________________________________ Project address: ___1321 Garden Street Project__________________________Application number: ________________________ ARCH -0543-2019 Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: _____________________________________________________________________________ _We are the owners of 1372 Broad st which is directly adjacent to the proposed project at 1321 broad street. We watched the video of the proceedings and appeal the approval under the following grounds. 1. The properties adjacent on Broad street were continually referred to as offices. This is not the case at all and the 2 closest are lived in by single families. Was this to minimize impact ? 2. The height and position of the proposed building violates set backs and violates privacy and sound norms for our house. Having the 4th story deck is a complete invasion of our privacy and looks straight into our master bedroom and kitchen and completely overlooks our back yard. It will not be possible to not feel overlooked or violated by the ability to look down from the deck. 3. The design does not match the existing structure on garden street or the fire station. 4. The design of the building looks more like it will support at least 3 functions at the same time. Office rental, and 2 living spaces. We do not understand the additional staircase. We do not believe this will simply be used as extra space for the family building it. 5. We would request that the roof deck is eliminated to remove the violation of our privacy, the extra staircase removed. Any windows overlooking our yard be frosted. 6. Having a 4 storey building behind single storey family homes should not be allowed especially in this case where the roof deck is huge and completely overlooks the yards below with just a simple railing. 7. 8. Thank you for your consideration. Due to COVID we only received the post card notification of the virtual meeting after it had taken place. 9. 10. 11. Gary and Catherine Miller Nov 29, 2020 12. _______________________________________________________________________ Chapter 17.126 APPEALS Sections: 17.126.010 Standing to appeal. 17.126.020 Time to file appeal. 17.126.030 Content of appeal filing. 17.126.040 Course of appeals. 17.126.050 Hearings and notice. 17.126.010 Standing to appeal. Any person may appeal a decision of any official body, except that administrative decisions requiring no discretionary judgment, as provided in Chapter 1.20, may not be appealed. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.020 Time to file appeal. Appeals must be filed within ten calendar days of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. If the tenth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the appeal period shall extend to the next business day. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.030 Content of appeal filing. The appeal shall concern a specific action and shall state the grounds for appeal. Applicable fees for the appeal shall be paid as established by council resolution. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.040 Course of appeals. A. Decisions of the director shall be appealed to the planning commission. Such appeals shall be filed with the director. B. Decisions of the planning commission shall be appealed to the council. Such appeals shall be filed with the city clerk. C. The director or city clerk, as applicable, shall have the authority to combine multiple appeal filings for a single public hearing. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.050 Hearings and notice. A. Action on appeals shall be “de novo” review and shall be considered at the same type of hearing and after the same notice that is required for the original decision. B. Once an appeal has been filed, it shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements and scheduled hearings, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1662 and legislation passed through May 7, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.slocity.org City Telephone: (805) 781-7100 Code Publishing Company 1 From:Webb, Donre Sent:Wednesday, November 25, 2020 9:59 AM To:Allen Root ( Subject:ARC Follow-up Letter Attachments:ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden St.).pdf Hello Allen, Attached you will find a follow-up letter. Have a wonderful holiday! Thank you, Donré Donré Webb Administrative Assistant III Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E DWebb@slocity.org T 805.781.7577 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Friday, November 20, 2020 4:32 PM To:Rob Rossi Cc:Keith Hall; Vickey Farley Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Attachments:ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Signed Approval Letter.pdf Good Afternoon, Please find the attached approval letter for architectural review. I will keep you informed in any appeal is filed by the 30th. We will know more about the timing after that. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 3:39 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Can it be heard sooner if filed, I hate to loose 4 months Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 12:25 PM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Adjacent to Cal West. 2 From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:54 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Which neighbor Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Keith, The approval letter will be signed today or tomorrow. The neighbor does plan to appeal the approval. This will likely end up in front of the Planning Commission in January or February if appealed. Best, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:48 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, 3 Any news? I am meeting with Rob at 10:30 am today and need to be able to give him an update. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:43 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I am following up on our phone conversation from 11/13. I have not received the signed Director’s approval that you were going to send last Friday. Can we get that today? We have some important schedule dates to meet and time is slipping away. Based on the unanimous ARC approval we really should be able to move ahead. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance: High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahead & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09-17) 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) 4 It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 5 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543-2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Friday, November 20, 2020 4:41 PM To:gary miller; Catherine Miller Cc:Nguyen, Hannah Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Attachments:ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Signed Approval Letter.pdf; PlanningAppealForm.docx Hello Gary, Please find the attached approval letter of the project at 1321 Garden Street. If you would like to pursue an appeal of this approval, the appeal form is also attached. This would be a Tier 3 (non- applicant) appeal, with an appeal fee of $334.18. Due to our office not being open to the public. Your appeal can be filed via email response to this email. I have copied my coworker to this email, in case I am not available. We would need to receive the appeal by 5:00 on November 30 th. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: gary miller < Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:19 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; gary miller < ; Catherine Miller < Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Kyle, Please send me the forms to appeal this. 2 This is a 4 story house that violates height limitations and set backs. We would want the 4th level to be removed. It is a total invasion into our privacy. Also anything facing our back yard we want privacy blocking... Thank you. Gary Miller From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:11 PM To: Subject: 1321 Garden Street Project Hello Gary, Linked below is the staff report and meeting video from the Architectural Review Hearing: Report: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=128601&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Video: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=101866&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk I just checked to see if/when the final approval was signed, and it appears that the approval letter still needs to be signed. This will likely be signed tomorrow. If the project approval is one which you would like to appeal, please let me know I can provide you additional information about that process. The deadline to appeal would be Monday the 23 rd at 5:00 pm. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 3 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Name Mailing Address Phone Fax APPEAL FORM Department of Community Development Planning Division In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17, Chapter 17.126 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: Zoning Hearing Officer- Administrative Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) Minor and Moderate Architectural Review (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 2 Applicant Appeal: $954.02 Non-Applicant Appeal: $381.60 Community Development Director (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 3 Applicant Appeal: $334.18 Non-Applicant Appeal: $334.18 Community Development Director- Minor (appealed to the Planning Commission) Tier 4 Applicant Appeal: $143.38 Non-Applicant Appeal: $143.38 If an action by the Architectural Review commission, Cultural Heritage Committee or Planning Commission is being appealed, an “Appeal to the City Council” form is needed and can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Fee must accompany original signed appeal form Received by: _____ Date Received Signature of Appellant Date Revised 7-1-20 SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL: The date the decision being appealed was rendered: _________________________________________ Project address: _____________________________Application number: ________________________ Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 17.126 APPEALS Sections: 17.126.010 Standing to appeal. 17.126.020 Time to file appeal. 17.126.030 Content of appeal filing. 17.126.040 Course of appeals. 17.126.050 Hearings and notice. 17.126.010 Standing to appeal. Any person may appeal a decision of any official body, except that administrative decisions requiring no discretionary judgment, as provided in Chapter 1.20, may not be appealed. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.020 Time to file appeal. Appeals must be filed within ten calendar days of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. If the tenth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the appeal period shall extend to the next business day. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.030 Content of appeal filing. The appeal shall concern a specific action and shall state the grounds for appeal. Applicable fees for the appeal shall be paid as established by council resolution. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.040 Course of appeals. A. Decisions of the director shall be appealed to the planning commission. Such appeals shall be filed with the director. B. Decisions of the planning commission shall be appealed to the council. Such appeals shall be filed with the city clerk. C. The director or city clerk, as applicable, shall have the authority to combine multiple appeal filings for a single public hearing. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) 17.126.050 Hearings and notice. A. Action on appeals shall be “de novo” review and shall be considered at the same type of hearing and after the same notice that is required for the original decision. B. Once an appeal has been filed, it shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements and scheduled hearings, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018) The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1662 and legislation passed through May 7, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.slocity.org City Telephone: (805) 781-7100 Code Publishing Company 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Friday, November 20, 2020 4:44 PM To:Keith Hall; 'Rob Rossi' Cc:'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, Yes, the invoice will come with the “official” mailed approval letter. Have a great weekend, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 4:47 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Thank you for sending the Director’s Approval letter. I did not see the invoice for the completion fee that is referenced in the letter. Will you send that separately? Regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 4:32 PM To: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> 2 Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Good Afternoon, Please find the attached approval letter for architectural review. I will keep you informed in any appeal is filed by the 30th. We will know more about the timing after that. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 3:39 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Can it be heard sooner if filed, I hate to loose 4 months Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 12:25 PM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Adjacent to Cal West. From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:54 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Which neighbor 3 Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Keith, The approval letter will be signed today or tomorrow. The neighbor does plan to appeal the approval. This will likely end up in front of the Planning Commission in January or February if appealed. Best, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:48 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Any news? I am meeting with Rob at 10:30 am today and need to be able to give him an update. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 4 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:43 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I am following up on our phone conversation from 11/13. I have not received the signed Director’s approval that you were going to send last Friday. Can we get that today? We have some important schedule dates to meet and time is slipping away. Based on the unanimous ARC approval we really should be able to move ahead. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance: High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahead & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09-17) 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 5 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543-2019)? 6 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, November 19, 2020 12:32 PM To:Gary; Catherine Miller Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Project Hello Gary, Just wanted to keep you updated. The approval letter still has yet to be signed, so the 10 day appeal period has not started. I will send you a copy of the approval once signed (likely tomorrow). Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Gary < Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:07 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Gary < ; Catherine Miller < Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Project Kyle, Thank you. We will appeal. This is not a 3 storey structure . It is 4 storey. The deck will look straight in the master bedroom at the back of our home and ruin all privacy in our back yard. Please let me know how we appeal . Thank you. 2 Gary Sent from my iPhone On Nov 12, 2020, at 2:11 PM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Gary, Linked below is the staff report and meeting video from the Architectural Review Hearing: Report: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=128601&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Video: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=101866&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk I just checked to see if/when the final approval was signed, and it appears that the approval letter still needs to be signed. This will likely be signed tomorrow. If the project approval is one which you would like to appeal, please let me know I can provide you additional information about that process. The deadline to appeal would be Monday the 23rd at 5:00 pm. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, November 19, 2020 12:26 PM To:Rob Rossi Cc:Keith Hall; Vickey Farley Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Adjacent to Cal West. From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:54 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Which neighbor Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Keith, The approval letter will be signed today or tomorrow. The neighbor does plan to appeal the approval. This will likely end up in front of the Planning Commission in January or February if appealed. Best, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 2 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:48 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Any news? I am meeting with Rob at 10:30 am today and need to be able to give him an update. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:43 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I am following up on our phone conversation from 11/13. I have not received the signed Director’s approval that you were going to send last Friday. Can we get that today? We have some important schedule dates to meet and time is slipping away. Based on the unanimous ARC approval we really should be able to move ahead. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance: High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahead & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 3 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09- 17) 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org 4 T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543-2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent:Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:54 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Keith Hall; Vickey Farley Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street Which neighbor Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Keith, The approval letter will be signed today or tomorrow. The neighbor does plan to appeal the approval. This will likely end up in front of the Planning Commission in January or February if appealed. Best, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:48 AM 2 To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Any news? I am meeting with Rob at 10:30 am today and need to be able to give him an update. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:43 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I am following up on our phone conversation from 11/13. I have not received the signed Director’s approval that you were going to send last Friday. Can we get that today? We have some important schedule dates to meet and time is slipping away. Based on the unanimous ARC approval we really should be able to move ahead. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance: High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahead & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09- 17) 3 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 4 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543-2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent:Thursday, November 19, 2020 3:39 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Keith Hall; Vickey Farley Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street Can it be heard sooner if filed, I hate to loose 4 months Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 12:25 PM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Adjacent to Cal West. From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:54 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Re: 1321 Garden Street Which neighbor Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Keith, The approval letter will be signed today or tomorrow. The neighbor does plan to appeal the approval. This will likely end up in front of the Planning Commission in January or February if appealed. Best, 2 Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:48 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Any news? I am meeting with Rob at 10:30 am today and need to be able to give him an update. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:43 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I am following up on our phone conversation from 11/13. I have not received the signed Director’s approval that you were going to send last Friday. Can we get that today? We have some important schedule dates to meet and time is slipping away. Based on the unanimous ARC approval we really should be able to move ahead. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S 3 k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance: High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahead & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09-17) 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street 4 Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543-2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:48 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:'Rob Rossi'; 'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Any news? I am meeting with Rob at 10:30 am today and need to be able to give him an update. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:43 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I am following up on our phone conversation from 11/13. I have not received the signed Director’s approval that you were going to send last Friday. Can we get that today? We have some important schedule dates to meet and time is slipping away. Based on the unanimous ARC approval we really should be able to move ahead. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance: High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, 2 We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahe ad & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09-17) 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner 3 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543- 2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:43 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:'Rob Rossi'; 'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I am following up on our phone conversation from 11/13. I have not received the signed Director’s approval that you were going to send last Friday. Can we get that today? We have some important schedule dates to meet and time is slipping away. Based on the unanimous ARC approval we really should be able to move ahead. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance: High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahe ad & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09-17) 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 2 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543- 2019)? 3 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:gary miller < Sent:Monday, November 16, 2020 12:19 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; gary miller; Catherine Miller Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street Project - Appeal process Kyle, Please send me the forms to appeal this. This is a 4 story house that violates height limitations and set backs. We would want the 4th level to be removed. It is a total invasion into our privacy. Also anything facing our back yard we want privacy blocking... Thank you. Gary Miller From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:11 PM To: Subject: 1321 Garden Street Project Hello Gary, Linked below is the staff report and meeting video from the Architectural Review Hearing: Report: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=128601&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Video: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=101866&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk 2 I just checked to see if/when the final approval was signed, and it appears that the approval letter still needs to be signed. This will likely be signed tomorrow. If the project approval is one which you would like to appeal, please let me know I can provide you additional information about that process. The deadline to appeal would be Monday the 23 rd at 5:00 pm. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:John Tricamo <john@tricamo.us> Sent:Friday, November 13, 2020 5:58 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Fwd: 1321 Garden Street Project Kyle, Let me know if you have a minute to chat about this today. Gary and Catherine are clients of mine. Thanks, To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.photo John Tricamo Tricamo Construction Office: 805.322.4411 Direct: 805.534.4004 www.tricamo.us ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gary < Date: Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 4:39 PM Subject: Fwd: 1321 Garden Street Project To: John Tricamo <john@tricamo.us>, Catherine Miller < Thoughts Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Van Leeuwen, Kyle" <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Date: November 12, 2020 at 2:11:18 PM PST To: Subject: 1321 Garden Street Project Hello Gary, Linked below is the staff report and meeting video from the Architectural Review Hearing: Report: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=128601&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk 2 Video: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=101866&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk I just checked to see if/when the final approval was signed, and it appears that the approval letter still needs to be signed. This will likely be signed tomorrow. If the project approval is one which you would like to appeal, please let me know I can provide you additional information about that process. The deadline to appeal would be Monday the 23rd at 5:00 pm. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Friday, November 13, 2020 9:50 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:'Rob Rossi'; 'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Importance:High Project Reference SLO Planning File # ARCH-0543-2019 APN 003 524 017 Kyle, We still have not received any confirmation of the Director’s approval for the referenced project. We are anxious to move ahe ad & need to have the approval in place. After looking at the timeline we are hopeful that approval can be confirmed some time in the next few days. 1. ARC approval 2020-09-14 2. Original anticipated date range for Director’s approval 2020-10-12 to 16 (per your email on 09-17) 3. Last revised estimated date for Director’s approval 2020-10-23 (per your email on 10-20) It seems that the City has been very close to wrapping up this stage for some time. Can you let us know when you expect to issue the approval notice? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street 2 Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543- 2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, November 12, 2020 2:11 PM To: Subject:1321 Garden Street Project Hello Gary, Linked below is the staff report and meeting video from the Architectural Review Hearing: Report: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=128601&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Video: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=101866&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk I just checked to see if/when the final approval was signed, and it appears that the approval letter still needs to be signed. This will likely be signed tomorrow. If the project approval is one which you would like to appeal, please let me know I can provide you additional information about that process. The deadline to appeal would be Monday the 23 rd at 5:00 pm. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Gary < Sent:Thursday, November 12, 2020 4:07 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Gary; Catherine Miller Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street Project Flag Status:Completed Kyle, Thank you. We will appeal. This is not a 3 storey structure . It is 4 storey. The deck will look straight in the master bedroom at the back of our home and ruin all privacy in our back yard. Please let me know how we appeal . Thank you. Gary Sent from my iPhone On Nov 12, 2020, at 2:11 PM, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Gary, Linked below is the staff report and meeting video from the Architectural Review Hearing: Report: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=128601&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Video: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=101866&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk I just checked to see if/when the final approval was signed, and it appears that the approval letter still needs to be signed. This will likely be signed tomorrow. If the project approval is one which you would like to appeal, please let me know I can provide you additional information about that process. The deadline to appeal would be Monday the 23rd at 5:00 pm. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 2 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Webb, Donre Sent:Monday, November 9, 2020 9:59 AM To:Corey, Tyler Subject:FW: For Tyler's Signature -ARCH-0543-2019 Letter is ready for you signature. Thank you! From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:41 PM To: Webb, Donre <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: For Tyler's Signature -ARCH-0543-2019 \\ Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:23 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Re: FOR YOUR REVIEW - 1321 Garden Street Thanks, Kyle, that's fine. The "considerations" leave a lot of room for our discretion. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:02:00 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - 1321 Garden Street Thanks Shawna, I don’t think they wanted to change the chimney. And if I recall the ARC was pretty split about this being necessary. I’ll check in with the applicant, but I will probably just drop that condition. I did not find the chimney to be an issue or inconsistent with CDGS. KVL From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 2:56 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - 1321 Garden Street Thank you, Kyle, please see attached with comment/minor edits. When ARC moves to have an applicant “consider” a change, it’s not a condition, but they have an opportunity to consider, and submit revisions, or show why the change would or would not be more consistent with the CDG. Are there options the applicant/architect have been considering, are they willing to change the design or type of the chimney? An alternative, as the Director can add/modify conditions is to re-work the condition, you can revise the condition to require the applicant to submit some options for the Director’s review and approval upon submittal of building permits. From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 1:48 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: FOR YOUR REVIEW - 1321 Garden Street Hello Shawna, I hope you are having a nice time in the mountains. Sorry to not get this to you last week. Thanks, KVL 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:41 PM To:Webb, Donre Subject:For Tyler's Signature -ARCH-0543-2019 \\ Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 4:47 PM To:Hannula, Hal Cc:Avila, Richard Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street - ARCH-0543-2019 Thanks Hal! From: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 4:43 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Avila, Richard <RAvila@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street - ARCH-0543-2019 Hi Kyle, Sorry again about the delay. I had locked as ready for action about an hour ago and just added one additional condition that I forgot to include …. interruptions as they are সহ঺঻. So much room for errors and over-sights. All really code requirements anyway but just need to make sure that we don’t miss some unique point during our building plan review. Please have Rob Rossi or Keith Hall just call me directly if they have questions or need any clarifications on my items. Thanks, Hal From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 2:56 PM To: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Cc: Avila, Richard <RAvila@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street - ARCH-0543-2019 Hal, Looking to wrap this approval up on Monday Thanks Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, October 22, 2020 2:56 PM To:Hannula, Hal Cc:Avila, Richard Subject:1321 Garden Street - ARCH-0543-2019 Hal, Looking to wrap this approval up on Monday Thanks Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 1 From:Hannula, Hal Sent:Thursday, October 22, 2020 3:41 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Avila, Richard Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street - ARCH-0543-2019 will do. i completed a quick follow-up site inspection yesterday and have the plans on my desk. I will be able to complete monday morning. I will set myself an appointment right now if not already on my calendar. thanks, Hal Hal Hannula Supervising Civil Engineer To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhannula@slocity.org T 805.781.7201 C 805.431.0083 slocity.org From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 2:55 PM To: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Cc: Avila, Richard <RAvila@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street - ARCH-0543-2019 Hal, Looking to wrap this approval up on Monday Thanks Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden Street Flag Status:Flagged Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543- 2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:44 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I am waiting on Engineering to wrap up their conditions. Expect that soon and hope to have the approval letter done before the end of the week. No public comment was received on for the final action. I don’t need anything additional form you at this time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I hope that you & your family are well & that you enjoyed having some time away from work with them. 2 Coming back to work topics…Can you update me on the status of the Director’s Approval for 1321 Garden Street( ARCH-0543- 2019)? 1. We had hoped to have approval the week of the 12th but understood that it could be later. Is the Director on track to approve this project this week? 2. Has there been any comment from the public? a. If so can you let us know what it is? 3. I checked on line but did not find any new information. a. Correspondence : I didn’t find any public comment related to our project. b. Minutes for 2020-09-14 : don’t appear to be out c. Action : I didn’t see anything relative to our project 4. Please email me or call my cell # 805 296 5421 to pass on to me whatever you know about the project at this time. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:19 AM To:Cox, Rebecca Subject:RE: Garden Details It’s kind of a bummer. Those townhouses are really nice and then it’s going to be a box crammed with stuff behind it. not into it. From: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:15 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Garden Details Right?? Reading it again I’m still confused how it will all fit in that space From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:13 AM To: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Garden Details What the what. So a three story rectangle with a two car garage that has an apartment on top? From: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 7:45 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Garden Details Good Morning! Details on the place proposed for that spot on Garden, massive! Director’s review of a new three-story, five-bedroom, single-family residence, with an 800-square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, two attached garages, and a 590- square foot roof deck. Project includes a request for a reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight-foot setback at the corner of the roof deck where ten feet is the standard. This project was found consistent with the Community Design Guidelines by the Architectural Review Commission. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review Address of Application: 1321 Garden St (ARCH-0543-2019). Rebecca Cox Supervising Administrative Assistant Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcox@slocity.org T 805.781.7171 slocity.org 1 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:13 AM To:Cox, Rebecca Subject:RE: Garden Details What the what. So a three story rectangle with a two car garage that has an apartment on top? From: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 7:45 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Garden Details Good Morning! Details on the place proposed for that spot on Garden, massive! Director’s review of a new three-story, five-bedroom, single-family residence, with an 800-square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, two attached garages, and a 590- square foot roof deck. Project includes a request for a reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight-foot setback at the corner of the roof deck where ten feet is the standard. This project was found consistent with the Community Design Guidelines by the Architectural Review Commission. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review Address of Application: 1321 Garden St (ARCH-0543-2019). Rebecca Cox Supervising Administrative Assistant Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcox@slocity.org T 805.781.7171 slocity.org 1 From:Cox, Rebecca Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 7:45 AM To:Wallace, Christine Subject:Garden Details Good Morning! Details on the place proposed for that spot on Garden, massive! Director’s review of a new three-story, five-bedroom, single-family residence, with an 800-square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, two attached garages, and a 590- square foot roof deck. Project includes a request for a reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight-foot setback at the corner of the roof deck where ten feet is the standard. This project was found consistent with the Community Design Guidelines by the Architectural Review Commission. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review Address of Application: 1321 Garden St (ARCH-0543-2019). Rebecca Cox Supervising Administrative Assistant Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcox@slocity.org T 805.781.7171 slocity.org 1 From:webmaster@slocity.org on behalf of City of San Luis Obispo, CA <webmaster@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:31 PM To:Webb, Donre Subject:City of San Luis Obispo, CA: Administrative Actions Administrative Actions Post Date: 10/01/2020 12:30 PM Applications to make minor changes to the properties at the addresses listed below have been received by the City. 1. 5. 1321 Garden St. ARCH-0543-2019; Director’s review of a new three-story, five-bedroom, single-family residence, with an 800-square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, two attached garages, and a 590- square foot roof deck. Project includes a request for a reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight-foot setback at the corner of the roof deck where ten feet is the standard. This project was found consistent with the Community Design Guidelines by the Architectural Review Commission. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review ; O zone; Once Upon a Time LP, applicant.(Kyle Van Leeuwen) The Community Development Director will either approve or deny these applications no sooner than October 12, 2020. 2 The Director's decision may be appealed, and must be filed with the appropriate appeal fee within 10 days of the Director's action. For more information, contact the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, by calling (805) 781-7170, weekdays, 8 a.m. - 3 p.m. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all City of San Luis Obispo, CA eNotifications. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Thursday, September 17, 2020 12:33 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:'Rob Rossi'; 'Steve Rossi'; 'Vickey Farley'; mcampbell@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Flag Status:Completed Kyle, Thanks for the response. We look forward to the formal approval. For Rob’s benefit I have provided an outline of the steps for Director’s approval and some notes about the ARC approval… 1. Director’s Approval a. This will be an action taken by the Director without the requirement for a hearing. b. Oct 12th is the earliest that the Director can take action due to required noticing timelines, etc. i. Action is expected to happen sometime in the week of the 12 th. c. Steps to occur prior to Director’s approval i. ARC minutes to be adopted. ii. Kyle to prepare a staff report on the ARC approval & recommendations iii. Kyle’s supervisor, Tyler Corey, will review the staff report before it is sent to Community Dev. Director Michael Codron 2. ARC Conditions a. Both conditions were listed as recommendations for the applicant to consider. i. Both seem straight forward enough that approval should be able to occur without any additional submittal at this time. Staff will consider the conditions when the Construction Permit review occurs. b. East Facade : Recommendation to add fenestration w/opaque glazing i. khA heard Micah Smith make note that 1. this recommendation was made in the context of what areas of the east façade will be visible from public spaces. 2. He did not want to disrupt any agreements already made with the adjacent property owner. ii. The rendering that Micah referenced in respect to what is visible from the street is actually taken from the private courtyard of the old Fire Station. khA does not believe that the east façade will be that visible from Garden Street. 1. Kyle will review the ARC minutes & will include wording in the condition that links the recommendation to areas on the east façade that are visible from public spaces. 3. Schedule a. Kyle will be leaving on paternal leave but expects to be back for October 12 th. Kyle, we wish you a joyful time with your family over the next few weeks and thank you for your help in getting this project moved ahead. Best regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 2 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:22 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Good Morning Keith, Glad to have a positive ARC review on Monday and we will move forward with the approval. I have put this item on the schedule to be approved the week of October 12. I will keep you updated of anything pertinent comes up before then. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 1:13 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, With the ARC meeting having concluded with a unanimous vote for recommending approval what is the timeline for action by the Community Development Director? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:22 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Good Morning Keith, Glad to have a positive ARC review on Monday and we will move forward with the approval. I have put this item on the schedule to be approved the week of October 12. I will keep you updated of anything pertinent comes up before then. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 1:13 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, With the ARC meeting having concluded with a unanimous vote for recommending approval what is the timeline for action by the Community Development Director? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent:Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:16 PM To:Keith Hall Cc:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Steve Rossi; Vickey Farley; mcampbell@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject:Re: 1321 Garden Street Thanks Kyle, Congratulations on your upcoming new arrival, there’s nothing better All the best Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Sep 17, 2020, at 5:13 PM, Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> wrote: Kyle, Thanks for the edits. Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 3:01 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Steve Rossi' <steve@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi- ent.com>; mcampbell@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I have copied your breakdown below with some edits. 1. Director’s Approval a. This will be an action taken by the Director without the requirement for a hearing. b. Oct 12th is the earliest that the Director can take action due to required noticing timelines, etc. i. Action is expected to happen sometime in the week of the 12 th. c. Steps to occur prior to Director’s approval 2 i. ARC minutes to be adopted (if not adopted by the week of the 12th, approval language will be based on review of meeting video and the drafted minutes). ii. Kyle to prepare an approval letter which will incorporate ARC recommendations iii. Kyle’s supervisor will review the approval letter before it is sent to Tyler Corey, Principal Planner, who is delegated to sign the approval letter for Community Dev. Director Michael Codron 2. ARC Conditions a. Both conditions were listed as recommendations for the applicant to consider. i. Both seem straight forward enough that approval should be able to occur without any additional submittal at this time. Staff will consider the conditions when the Construction Permit review occurs. b. East Facade : Recommendation to add fenestration w/opaque glazing i. khA heard Micah Smith make note that 1. this recommendation was primarily made in the context of what areas of the east façade will be visible from public spaces. 2. He did not want to disrupt any agreements already made with the adjacent property owner. ii. The rendering that Micah referenced in respect to what is visible from the street is actually taken from the private courtyard of the old Fire Station. khA does not believe that the east façade will be that visible from Garden Street. 1. Kyle will review the ARC minutes & will include wording in the condition that links the recommendation to areas on the east façade that are visible from public spaces. Overall condition language will reflect the intent of the ARC recommendation. 3. Schedule a. Kyle will be leaving on paternal leave but expects to be back for October 12 th. Pleased to have the ARC on board with the project overall. Thank you to all who participated in the hearing, as this definitely aided in moving the project along. Best, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 12:33 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Steve Rossi' <steve@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi- ent.com>; mcampbell@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Thanks for the response. We look forward to the formal approval. For Rob’s benefit I have provided an outline of the steps for Director’s approval and some notes about the ARC approval… 3 1. Director’s Approval a. This will be an action taken by the Director without the requirement for a hearing. b. Oct 12th is the earliest that the Director can take action due to required noticing timelines, etc. i. Action is expected to happen sometime in the week of the 12 th. c. Steps to occur prior to Director’s approval i. ARC minutes to be adopted. ii. Kyle to prepare a staff report on the ARC approval & recommendations iii. Kyle’s supervisor, Tyler Corey, will review the staff report before it is sent to Community Dev. Director Michael Codron 2. ARC Conditions a. Both conditions were listed as recommendations for the applicant to consider. i. Both seem straight forward enough that approval should be able to occur without any additional submittal at this time. Staff will consider the conditions when the Construction Permit review occurs. b. East Facade : Recommendation to add fenestration w/opaque glazing i. khA heard Micah Smith make note that 1. this recommendation was made in the context of what areas of the east façade will be visible from public spaces. 2. He did not want to disrupt any agreements already made with the adjacent property owner. ii. The rendering that Micah referenced in respect to what is visible from the street is actually taken from the private courtyard of the old Fire Station. khA does not believe that the east façade will be that visible from Garden Street. 1. Kyle will review the ARC minutes & will include wording in the condition that links the recommendation to areas on the east façade that are visible from public spaces. 3. Schedule a. Kyle will be leaving on paternal leave but expects to be back for October 12 th. Kyle, we wish you a joyful time with your family over the next few weeks and thank you for your help in getting this project moved ahead. Best regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:22 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Good Morning Keith, Glad to have a positive ARC review on Monday and we will move forward with the approval. I have put this item on the schedule to be approved the week of October 12. I will keep you updated of anything pertinent comes up before then. Thank you, 4 Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 1:13 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, With the ARC meeting having concluded with a unanimous vote for recommending approval what is the timeline for action by the Community Development Director? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, September 17, 2020 3:01 PM To:Keith Hall Cc:'Rob Rossi'; 'Steve Rossi'; 'Vickey Farley'; mcampbell@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I have copied your breakdown below with some edits. 1. Director’s Approval a. This will be an action taken by the Director without the requirement for a hearing. b. Oct 12th is the earliest that the Director can take action due to required noticing timelines, etc. i. Action is expected to happen sometime in the week of the 12 th. c. Steps to occur prior to Director’s approval i. ARC minutes to be adopted (if not adopted by the week of the 12th, approval language will be based on review of meeting video and the drafted minutes). ii. Kyle to prepare an approval letter which will incorporate ARC recommendations iii. Kyle’s supervisor will review the approval letter before it is sent to Tyler Corey, Principal Planner, who is delegated to sign the approval letter for Community Dev. Director Michael Codron 2. ARC Conditions a. Both conditions were listed as recommendations for the applicant to consider. i. Both seem straight forward enough that approval should be able to occur without any additional submittal at this time. Staff will consider the conditions when the Construction Permit review occurs. b. East Facade : Recommendation to add fenestration w/opaque glazing i. khA heard Micah Smith make note that 1. this recommendation was primarily made in the context of what areas of the east façade will be visible from public spaces. 2. He did not want to disrupt any agreements already made with the adjacent property owner. ii. The rendering that Micah referenced in respect to what is visible from the street is actually taken from the private courtyard of the old Fire Station. khA does not believe that the east façade will be that visible from Garden Street. 1. Kyle will review the ARC minutes & will include wording in the condition that links the recommendation to areas on the east façade that are visible from public spaces. Overall condition language will reflect the intent of the ARC recommendation. 3. Schedule a. Kyle will be leaving on paternal leave but expects to be back for October 12 th. Pleased to have the ARC on board with the project overall. Thank you to all who participated in the hearing, as this definitely aided in moving the project along. Best, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 2 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 12:33 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Steve Rossi' <steve@rossi-ent.com>; 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com>; mcampbell@paralleldesignstudios.com Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, Thanks for the response. We look forward to the formal approval. For Rob’s benefit I have provided an outline of the steps for Director’s approval and some notes about the ARC approval… 1. Director’s Approval a. This will be an action taken by the Director without the requirement for a hearing. b. Oct 12th is the earliest that the Director can take action due to required noticing timelines, etc. i. Action is expected to happen sometime in the week of the 12 th. c. Steps to occur prior to Director’s approval i. ARC minutes to be adopted. ii. Kyle to prepare a staff report on the ARC approval & recommendations iii. Kyle’s supervisor, Tyler Corey, will review the staff report before it is sent to Community Dev. Director Michael Codron 2. ARC Conditions a. Both conditions were listed as recommendations for the applicant to consider. i. Both seem straight forward enough that approval should be able to occur without any additional submittal at this time. Staff will consider the conditions when the Construction Permit review occurs. b. East Facade : Recommendation to add fenestration w/opaque glazing i. khA heard Micah Smith make note that 1. this recommendation was made in the context of what areas of the east façade will be visible from public spaces. 2. He did not want to disrupt any agreements already made with the adjacent property owner. ii. The rendering that Micah referenced in respect to what is visible from the street is actually taken from the private courtyard of the old Fire Station. khA does not believe that the east façade will be that visible from Garden Street. 1. Kyle will review the ARC minutes & will include wording in the condition that links the recommendation to areas on the east façade that are visible from public spaces. 3. Schedule a. Kyle will be leaving on paternal leave but expects to be back for October 12 th. Kyle, we wish you a joyful time with your family over the next few weeks and thank you for your help in getting this project moved ahead. Best regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 3 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:22 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Good Morning Keith, Glad to have a positive ARC review on Monday and we will move forward with the approval. I have put this item on the schedule to be approved the week of October 12. I will keep you updated of anything pertinent comes up before then. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 1:13 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, With the ARC meeting having concluded with a unanimous vote for recommending approval what is the timeline for action by the Community Development Director? Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Corey, Tyler Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:33 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:ARC last night I heard the meeting went well last night. Nice work! When should we schedule - ARCH-0543-2019 1321 Garden for final action? Tyler Corey Principal Planner Community Development Long Range Planning 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E tcorey@slocity.org T 805.781.7169 slocity.org 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:38 AM To:Corey, Tyler Subject:RE: ARC last night Good Morning, Yes, the hearing went well. Lets go ahead and add that to 10-12 AA. Thanks, KVL From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:33 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: ARC last night I heard the meeting went well last night. Nice work! When should we schedule - ARCH-0543-2019 1321 Garden for final action? Tyler Corey Principal Planner Community Development Long Range Planning 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E tcorey@slocity.org T 805.781.7169 slocity.org 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 12:04 PM To:Keith Hall; 'Rob Rossi' Cc:'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) Good afternoon, I received your voicemail regarding the ARC hearing this evening, please see the link below for access to the staff report. https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/architectural-review-commission I will be filling in for Kyle V. as he is currently out of the office. An invitation to the web based hearing platform will be sent out this afternoon. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 1:49 PM To: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) NOTE: Attachments are being sent in multiple emails, this has attachment 3 of 3 included with this message… Kyle, Thanks for letting us know the project status. To provide you with digital pdf files of the plans that were submitted to the City I am sending attachments to this email and two additional messages that will follow. The files are transmitted as described below… 1. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Architectural drawing set of currently proposed project 2. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Civil sheets C-2, C-3, & C-6 from the previously approved project 3. of 3 (this message) Attachment : Landscape drawing set from the previously approved project. Regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m 2 T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 1:55 PM To:Keith Hall; 'Rob Rossi' Cc:'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) Good afternoon, Just got confirmation that Kyle V. is still in the office this week and will be attending the hearing this evening. I will be available in the event that he needs assistance but please coordinate with him directly until you hear otherwise. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org From: Bell, Kyle Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 12:04 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) Good afternoon, I received your voicemail regarding the ARC hearing this evening, please see the link below for access to the staff report. https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/architectural-review-commission I will be filling in for Kyle V. as he is currently out of the office. An invitation to the web based hearing platform will be sent out this afternoon. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 1:49 PM 2 To: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) NOTE: Attachments are being sent in multiple emails, this has attachment 3 of 3 included with this message… Kyle, Thanks for letting us know the project status. To provide you with digital pdf files of the plans that were submitted to the City I am sending attachments to this email and two additional messages that will follow. The files are transmitted as described below… 1. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Architectural drawing set of currently proposed project 2. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Civil sheets C-2, C-3, & C-6 from the previously approved project 3. of 3 (this message) Attachment : Landscape drawing set from the previously approved project. Regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:16 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden St Attachments:Garden Green_ARC_2020-09-14.pptx Kyle, here is our Power Point file for tonight. Thanks, Keith. khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:15 PM To:Bell, Kyle; 'Rob Rossi' Cc:'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) Thanks for clarifying. KH khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 1:55 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) Good afternoon, Just got confirmation that Kyle V. is still in the office this week and will be attending the hearing this evening. I will be available in the event that he needs assistance but please coordinate with him directly until you hear otherwise. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org From: Bell, Kyle Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 12:04 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com>; 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) Good afternoon, I received your voicemail regarding the ARC hearing this evening, please see the link below for access to the staff report. https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/architectural-review-commission 2 I will be filling in for Kyle V. as he is currently out of the office. An invitation to the web based hearing platform will be sent out this afternoon. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 1:49 PM To: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) NOTE: Attachments are being sent in multiple emails, this has attachment 3 of 3 included with this message… Kyle, Thanks for letting us know the project status. To provide you with digital pdf files of the plans that were submitted to the City I am sending attachments to this email and two additional messages that will follow. The files are transmitted as described below… 1. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Architectural drawing set of currently proposed project 2. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Civil sheets C-2, C-3, & C-6 from the previously approved project 3. of 3 (this message) Attachment : Landscape drawing set from the previously approved project. Regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Richard Beller < Sent:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 6:03 PM To:Christian, Kevin Cc:Scott, Shawna Subject:Re: 9/14/2020 Agenda Packet Posted Thank you for checking Richard Beller AIA Architect On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:16 PM Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> wrote: Richard, Thanks for checking in advance. Your property is 1584 feet from the project so you are okay to hear the item. We just need 500 feet. Kevin From: Richard Beller < Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 2:29 PM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 9/14/2020 Agenda Packet Posted Hi Kevin, I need to confirm that I do not need to recuse myself from the 1321 Garden St. Project. I live and own property at Please let me know Thank you 2 Richard Beller AIA Architect On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 10:50 AM Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> wrote: All, The 9/14/2020 Agenda Packet has been posted on the City Website. Please see the ARC page for the current agenda. Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristian@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 slocity.org 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:26 PM To:CityClerk Subject:Print and Post in kiosk Attachments:09-14-2020 ARC Agenda.pdf Thanks (I can do it Wednesday if it doesn’t get done today – just let me know) Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristian@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 slocity.org 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:16 PM To:Richard Beller Cc:Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: 9/14/2020 Agenda Packet Posted Richard, Thanks for checking in advance. Your property is 1584 feet from the project so you are okay to hear the item. We just need 500 feet. Kevin From: Richard Beller < Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 2:29 PM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 9/14/2020 Agenda Packet Posted Hi Kevin, I need to confirm that I do not need to recuse myself from the 1321 Garden St. Project. I live and own property at Please let me know Thank you Richard Beller AIA Architect On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 10:50 AM Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> wrote: All, The 9/14/2020 Agenda Packet has been posted on the City Website. Please see the ARC page for the current agenda. Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk 2 City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristian@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 slocity.org Agenda Architectural Review Commission Monday, September 14, 2020 5:00 PM RESCHEDULED TELECONFERENCE REGULAR MEETING Broadcasted via Webinar Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment. Additionally, members of the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged to participate in ARC meetings in the following ways: 1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:  View the Webinar  Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2962077037986916365  Webinar ID: 206-906-035  Telephone Attendee: (562) 247-8422; Audio Access Code: 380-453-275 2. Public Comment - The ARC will still be accepting public comment for items within their purview. Public comment can be submitted in the following ways:  Mail or Email Public Comment  Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at: 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401  Emails sent after 3:00 PM – Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org and will be archived/distributed to members of the Advisory Body the day after the meeting. Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting  Verbal Public Comment  Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to Advisory Body Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.  During the meeting – Members of the public who wish to provide public comment can join the webinar (instructions above). Once you have joined the webinar, please put your name and Item # in the questions box. Your mic will be unmuted once Public Comment is called for the Item and you will have 3 minutes to speak. Architectural Review Commission Agenda for September 14, 2020 Page 2 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Allen Root ROLL CALL: Commissioners Richard Beller, Michael DeMartini, Mandi Pickens, Micah Smith, Vice Chair Christie Withers, and Chair Allen Root PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The general public is encouraged to submit comments on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission that does not appear on this agenda. Although the Commission will not take action on items presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a future agenda for formal discussion. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of August 18, 2020 PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: Any court challenge to the actions taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. 2. Project address: 1321 Garden Street; Case #: ARCH-0543-2019; Zone: O; Once Upon A Time LP, owner/applicant. Review of a new three-story, five-bedroom, single-family residence, with an 800-square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, two attached garages, and a 590- square foot roof deck. Project includes a request for a reduction in setback requirements to allow an eight-foot setback at the corner of the roof deck where ten feet is the standard. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA). (Kyle Van Leeuwen – 20 minutes) Recommendation: Review the proposed project in terms of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City Standards and provide comments and recommendations to the Community Development Director. 3. Project Address: 207 Higuera; Case # ARCH-0090-2020; Zone C-R-MU; 207 Higuera LLC, applicant. Continued review of a Mixed-Use Development comprised of 16 one-bedroom dwellings and 390 square-feet of non-residential space. The applicant requests a Density Bonus of 27.5% as an Affordable Housing Incentive; and exceptions from development standards to reduce the number of required vehicle parking spaces by one, and to reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces for the residential component to one long-term space per unit. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA). (Walter Oetzell – 20 minutes) Recommendation: Review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, and applicable City Standards and provide comments and recommendation to the Planning Commission. Architectural Review Commission Agenda for September 14, 2020 Page 3 COMMENT & DISCUSSION 4. Staff Updates ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission is scheduled for Monday, September 21, 2020 at 5:00 p.m., via teleconference. APPEALS Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal documentation. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection on the City’s website: http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address: http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/Browse.aspx?startid=26289&row=1&dbid=1 1 From:Megan Ahearn < Sent:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:36 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden Street Hello Kyle, Is there a place online that I can view the details of the project at 1321 Garden Street? My family owns and want to make sure we understand how any requested reductions in setbacks might impact us. Thanks for your help. Megan Ahearn 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:43 PM To:Megan Ahearn Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Hello Megan, The staff report and the project plans are available online. All information about the upcoming hearing can be found below. https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/architectural-review-commission Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Megan Ahearn < Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:36 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Hello Kyle, Is there a place online that I can view the details of the project at 1321 Garden Street? My family owns and want to make sure we understand how any requested reductions in setbacks might impact us. Thanks for your help. Megan Ahearn 1 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Thursday, September 3, 2020 1:14 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: ARC Report for your review - ARCH-0543-2019 Attachments:ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden St) Staff Report_sps.docx Hi Kyle, Nice work, I just have some minor comments intended to clarify the setback exception request. I don’t need to see again. Thank you, Shawna From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:39 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: ARC Report for your review - ARCH-0543-2019 Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 1 From:Corey, Tyler Sent:Monday, August 24, 2020 3:49 PM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: Planning Project Schedule updates Done - thanks From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 3:39 PM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Project Schedule updates Hi Tyler, Please update the schedule as follows:   Delete ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) from Pending (it is on for ARC 9/14) (KVL/KB may cover)  Thank you, Shawna Scott Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org 1 From:Danny McBride <sanluisobispocountyinspections@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 21, 2020 3:37 PM To:CrossConnection; Henderson, Marcus Subject:Garden Green 2697-001 Attachments:Garden Green 2697-001.jpg -- Danny McBride San Luis Obispo County Inspections PO. Box 13252 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406 805-441-5903 CSLB Lisc# 1042814 C-20, C-36 A.B.P.A Cert # 05-00657, BCxP sanluisobispocountyinspections@gmail.com 1 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 3:09 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Thank you! From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 3:08 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Yes. Overall size and privacy concerns of a roof-deck on a third story are the primary aspects I think need ARC to weigh in on. From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 3:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Hi Kyle, For the ARC agenda forecast, 1321 Garden is scheduled for ARC 9/14 – this is just a SFR and ADU that is going to ARC because there are some elements that require review for consistency with CDG? Thank you for the clarification, Shawna Shawna Scott Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org 1 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 3:06 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden Hi Kyle, For the ARC agenda forecast, 1321 Garden is scheduled for ARC 9/14 – this is just a SFR and ADU that is going to ARC because there are some elements that require review for consistency with CDG? Thank you for the clarification, Shawna Shawna Scott Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org 1 From:Burnett, Cori Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 9:33 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:1321 Garden Hi Keith, Can you please send me an electronic version of the 1321 Garden submittal for ARCH-0543-2019? Thank you, Cori Burnett Interim Utilities Engineer Public Utilities 879 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710 E CBurnett@slocity.org T 805.781.7208 C 805.431.0108 slocity.org 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 11:48 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Kyle, I am checking in for a few of reasons… 1. to make sure that the submittal documents that were delivered to the City on Friday July 31 has made it to you. 2. To confirm that the digital submittal documents emailed to you along with the hard copy documents delivered to the City provide what you were expecting & need to find the application complete. 3. To check on what the expected timeline & next steps look like to you. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 12:15 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Kyle, Here is the digital resubmittal we discussed on the phone… 1. Response to comments letter : ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Incomplete Letter V3_khA Response_2020-07- 27.pdf 2. Design Drawing Set : Garden Green_Compiled Set_Ltr#3 Respn_2020-07-27(sent 31).pdf 3. Model View of Set Back : Garden Green_Ht & Setback_Model_2020-07-27.pdf 4. Transmittal of Hard Copy Items Sent : Transmittal-SLO City-2020-07-27.pdf Please Note: A. There is a small typo in the Titles row of the “Site Areas & Coverage Calculation” table on the Cover sheet T-1A. The Headings for Pervious & Impervious paving was switched. I have marked up the attached pdf with the correction. Rather than reprint this sheet (the full color renderings make this sheet expensive) I thought you or I could simply had mark the other hardcopies (It was printed & being delivered to you before I caught the error). Let me know if you have any questions, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 11:48 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Hello Keith, I did receive all documents. Marked received yesterday. I did receive the digital copies. Thank you for that. I will be able to give an update on timeline early next week. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 11:48 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Kyle, I am checking in for a few of reasons… 1. to make sure that the submittal documents that were delivered to the City on Friday July 31 has made it to you. 2. To confirm that the digital submittal documents emailed to you along with the hard copy documents delivered to the City provide what you were expecting & need to find the application complete. 3. To check on what the expected timeline & next steps look like to you. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 12:15 AM 2 To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Kyle, Here is the digital resubmittal we discussed on the phone… 1. Response to comments letter : ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Incomplete Letter V3_khA Response_2020-07- 27.pdf 2. Design Drawing Set : Garden Green_Compiled Set_Ltr#3 Respn_2020-07-27(sent 31).pdf 3. Model View of Set Back : Garden Green_Ht & Setback_Model_2020-07-27.pdf 4. Transmittal of Hard Copy Items Sent : Transmittal-SLO City-2020-07-27.pdf Please Note: A. There is a small typo in the Titles row of the “Site Areas & Coverage Calculation” table on the Cover sheet T-1A. The Headings for Pervious & Impervious paving was switched. I have marked up the attached pdf with the correction. Rather than reprint this sheet (the full color renderings make this sheet expensive) I thought you or I could simply had mark the other hardcopies (It was printed & being delivered to you before I caught the error). Let me know if you have any questions, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 12:15 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Thanks, I’ll wait to hear from you. KH khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 11:48 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Hello Keith, I did receive all documents. Marked received yesterday. I did receive the digital copies. Thank you for that. I will be able to give an update on timeline early next week. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 11:48 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Kyle, I am checking in for a few of reasons… 1. to make sure that the submittal documents that were delivered to the City on Friday July 31 has made it to you. 2 2. To confirm that the digital submittal documents emailed to you along with the hard copy documents delivered to the City provide what you were expecting & need to find the application complete. 3. To check on what the expected timeline & next steps look like to you. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 12:15 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Kyle, Here is the digital resubmittal we discussed on the phone… 1. Response to comments letter : ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Incomplete Letter V3_khA Response_2020-07- 27.pdf 2. Design Drawing Set : Garden Green_Compiled Set_Ltr#3 Respn_2020-07-27(sent 31).pdf 3. Model View of Set Back : Garden Green_Ht & Setback_Model_2020-07-27.pdf 4. Transmittal of Hard Copy Items Sent : Transmittal-SLO City-2020-07-27.pdf Please Note: A. There is a small typo in the Titles row of the “Site Areas & Coverage Calculation” table on the Cover sheet T-1A. The Headings for Pervious & Impervious paving was switched. I have marked up the attached pdf with the correction. Rather than reprint this sheet (the full color renderings make this sheet expensive) I thought you or I could simply had mark the other hardcopies (It was printed & being delivered to you before I caught the error). Let me know if you have any questions, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 12:15 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden Street : Incomplete Letter #3 Response Attachments:ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Incomplete Letter V3_khA Response_2020-07-27.pdf; Garden Green_Compiled Set_Ltr#3 Respn_2020-07-27(sent 31).pdf; Garden Green_Ht & Setback_Model_ 2020-07-27.pdf; Transmittal-SLO City-2020-07-27.pdf Kyle, Here is the digital resubmittal we discussed on the phone… 1. Response to comments letter : ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Incomplete Letter V3_khA Response_2020-07- 27.pdf 2. Design Drawing Set : Garden Green_Compiled Set_Ltr#3 Respn_2020-07-27(sent 31).pdf 3. Model View of Set Back : Garden Green_Ht & Setback_Model_2020-07-27.pdf 4. Transmittal of Hard Copy Items Sent : Transmittal-SLO City-2020-07-27.pdf Please Note: A. There is a small typo in the Titles row of the “Site Areas & Coverage Calculation” table on the Cover sheet T-1A. The Headings for Pervious & Impervious paving was switched. I have marked up the attached pdf with the correction. Rather than reprint this sheet (the full color renderings make this sheet expensive) I thought you or I could simply had mark the other hardcopies (It was printed & being delivered to you before I caught the error). Let me know if you have any questions, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 khA keith hall Architect D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S P A C I F I C C O A S T C E N T E R 7 5 H I G U E R A S T R E E T S U I T E 1 6 5 S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 T 8 0 5 5 4 1 9 1 6 0 x 3 C 8 0 5 2 9 6 5 4 2 1 W w w w . p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m E k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m Letter of Transmittal To: SLO City Date: July, 30, 2020 Community Development Dept Job: ARCH-0543-2019 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Attention: Kyle Van Leeuwen We Transmit: Herewith Via: Delivery In accordance with your request: For Your: Approval Distribution to Parties Information Review & Comment Record Use The Following: Drawings Shop Drawing Prints Letter Specifications Shop Drawing Reproducible Product Literature Change Order See Below No. of Copies: Date: Description: Action Code: 2 (24x36) 2020-07-27 Development Review Response Plan Set 1 (11x17) 2020-07-27 Development Review Response Plan Set Action Code: A. Action Indicated on Item Transmitted B. No. Action Required C. For signature and Return to this office D. For signature and forwarding as noted below under “remarks” E. See “Remarks” Below Remarks: Copies To: With enclosures With enclosures By: Marcy Campbell T-1ATitle Sheet10128t-1a title sheet.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 2021Vicinity MapSiteProject DescriptionSheet List TableSheet NumberSheet TitleCB.01Color Board (8.5 x 11 attachment)T-1ATitle Sheet - General Information, Statistics & Character ImagesA-0.1Site PlanA-1.1First Floor PlanA-1.2Second Floor PlanA-1.3Third Floor PlanA-1.4Roof DeckA-2.1East ElevationA-2.2North ElevationA-2.3West ElevationA-2.4South ElevationA-2.1aPartial East Elevation2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng ReviewProject InformationOwner:Once Upon a Time LPAddress750 Pismo St., San Luis Obispo, Ca.Apn003-524-017ZONE :OOCCUPANCY TYPE :R-2CONSTRUCTION TYPE :VB Sprinklered 13RCURRENT USE:VacantSETBACKS :RequiredProposedFrontE=10' (No Build Easement)12'SideN=5'20'BackW= 5'Varies, 5' min.SideS=5'Varies, 6'11" min.HEIGHT:See also, Height Calculation Table on this sheetAllowedProposedBasic Req. =35'35' (3 Story)Exception17.70.080.C.210' Projection8'-6"Projections: Solar, Chimney, Elevator, Screen, Vent, Antenna, SteeplePARKING :Br Count : [(top flr studio =1)+( Mstr =1)+(ground flr offices =3)] = 5 Br Total RequiredProposedSingle Unit Dwelling up to 4 BR 22 covered + 2 open = 4Top Floor Study ( count as 5th BR) 0.75Accessory Dwelling Unit NA1 covered .TOTAL : OK 2.75 <3 covered + 2 open = 5Note: Covered spaces are in GaragesSITE AREAS:See also, Site Areas Table on this sheetLot Size=5,826 sfAllowedProposed% SF % SFLot Coverage : 603,495.6 392,296 sfBUILDING AREAS: See also, Permitted & Propsed Areas Table on this sheetFloor Area Ratio:AllowedProposed % SF % SF 1.58,7390.74 4,300FLOOD ZONE=FEMA 100 yr Flood Zone "AOA"BFE=depth 2' 200.79Req. FLOOD PROTECTION Ht.=BFE+1' min. = 2'+1' = 3' abv. adj grThis proposed project is an update of Building 3 of the previously approvedresidential project under ARC 59-08. It consists of a new 3 story residentialbuilding including a Single Live/Work dwelling unit with and exempt attachedAccessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The non-residential office use of the Work/Liveoccurs on the 1st floor and is not greater than 50% of the total Work/Live Unitarea. Garages are also located on the ground floor, while living & bedroomsare on the 2nd & 3rd floors, & the roof has an open terrace. Stairs & anelevator provide access to all floors & the roof. The 2nd unit is an AccessoryDwelling Unit exempt from the density calculation. The ADU includes asleeping loft that qualifies as a mezzanine per CRC R325.The property is a flag lot set back from the street behind two existing 3 storymulti-unit residential buildings (Buildings 1 & 2 of the ARC 59-08 approval). Theold fire station (now converted to offices) is to the south of the property whilemixed office and residential structures are present to the west & north of theproject property.The property is relatively flat and requires minimal grading to provide thedrainage and stormwater management features required. The civil andlandscape designs will remain substantially the same as the previouslyapproved designs (drawings attached for reference).Density CalculationSite Areas & Coverage CalculationHeight Calculationconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTPermitted & Proposed Areas1NTSNeighborhood Context : Birds Eye from NW3NTSCharacter Rendering : Entry from NE Corner Driveway Eye Level4NTSMassing : NW Bird's Eye View5NTSMassing : SW Bird's Eye View6NTSMassing : NW Corner Eye Level View7NTSMassing : North Eye Level View2from Fire Station Court Eye levelCharacter Rendering : SE CornerMaterials1) PLASTER :smooth troweledtexutre & beigecolor to matchadjacent (E)Townhomes2) BRICK :Red Clay to matchadjacent (E)Townhomes, blackgrout3) ROOF & ACCENTWALL :Standing seammetal, pre-finishedzinc colored4) PAVERS :Random size,pattern & color tomatch adjacent(E) Townhomesdriveway.5) GUARDRAIL :Black rectangulartube posts & toprail with horizontalcables for guard6) STEEL ACCENTS :Steel structural shapes with black finish7) DOORS &WINDOWS :Steel, darkbronzefactoryfinishProposed ProjectExisiting Bldg.Proposed ProjectExisiting Bldg.(E) BUILDINGSPROPOSED PROJECT(E) OFFICE ( Past Fire Station)GARDEN ST .PISMO ST.(E) Bldg.Proposed Project(E) Bldg.F-1.0Flood Plan & DetailsA-1.5Roof Plan2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp 17'-9"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"AccessEasment 2357or 85Garden Street 32 31 A102 21 P120'-0"02 21 D102 21 D21 ( Existing StructureExisting StructureExisting StructureExisting StructureProposed StructureFF @ 198.8'Existing Structure Existing Structure33 81 S133 70 E133 70 E133 40 D1typ33 44 C112'-3"31 13 A131 12 A29'-3"4'-0"5'-0"22'-0"66.68'100.00'32 92 A102 21 P1Lowest Point of (E)Grade = 197.88'Highestest Point of(E) Grade = 200.00'24'-8" 17'-0"Utility Easment02 21 U102 21 W1Setback Ingress, Egress, Access, Parking,Landscaping & Utility Easementper Doc#2010-032998Restricted Building Area per Doc#2010-032998 P.U.E.ɓACCESS EASMENT SetbackDrainageEasment10'-0"8" PVC Water Main 6" PVC Water Main 6" Sewer Main Gas Main 9'-3"10'-3"16'-0"8'-0"14'-3" WR)LUH+\GUDQW NTS6'-8"1'-0"5'-0"2'-6"5'-0"14'-0"12"8'-0"2"12"5'-10"12"4'-0"12"24'-0"51'-0"24'-0"23'-0"51'-0"6'-0" Varies 16"15" FH Located at NE Corner of Garden St & Buchon ,QWHUVHFWLRQ from SE Property Line corner NTS 4'-0"4'-9"A-0.1Site Plan10128a-0.1 site plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/8" = 1'-0"Site Plan SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4'8'016'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 D1 -(E) DRIVEWAY02 21 D2 -(E) SIDEWALK02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 U1 -·0,1,0806(3$5$7,212)6(:(5/,1(672:(//:,//%(MAINTAINED02 21 W1 -(E) WATER WELLDIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK31 12 A2 -(E) TREES TO REMAIN31 13 A1 -(E) TREE OF HEAVEN TO BE PRUNEDDIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS32 31 A1 -ELECTRIC GATE, COORDINATE MATERIAL & APPEARANCE W/OWNER32 92 A1 -BIO SWALE LAWNDIVISION 33 - UTILITIES33 40 D1 -DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION33 44 C1 -CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE33 70 E1 -(E) POWER POLE33 81 S1 -SIREN POLE2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp -6"2'-10"11'-0"10'-2"6'-6"11'-0"6'-6"5'-0"01 11 F1 typ01 11 F1 typ6" 4'-0"1'-2"7'-10" 9" ȭ ȭ UP to Mid-Landing 10R@7.13"=5.938' UP to 2nd Flr. 4R@7.13" =2.375'01 11 W208 14 D301 11 W108 14 D201 11 A11'-0"11"ADAAccessiable01 11 W4A-1.1First Floor Plan10128a-1.1 first floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"1st Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2020-01-20 / Bldg Area Coord2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 A1 -FLOOR & CEILING ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS INTWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC302.3; SUPPORTING STRUCTURE FOR THESE ASSEMBLIES SHALLHAVE AN EQUAL OR GREATER FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING, TYP.01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 W1 -WALL ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS IN TWO-FAMILYDWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC 302.3, TYP.01 11 W2 -WALL ASSEMBLIE SEPERATING DWELLING FROM GARAGE SHALLBE NOT LESS THAN 1/2-INCH GYPSUM BOARD OR EQUIVALENTAPPLIED TO THE GARAGE SIDE PER CRC R302.5 & R302.601 11 W4 -LINE OF WALL ABOVE, TYPDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 14 D2 -20 MIN. FIRE RATED, SELF CLOSING, TIGHT FITTING DOOR08 14 D3 -FIRE RATING EQUAL TO WALL ASSEMBLIE, SELF CLOSING, TIGHTFITTING DOOR2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp 1'-0"7"4'-0"1'-2"7'-10" 9" DN to 1stlanding 08 14 D301 11 A1Loft+17'-6"9'-0"23'-0"2'-0"14'-0"5'-0"4'-0"6'-0" 31'-0"6'-0"3'-0" 3'-0" 4'-51 2"13'-0"1'-0"Loft+17'-6"15t @ 11" = 13'-9"4'-101 2"01 11 F24'-41 2"01 11 W101 11 A1A-1.2Second FloorPlan10128a-1.2 second floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202121/4" = 1'-0"2nd Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'11/4" = 1'-0"2nd Floor LoftSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2020-01-20 / Bldg Area Coord2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 A1 -FLOOR & CEILING ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS INTWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC302.3; SUPPORTING STRUCTURE FOR THESE ASSEMBLIES SHALLHAVE AN EQUAL OR GREATER FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING, TYP.01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW01 11 W1 -WALL ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS IN TWO-FAMILYDWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC 302.3, TYP.DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 14 D3 -FIRE RATING EQUAL TO WALL ASSEMBLIE, SELF CLOSING, TIGHTFITTING DOOR2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp -6"4'-0"5'-6"8'-0"01 11 F101 11 F21'-0"9'-0" 1'-0"1'-0" 3"3'-0"3'-9"1'-6"11" UP to Roof 10R@7.2"=8.25' DN to 2nd landing 01 11 C18'-3"3'-3"01 11 F201 11 R3A-1.3Third Floor Plan10128a-1.3 third floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"3rd Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 C1 -LINE OF CEILING ABOVE01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW01 11 R3 -2ND FLOOR ROOF 6'-0" 2'-0"8'-3"01 11 R101 11 F201 11 F201 11 R301 11 D1A-1.4Roof Deck10128a-1.4 roof deck.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"Roof DeckSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2020-01-20 / Bldg Area Coord2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 D1 -UNCOVERED ROOF DECK01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW01 11 R1 -LINE OF ROOF ABOVE01 11 R3 -2ND FLOOR ROOF 1122334455ABCDABCDA-3.11.2A-3.11.2A-3.21.6A-3.21.648 14 C101 11 R301 11 R201 11 D101 11 D248 14 C2 typ01 11 W308 62 A1 typA-1.5Roof Plan10128a-1.5 roof plan.dwg----consultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHT------------May 31 2021Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPSan Luis ObispoCa.934011321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa9340111/4" = 1'-0"1st Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 D1 -UNCOVERED ROOF DECK01 11 D2 -UNCOVERED 2ND FLOOR DECK01 11 R2 -1ST FLOOR ROOF01 11 R3 -2ND FLOOR ROOF01 11 W3 -LINE OF WALL BELOW, TYP.DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 62 A1 -SKYLIGHTDIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C1 -SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTOR CANOPY, FLAT PANELS MOUNTEDHORIZONTAL, SEE ROOF PLAN48 14 C2 -SOLAR ENERGY FLAT PANEL COLLECTOR, MOUNTED HORIZONTALON ROOF2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp BA9'-6" 07 32 M109 30 B109 23 A108 50 A1 01 41 S101 41 S1+219.3'3rd FF+233.8'+208.3'2rd FF+198.8'1st FF+238.3'Roof+242.3'Roof01 41 S1@ Bldg SE cornerGrid Line 4 5'-0"PL @ Grid Line 408 50 A308 50 A3A-2.1East Elevation10128a-2.1 west elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"East ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 50 A1 -WINDOW AS SCHEDULED.08 50 A3 -WINDOW SHALL MEET EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PERCBC SECTION 310.2. PROVIDE MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING OF 5.7SQ FT WITH 24" MIN CLEAR HT. AND 20" MIN CLR. WIDTH WITH THEBOTTOM OF OPENING @ 44" MAX. HT. ABOVE THE FLOOR.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD.2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp A-2.1aPartial EastElevation10128partial east elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"Partial East ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S3 -UNCOVERED DECK PROJECTION INTO SETBACK ALLOWED PERCITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.B; MAX PROJECTION ALLOWED = THELESSER OF 4' OR 1/2 THE REQUIRED SETBACK.DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFDIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD.DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 31 C1 -CHIMNEYDIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C1 -SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTOR CANOPY, FLAT PANELS MOUNTEDHORIZONTAL, SEE ROOF PLAN 1234505 'Loft FF+224.3'Studio FF+233.8'+238.3'Roof+242.3'RoofPL @ SW Bldg Corner01 41 S1@Bldg North Wall (2 story)01 41 S1@ Bldg South Wall (3 story)5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"48 14 C109 30 B107 71 A305 52 R1+208.3'2rd FF10'-0"Allowed Ht. Exception for Projectionsper 17.70.080.C.2Elevator, Solar, Steeples, etc.5'-0"01 41 S1@Bldg Kitchen North Wall (3 story)PL @ Kitchen North Wall This setback occurs at thenorth side of the 3-storyportion of the bldg.This setback occursat the south side of the3-story portion ofthe bldg.01 41 S22'-6" max.A-2.2North Elevation10128a-2.2 north elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401C:\M\Letterhead\khA\Stamp\eSeal_CA_Hall_182555.jpgMay 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"North Elevation2019-08-06 / Plng Staff MtgSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 S2 -(E) STRUCTURE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYDIVISION 05 - METALS05 52 R1 -METAL RAILINGDIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 42 S1 -METAL SIDING07 71 A3 -DOWNSPOUT.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD.DIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C1 -SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTOR CANOPY, FLAT PANELS MOUNTEDHORIZONTAL, SEE ROOF PLAN2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp B107 71 A305 52 R105 52 R110 31 C109 23 A108 50 A312'-0" 8'-0" 01 41 S101 41 S301 41 S17"+219.3'3rd FF+233.8'+208.3'2rd FF+198.8'1st FF+238.3'Roof+242.3'Roof5'-0"5'-0"01 41 S1@ Bldg SW corner48 14 C1Open01 41 S21'-434"A-2.3West Elevation10128a-2.3 east elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"West ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".01 41 S3 -UNCOVERED DECK PROJECTION INTO SETBACK ALLOWED PERCITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.B; MAX PROJECTION ALLOWED = THELESSER OF 4' OR 1/2 THE REQUIRED SETBACK.DIVISION 05 - METALS05 52 R1 -METAL RAILINGDIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF07 71 A3 -DOWNSPOUT.DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 50 A3 -WINDOW SHALL MEET EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PERCBC SECTION 310.2. PROVIDE MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING OF 5.7SQ FT WITH 24" MIN CLEAR HT. AND 20" MIN CLR. WIDTH WITH THEBOTTOM OF OPENING @ 44" MAX. HT. ABOVE THE FLOOR.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD.DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 31 C1 -CHIMNEYDIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C1 -SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTOR CANOPY, FLAT PANELS MOUNTEDHORIZONTAL, SEE ROOF PLAN 39'-6"11'-0"11'-0"9'-6"8'-0"02 21 P102 21 S209 23 A109 30 B108 62 A110'-0"Allowed Ht. Exception for Projectionsper 17.70.080.C.2Elevator, Solar, Steeples, etc.01 41 S301 41 S101 41 S19"+208.3'2rd FF+216.3'Loft FF+224.3'Studio FF+219.3'3rd FF+208.3'2nd FF+198.8'1st FF5'-0"5'-0"01 41 S1@ Bldg SW corner 01 41 S22'-6" max.A-2.4South Elevation10128a-2.4 south elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"South ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".01 41 S3 -UNCOVERED DECK PROJECTION INTO SETBACK ALLOWED PERCITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.B; MAX PROJECTION ALLOWED = THELESSER OF 4' OR 1/2 THE REQUIRED SETBACK.DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 S2 -(E) STRUCTURE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 62 A1 -SKYLIGHTDIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD. 2A-3.21.6A-3.21.6FG-01FG-02FG-03 FG-05FG-06FG-07FG-04 FG-08 FG-09 FG-10 10 71 A110 71 A110 71 F110 71 F1Flood Protection Device ScheduleI.D.DescriptionWidthHeightNotesFG-01FG-02FG-03FG-04FG-05FG-06FG-07FG-08FG-09FG-10Flood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood Gate4'-0"6'-6"4'-10"4'-0"4'-0"3'-6"4'-2"4'-8"4'-8"4'-8"3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min. 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,xF-1.0Flood Plan &Details10128f-1.0 flood plan & details.dwg----2020-02-11 / Progress Plotconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHT------------May 31 2021Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPSan Luis ObispoCa.934011321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa9340111/4" = 1'-0"Flood Gate PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 B1 -ALL UTILITES & EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LOCATED IN AREAS THAT AREDRY FLOOD PROOFED OR BE ELEVATED 1' MIN. ABOVE THE BFE.01 11 B2 -RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 1' ABOVETHE BFE.DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 71 A1 -GARAGE AREA USED SOLELY FOR PARKING VEHICLES ANDLIMITED STORAGE, AREAS OF THE GARAGE BELOW THE BFE MUSTBE CONSTRUCTED WITH FLOOD-RESISTANT MATERIALS10 71 F1 -AREA FLOODPROOFED, TOGETHER WITH ATTENDANT UTILITY ANDSANITARY FACILITIES, SO THAT THE STRUCTURE IS WATERTIGHT WITHWALLS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPERMEABLE TO THE PASSAGE OF WATEWITH STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS CAPABLE OF RESISTINGHYDROSTATIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS AND EFFECTS OFBUOYANCY2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-27 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp June 12, 2020 Sent via Email Once Upon a Time, LP PO Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: Completeness Review #3: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street): Development review of a new four-story single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit, include a roof top deck. Dear Once Upon a Time, LP: Thank you for the May 15, 2020 submittal for the Garden Green Building 3 project. We have reviewed your application and found it to be incomplete. We will be unable to process your application until additional information and/or revisions have been submitted, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Preliminary review is necessary to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a list of items that need to be addressed prior to taking action on your project. Preliminary review indicates that your application will remain in an incomplete status until the following information and/or revisions are submitted: Note: Upon resubmittal please provide a narrative indicating where responses to these items can be found on plans. Department comments/completeness items: Planning Division - Community Development Department Initial note: The currently proposed project is being reviewed for compliance with today’s codes, standards, and guidelines. While there may have been a previously approved project on this site, the approval of that structure has no influence on the current comments provided, and therefore should not be referenced in response to these comments. 1. Property lines on elevation drawings show that portions of the structure are not in compliance with setback standards. Please modify project so that all proposed buildings meet setback requirements unless setback exception is formally requested and added to project description (support for such an exception has not been evaluated). Zoning regulations section sited on plans (allowed projections) does not apply to the primary walls or parapets of the structure as they are not “projections” into the otherwise required setback. ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #3 June 12, 2020 Page 2 2. Site plan shows the footprint of an existing structure near the west property line. This structure does not currently appear on mapping programs. Please verify the existence of this structure and remove from plans if not currently existing. Additional Note: The structure as a whole, and the upper story windows and roof deck, must be consistent with Land Use Policy 2.3.9.G, which states: New Buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. Past projects with concerns for privacy from upper story windows were conditioned to have those windows be “frosted” or otherwise modified so that light may be provided but view is obscured. Past project which include roof decks have provided additional setback from property lines than the minimum required setback, or other measures to reduce the impact to neighboring property’s privacy. Please consider measures to protect the privacy neighbors. If you have any questions on the above planning comments, or any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 805-781-7091, or by e-mail at: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org The above list includes all of the items initially identified as necessary for us to certify your application as complete. The City may ask for additional information upon more detailed review of your project. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the specific items necessary to submit for a complete application, please contact me at (805) 781-7091. Sincerely, Kyle Van Leeuwen CDD Assistant Planner 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Friday, July 24, 2020 4:53 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Attachments:Garden Green_Ht & Setback_Model_2020-07-24.pdf Flag Status:Flagged Kyle, 1. Here is the exhibit that I was talking to you about. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:26 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Keith, The no build easement protects the adjacent property, and was a required easement with the subdivision approval. Essentially instead of having a property line with five foot setbacks on each side, you build the structure on the property line and record the ten foot easement to get the ten feet normally required. It would likely be difficult to remove the easement, or adjust that easement to be less than ten feet. KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 10:46 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Kyle, There is some history with this property that predates my involvement. Rob originally owned the entire piece of land extending to Garden Street prior to the lot split & development of the town homes between our current project & Garden Street. I am not sure what the terms & conditions were related to that work so I brought up the issue of the No Build Easements to Rob. He said that he granted the easement to himself for his benefit related to the development of the front homes not as a limit on his project. I’ll have to ask Rob if he can clarify and then get back to you. Thanks for the quick response to my email. Regards, Keith 2 khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 3:02 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Hello Keith, I took a quick look and the only initial concern I saw was about the “No Build Easement”. Looks like the structure is now about 11” encroaching on that easement. Did you have a take on that, or will a request to modify the easement be a part of the proposal? Besides that, with the changes made I do think this addresses the setback issue enough to be resubmitted and to deem the application complete once the resubmittal comes in. I will take a closer look at this on Wednesday and if there is any additional feedback I will get that to you as well. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 4:48 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Kyle, Here are the drawings & information responding to the Incomplete Letter #3. I am sending it to you via email per our conversation yesterday & will make a formal resubmittal after you & I get a chance to discuss the responses. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:26 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Keith, The no build easement protects the adjacent property, and was a required easement with the subdivision approval. Essentially instead of having a property line with five foot setbacks on each side, you build the structure on the property line and record the ten foot easement to get the ten feet normally required. It would likely be difficult to remove the easement, or adjust that easement to be less than ten feet. KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 10:46 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Kyle, There is some history with this property that predates my involvement. Rob originally owned the entire piece of land extending to Garden Street prior to the lot split & development of the town homes between our current project & Garden Street. I am not sure what the terms & conditions were related to that work so I brought up the issue of the No Build Easements to Rob. He said that he granted the easement to himself for his benefit related to the development of the front homes not as a limit on his project. I’ll have to ask Rob if he can clarify and then get back to you. Thanks for the quick response to my email. Regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 3:02 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Hello Keith, I took a quick look and the only initial concern I saw was about the “No Build Easement”. Looks like the structure is now about 11” encroaching on that easement. Did you have a take on that, or will a request to modify the easement be a part of the proposal? Besides that, with the changes made I do think this addresses the setback issue enough to be resubmitted and to deem the application complete once the resubmittal comes in. I will take a closer look at this on Wednesday and if there is any additional feedback I will get that to you as well. 2 Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 4:48 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Kyle, Here are the drawings & information responding to the Incomplete Letter #3. I am sending it to you via email per our conversation yesterday & will make a formal resubmittal after you & I get a chance to discuss the responses. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Monday, July 13, 2020 3:02 PM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Hello Keith, I took a quick look and the only initial concern I saw was about the “No Build Easement”. Looks like the structure is now about 11” encroaching on that easement. Did you have a take on that, or will a request to modify the easement be a part of the proposal? Besides that, with the changes made I do think this addresses the setback issue enough to be resubmitted and to deem the application complete once the resubmittal comes in. I will take a closer look at this on Wednesday and if there is any additional feedback I will get that to you as well. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 4:48 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Kyle, Here are the drawings & information responding to the Incomplete Letter #3. I am sending it to you via email per our conversation yesterday & will make a formal resubmittal after you & I get a chance to discuss the responses. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Monday, July 13, 2020 10:46 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Flag Status:Completed Kyle, There is some history with this property that predates my involvement. Rob originally owned the entire piece of land extending to Garden Street prior to the lot split & development of the town homes between our current project & Garden Street. I am not sure what the terms & conditions were related to that work so I brought up the issue of the No Build Easements to Rob. He said that he granted the easement to himself for his benefit related to the development of the front homes not as a limit on his project. I’ll have to ask Rob if he can clarify and then get back to you. Thanks for the quick response to my email. Regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 3:02 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Hello Keith, I took a quick look and the only initial concern I saw was about the “No Build Easement”. Looks like the structure is now about 11” encroaching on that easement. Did you have a take on that, or will a request to modify the easement be a part of the proposal? Besides that, with the changes made I do think this addresses the setback issue enough to be resubmitted and to deem the application complete once the resubmittal comes in. I will take a closer look at this on Wednesday and if there is any additional feedback I will get that to you as well. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org 2 T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 4:48 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Kyle, Here are the drawings & information responding to the Incomplete Letter #3. I am sending it to you via email per our conversation yesterday & will make a formal resubmittal after you & I get a chance to discuss the responses. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Friday, July 10, 2020 4:48 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden - ARCH-054302019 Attachments:Garden Green_#Compiled_Ltr#3 Respn_2020-07-10r.pdf; Garden Green_Ht & Setback Model p.1 _2020-07-08.pdf; ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Incomplete Letter V3_khA Response_Draft.pdf; Rossi Garden St_10128.0_2020-07-08_Setbacks.pdf Kyle, Here are the drawings & information responding to the Incomplete Letter #3. I am sending it to you via email per our conversation yesterday & will make a formal resubmittal after you & I get a chance to discuss the responses. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 khA keith hall Architect D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S P A C I F I C C O A S T C E N T E R 7 5 H I G U E R A S T R E E T S U I T E 1 6 5 S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 T 8 0 5 5 4 1 9 1 6 0 C 8 0 5 2 9 6 5 4 2 1 W w w w . p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m E k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m M E M O R A N D U M Date : Jul, 10, 2020 Job : 10128 Rossi Garden St Subject : Zoning Regulations : Exceptions for projections Reference : Section 17.70.170.C “Allowed Projections” ISSUE OVERVIEW 1. San Luis Obispo has a stepped set back regulation that increases the required horizontal setback as the height of the roof increases. 2. The city planning department is asserting that the proposed project does not comply with the zoning setback regulations because they are not accepting the applicant’s application of the allowed exception for projections (17.70.170.C). 2.1. Kyle Van Leeuwen, the planner assigned to the project, has stated “…your interpretation and application of 17.70.170, C. “Allowed projections…” is incorrect and not supported, as this applies to “projections” from the building, and cannot be used to allow building walls to encroach into the otherwise required setbacks.” 3. khA understands the point that the City review comments raise; however, we are not in full agreement with the limited interpretation of “projections” that is being applied to this project. The outline below identifies changes that khA has made to the project to better address the concerns raised by the city Planning Department and provides some explanation of khA’s understanding & interpretation of the wording of the applicable Zoning Ordinance sections. 4. Objective: Obtain approval for the revised project. 4.1. Proposed method : Use the information is this memo & on the resubmitted plans to reach a consensus with the planning department that accepts the revisions made to the design and allows the application of 17.70.170.C in the more limited way now proposed by khA. REVISIONS MADE TO THE PROJECTPROJECT 1. Moved the building location on the site 1.1. North by 2’-3” 1.2. East by 2’-9” 2. At Northwest Corner of the Site : the following adjustments were made 2.1. Planter adjacent to the Garage north wall was resized. The portion of curb that extends east of the building ends with a radius is no a Zero Ht. curb. 2.2. The parking is now 9’-3” wide 3. At the East Side of the Property : the following adjustments were made 3.1. Repositioned the parking space 3.2. Curb alignment adjusted to match new parking 4. At the Southeast Corner of the Property : the following adjustments were made 4.1. The stairs between the subject property & the old Fire Station property were reconfigured and a low height retaining wall was added in lieu of the previous slope bank in order to accommodate the shift of the building and still allow for a circulation path. 5. Results Relative to Height & Setback achieved by Shifting the Building 5.1. The projections into the Height/Setback area on the south & west were greatly reduced. a. The portion of the building that projects through the height/setback plane is no only at a level above the third floor, i.e., only at the uncovered roof deck level. a.1. Previously portions of the lower stories below the roof deck were also projecting beyond the setback plane. 10128.00 Garden Street Lofts Page 2 of 3 REVIEW OF SETBACKS & EXCEPTIONS All of the items under this heading are from Sec 17.70.170 1. B. Measurement of Setbacks; Building Height & Setbacks 1.1. This section provides the instruction on how to measure Height & Setback. 1.2. It clearly states that the height is measured as the “…vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof…”. The wall below the roof is not a factor in determining height. a. khA asserts that as long as the proposed “roof” height meets the exception criteria then the project complies. There is not any other wording in the zoning ordinance that limits the height of the wall occurring below a height compliant roof. 2. The following examples taken from Title 17 demonstrate that the “Allowed Projections into Required Setback Areas” does include the interpretation of “projection” as something other than a cantilever from the building … 2.1. C.1 Utility Structures, .2 Fences, Walls & Hedges, .3 Arbors & Trellises, .4 Signs, .6 Mechanical Equipment, .7 Trash Enclosures, .8 Vehicle Parking, .9 Unenclosed Parking, .10 Enclosed Parking, .11 Landscaping. a. All of the items listed above are identified as “Allowed Projections” into the setback yet none of them are limited to having to be cantilevered from the lower building wall. In fact, it is not even possible for most of them to be cantilevered from the wall. a.1. this informs us on how the term “Projection” is used in this section of the ordinance. It means something that extends over the setback line and “projects” into the setback area. It does not mean the item has to be cantilevered. 2.2. C.12 “Figure 3-13: Second Story Setback Allowed Projection” a. This figure illustrates that the “projection” is the wall from the roof to the grade. The upper level does not have to cantilever from the lower level to be considered a “projection.” 2.3. Discretionary Exceptions: this section allows the Director to grant the exception when the Director is essentially able to make the finding the proposed project is not creating new impacts. khA believes this it is possible for the Director to make this finding, see items under the heading “Arguments in Support of Allowing the Proposed Design” below. 3. An additional argument that projections into the setback area are not necessarily cantilevered or supported by open structure below is that the Height/Setback plane that defines the allowed building envelope area is sloped. It is possible to project past this plan in both a vertical & a horizontal sense. Thus when the open roof deck railing is in line with the walls below and it extends past the limiting plane, it is a projection into the setback area. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ALLOWING THE PROPOSED DESIGN 1. Solar Access & Privacy : the proposed building location and height does not create any new impact on solar access and privacy for the neighboring properties. 1.1. South Property Line : a. the property to the south is an open parking lot so there is not a privacy issue b. the proposed project will not cast shadows on the property to the south. 1.2. West Property Line : a. The entire west property line is bounded by dense trees that are taller than the proposed design. a.1. Privacy : these trees will provide a privacy screen for the adjacent property to the west. a.2. Solar Access : - the proposed project will not create shadows beyond the shading that already exists from the tress along the west property line that are taller than the proposed building. - the low morning sun from the east does not provide the most effective solar exposure. The adjacent property will continue to have better solar exposure later in the day, with or without the proposed project. 10128.00 Garden Street Lofts Page 3 of 3 1.3. North Property Line : a. The project does not project into required setbacks along the north side, no exception is required. Any questions, comments, or corrections regarding the information in this memo shall be directed to khA as soon as possible so that we can clarify, coordinate, and distribute information as required. Report : Keith Hall Attachments: Garden Green_Ht & Setback Model p.1_2020-07-08.pdf (this file is 3d Views of the proposed Height/Setback encroachments from the southwest & the northwest) cc: S.L.O. City Planning Dept Kyle Van Leeuwen kvanleeuwen@slocity.org June 12, 2020 Sent via Email Once Upon a Time, LP PO Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: Completeness Review #3: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street): Development review of a new four-story single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit, include a roof top deck. Dear Once Upon a Time, LP: Thank you for the May 15, 2020 submittal for the Garden Green Building 3 project. We have reviewed your application and found it to be incomplete. We will be unable to process your application until additional information and/or revisions have been submitted, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Preliminary review is necessary to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a list of items that need to be addressed prior to taking action on your project. Preliminary review indicates that your application will remain in an incomplete status until the following information and/or revisions are submitted: Note: Upon resubmittal please provide a narrative indicating where responses to these items can be found on plans. Department comments/completeness items: Planning Division - Community Development Department Initial note: The currently proposed project is being reviewed for compliance with today’s codes, standards, and guidelines. While there may have been a previously approved project on this site, the approval of that structure has no influence on the current comments provided, and therefore should not be referenced in response to these comments. 1. Property lines on elevation drawings show that portions of the structure are not in compliance with setback standards. Please modify project so that all proposed buildings meet setback requirements unless setback exception is formally requested and added to project description (support for such an exception has not been evaluated). Zoning regulations section sited on plans (allowed projections) does not apply to the primary walls or parapets of the structure as they are not “projections” into the otherwise required setback. ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #3 June 12, 2020 Page 2 2. Site plan shows the footprint of an existing structure near the west property line. This structure does not currently appear on mapping programs. Please verify the existence of this structure and remove from plans if not currently existing. Additional Note: The structure as a whole, and the upper story windows and roof deck, must be consistent with Land Use Policy 2.3.9.G, which states: New Buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. Past projects with concerns for privacy from upper story windows were conditioned to have those windows be “frosted” or otherwise modified so that light may be provided but view is obscured. Past project which include roof decks have provided additional setback from property lines than the minimum required setback, or other measures to reduce the impact to neighboring property’s privacy. Please consider measures to protect the privacy neighbors. If you have any questions on the above planning comments, or any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 805-781-7091, or by e-mail at: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org The above list includes all of the items initially identified as necessary for us to certify your application as complete. The City may ask for additional information upon more detailed review of your project. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the specific items necessary to submit for a complete application, please contact me at (805) 781-7091. Sincerely, Kyle Van Leeuwen CDD Assistant Planner T-1ATitle Sheet10128t-1a title sheet.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 2021Vicinity MapSiteProject DescriptionSheet List TableSheet NumberSheet TitleCB.01Color Board (8.5 x 11 attachment)T-1ATitle Sheet - General Information, Statistics & Character ImagesA-0.1Site PlanA-1.1First Floor PlanA-1.2Second Floor PlanA-1.3Third Floor PlanA-1.4Roof DeckA-2.1East ElevationA-2.2North ElevationA-2.3West ElevationA-2.4South ElevationA-2.1aPartial East Elevation2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng ReviewProject InformationOwner:Once Upon a Time LPAddress750 Pismo St., San Luis Obispo, Ca.Apn003-524-017ZONE :OOCCUPANCY TYPE :R-2CONSTRUCTION TYPE :VB Sprinklered 13RCURRENT USE:VacantSETBACKS :RequiredProposedFrontE=10' (No Build Easement)12'SideN=5'20'BackW= 5'Varies, 5' min.SideS=5'Varies, 6'11" min.HEIGHT:See also, Height Calculation Table on this sheetAllowedProposedBasic Req. =35'35' (3 Story)Exception17.70.080.C.210' Projection8'-6"Projections: Solar, Chimney, Elevator, Screen, Vent, Antenna, SteeplePARKING :Br Count : [(top flr studio =1)+( Mstr =1)+(ground flr offices =3)] = 5 Br Total RequiredProposedSingle Unit Dwelling up to 4 BR 22 covered + 2 open = 4Top Floor Study ( count as 5th BR) 0.75Accessory Dwelling Unit NA1 covered .TOTAL : OK 2.75 <3 covered + 2 open = 5Note: Covered spaces are in GaragesSITE AREAS:See also, Site Areas Table on this sheetLot Size=5,826 sfAllowedProposed% SF % SFLot Coverage : 603,495.6 392,296 sfBUILDING AREAS: See also, Permitted & Propsed Areas Table on this sheetFloor Area Ratio:AllowedProposed % SF % SF 1.58,7390.74 4,300FLOOD ZONE=FEMA 100 yr Flood Zone "AOA"BFE=depth 2' 200.79Req. FLOOD PROTECTION Ht.=BFE+1' min. = 2'+1' = 3' abv. adj grThis proposed project is an update of Building 3 of the previously approvedresidential project under ARC 59-08. It consists of a new 3 story residentialbuilding including a Single Live/Work dwelling unit with and exempt attachedAccessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The non-residential office use of the Work/Liveoccurs on the 1st floor and is not greater than 50% of the total Work/Live Unitarea. Garages are also located on the ground floor, while living & bedroomsare on the 2nd & 3rd floors, & the roof has an open terrace. Stairs & anelevator provide access to all floors & the roof. The 2nd unit is an AccessoryDwelling Unit exempt from the density calculation. The ADU includes asleeping loft that qualifies as a mezzanine per CRC R325.The property is a flag lot set back from the street behind two existing 3 storymulti-unit residential buildings (Buildings 1 & 2 of the ARC 59-08 approval). Theold fire station (now converted to offices) is to the south of the property whilemixed office and residential structures are present to the west & north of theproject property.The property is relatively flat and requires minimal grading to provide thedrainage and stormwater management features required. The civil andlandscape designs will remain substantially the same as the previouslyapproved designs (drawings attached for reference).Density CalculationSite Areas & Coverage CalculationHeight Calculationconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTPermitted & Proposed Areas1NTSNeighborhood Context : Birds Eye from NW3NTSCharacter Rendering : Entry from NE Corner Driveway Eye Level4NTSMassing : NW Bird's Eye View5NTSMassing : SW Bird's Eye View6NTSMassing : NW Corner Eye Level View7NTSMassing : North Eye Level View2from Fire Station Court Eye levelCharacter Rendering : SE CornerMaterials1) PLASTER :smooth troweledtexutre & beigecolor to matchadjacent (E)Townhomes2) BRICK :Red Clay to matchadjacent (E)Townhomes, blackgrout3) ROOF & ACCENTWALL :Standing seammetal, pre-finishedzinc colored4) PAVERS :Random size,pattern & color tomatch adjacent(E) Townhomesdriveway.5) GUARDRAIL :Black rectangulartube posts & toprail with horizontalcables for guard6) STEEL ACCENTS :Steel structural shapes with black finish7) DOORS &WINDOWS :Steel, darkbronzefactoryfinishProposed ProjectExisiting Bldg.Proposed ProjectExisiting Bldg.(E) BUILDINGSPROPOSED PROJECT(E) OFFICE ( Past Fire Station)GARDEN ST .PISMO ST.(E) Bldg.Proposed Project(E) Bldg.F-1.0Flood Plan & DetailsA-1.5Roof Plan2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp 17'-9"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"AccessEasment 2357or 85Garden Street 32 31 A102 21 P120'-0"02 21 D102 21 D21 ( Existing StructureExisting StructureExisting StructureExisting StructureProposed StructureFF @ 198.8'Existing Structure Existing Structure33 81 S133 70 E133 70 E133 40 D1typ33 44 C112'-3"31 13 A131 12 A29'-3"4'-11"9'-0"22'-0"66.68'100.00'32 92 A102 21 P1Lowest Point of (E)Grade = 197.88'Highestest Point of(E) Grade = 200.00'24'-8" 17'-0"Utility Easment02 21 U102 21 W1Setback Ingress, Egress, Access, Parking,Landscaping & Utility Easementper Doc#2010-032998Restricted Building Area per Doc#2010-032998 P.U.E.ɓACCESS EASMENT Setback SetbackDrainageEasment10'-0"ɓ8" PVC Water Main 6" PVC Water Main 6" Sewer Main Gas Main 9'-3"11'-2"16'-0"8'-0"14'-3" WR)LUH+\GUDQW NTS7'-7"1'-0"5'-0"2'-6"5'-0"14'-0"12"8'-0"2"12"5'-10"12"4'-0"12"24'-0"51'-0"24'-0"23'-0"51'-0"4'-0"4'-9"6'-0" Varies 8"6'-0"2'-5"16"15" FH Located at NE Corner of Garden St & Buchon ,QWHUVHFWLRQ from SE Property Line corner NTS A-0.1Site Plan10128a-0.1 site plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/8" = 1'-0"Site Plan SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4'8'016'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 D1 -(E) DRIVEWAY02 21 D2 -(E) SIDEWALK02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 U1 -·0,1,0806(3$5$7,212)6(:(5/,1(672:(//:,//%(MAINTAINED02 21 W1 -(E) WATER WELLDIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK31 12 A2 -(E) TREES TO REMAIN31 13 A1 -(E) TREE OF HEAVEN TO BE PRUNEDDIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS32 31 A1 -ELECTRIC GATE, COORDINATE MATERIAL & APPEARANCE W/OWNER32 92 A1 -BIO SWALE LAWNDIVISION 33 - UTILITIES33 40 D1 -DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION33 44 C1 -CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE33 70 E1 -(E) POWER POLE33 81 S1 -SIREN POLE2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp -6"2'-10"11'-0"10'-2"6'-6"11'-0"6'-6"5'-0"01 11 F1 typ01 11 F1 typ6" 4'-0"1'-2"7'-10" 9" ȭ ȭ UP to Mid-Landing 10R@7.13"=5.938' UP to 2nd Flr. 4R@7.13" =2.375'01 11 W208 14 D301 11 W108 14 D201 11 A11'-0"11"ADAAccessiable01 11 W4A-1.1First Floor Plan10128a-1.1 first floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"1st Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2020-01-20 / Bldg Area Coord2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 A1 -FLOOR & CEILING ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS INTWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC302.3; SUPPORTING STRUCTURE FOR THESE ASSEMBLIES SHALLHAVE AN EQUAL OR GREATER FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING, TYP.01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 W1 -WALL ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS IN TWO-FAMILYDWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC 302.3, TYP.01 11 W2 -WALL ASSEMBLIE SEPERATING DWELLING FROM GARAGE SHALLBE NOT LESS THAN 1/2-INCH GYPSUM BOARD OR EQUIVALENTAPPLIED TO THE GARAGE SIDE PER CRC R302.5 & R302.601 11 W4 -LINE OF WALL ABOVE, TYPDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 14 D2 -20 MIN. FIRE RATED, SELF CLOSING, TIGHT FITTING DOOR08 14 D3 -FIRE RATING EQUAL TO WALL ASSEMBLIE, SELF CLOSING, TIGHTFITTING DOOR2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp 1'-0"7"4'-0"1'-2"7'-10" 9" DN to 1stlanding 08 14 D301 11 A1Loft+17'-6"9'-0"23'-0"2'-0"14'-0"5'-0"4'-0"6'-0" 31'-0"6'-0"3'-0" 3'-0" 4'-51 2"13'-0"1'-0"Loft+17'-6"15t @ 11" = 13'-9"4'-101 2"01 11 F24'-41 2"01 11 W101 11 A1A-1.2Second FloorPlan10128a-1.2 second floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202121/4" = 1'-0"2nd Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'11/4" = 1'-0"2nd Floor LoftSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2020-01-20 / Bldg Area Coord2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 A1 -FLOOR & CEILING ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS INTWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC302.3; SUPPORTING STRUCTURE FOR THESE ASSEMBLIES SHALLHAVE AN EQUAL OR GREATER FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING, TYP.01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW01 11 W1 -WALL ASSEMBLIES SEPERATING DWELLING UNITS IN TWO-FAMILYDWELLINGS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED PER CRC 302.3, TYP.DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 14 D3 -FIRE RATING EQUAL TO WALL ASSEMBLIE, SELF CLOSING, TIGHTFITTING DOOR2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp -6"4'-0"5'-6"8'-0"01 11 F101 11 F21'-0"9'-0" 1'-0"1'-0" 3"3'-0"3'-9"1'-6"11" UP to Roof 10R@7.2"=8.25' DN to 2nd landing 01 11 C18'-3"3'-3"A-1.3Third Floor Plan10128a-1.3 third floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"3rd Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 C1 -LINE OF CEILING ABOVE01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW 32'-0"15'-0"8'-0"7'-0"17'-0"6'-0"4'-0"2'-0"8'-3"01 11 R1A-1.4Roof Deck10128a-1.4 roof deck.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"Roof DeckSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2020-01-20 / Bldg Area Coord2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 R1 -LINE OF ROOF ABOVE2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp 1122334455ABCDABCDA-3.11.2A-3.11.2A-3.21.6A-3.21.648 14 C101 11 R301 11 R201 11 D101 11 D248 14 C2 typ01 11 W308 62 A1 typA-1.5Roof Plan10128a-1.5 roof plan.dwg----consultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHT------------May 31 2021Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPSan Luis ObispoCa.934011321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa9340111/4" = 1'-0"1st Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 D1 -UNCOVERED ROOF DECK01 11 D2 -UNCOVERED 2ND FLOOR DECK01 11 R2 -1ST FLOOR ROOF01 11 R3 -2ND FLOOR ROOF01 11 W3 -LINE OF WALL BELOW, TYP.DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 62 A1 -SKYLIGHTDIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C1 -SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTOR CANOPY, FLAT PANELS MOUNTEDHORIZONTAL, SEE ROOF PLAN48 14 C2 -SOLAR ENERGY FLAT PANEL COLLECTOR, MOUNTED HORIZONTALON ROOF2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp A-2.1aPartial EastElevation10128partial east elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"Partial East ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".01 41 S3 -UNCOVERED DECK PROJECTION INTO SETBACK ALLOWED PERCITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.B; MAX PROJECTION ALLOWED = THELESSER OF 4' OR 1/2 THE REQUIRED SETBACK.DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFDIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD.DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 31 C1 -CHIMNEYDIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C1 -SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTOR CANOPY, FLAT PANELS MOUNTEDHORIZONTAL, SEE ROOF PLAN2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp BA9'-6" 07 32 M109 30 B109 23 A108 50 A1 01 41 S101 41 S1+219.3'3rd FF+233.8'+208.3'2rd FF+198.8'1st FF+238.3'Roof+242.3'Roof01 41 S1@ Bldg SE cornerGrid Line 4 5'-0"PL @ GridLine 408 50 A308 50 A3A-2.1East Elevation10128a-2.1 west elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"East ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 50 A1 -WINDOW AS SCHEDULED.08 50 A3 -WINDOW SHALL MEET EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PERCBC SECTION 310.2. PROVIDE MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING OF 5.7SQ FT WITH 24" MIN CLEAR HT. AND 20" MIN CLR. WIDTH WITH THEBOTTOM OF OPENING @ 44" MAX. HT. ABOVE THE FLOOR.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD.2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp 1234505 'Loft FF+224.3'Studio FF+233.8'+238.3'Roof+242.3'RoofPL @ SW Bldg Corner01 41 S1@Bldg North Wall (2 story)01 41 S1@ Bldg South Wall (3 story)5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"48 14 C109 30 B107 71 A305 52 R1+208.3'2rd FF10'-0"Allowed Ht. Exception for Projectionsper 17.70.080.C.2Elevator, Solar, Steeples, etc.5'-0"01 41 S1@Bldg Kitchen North Wall (3 story)PL @ Kitchen North Wall This setback occurs at thenorth side of the 3-storyportion of the bldg.This setback occursat the south side of the3-story portion ofthe bldg.01 41 S22'-6" max.A-2.2North Elevation10128a-2.2 north elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"North Elevation2019-08-06 / Plng Staff MtgSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 S2 -(E) STRUCTURE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYDIVISION 05 - METALS05 52 R1 -METAL RAILINGDIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 42 S1 -METAL SIDING07 71 A3 -DOWNSPOUT.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD.DIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C1 -SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTOR CANOPY, FLAT PANELS MOUNTEDHORIZONTAL, SEE ROOF PLAN B107 71 A305 52 R105 52 R110 31 C109 23 A108 50 A312'-0" 8'-0" 01 41 S101 41 S301 41 S16"+219.3'3rd FF+233.8'+208.3'2rd FF+198.8'1st FF+238.3'Roof+242.3'Roof5'-0"5'-0"01 41 S1@ Bldg SW corner48 14 C1OpenA-2.3West Elevation10128a-2.3 east elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"West ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".01 41 S3 -UNCOVERED DECK PROJECTION INTO SETBACK ALLOWED PERCITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.B; MAX PROJECTION ALLOWED = THELESSER OF 4' OR 1/2 THE REQUIRED SETBACK.DIVISION 05 - METALS05 52 R1 -METAL RAILINGDIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF07 71 A3 -DOWNSPOUT.DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 50 A3 -WINDOW SHALL MEET EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PERCBC SECTION 310.2. PROVIDE MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING OF 5.7SQ FT WITH 24" MIN CLEAR HT. AND 20" MIN CLR. WIDTH WITH THEBOTTOM OF OPENING @ 44" MAX. HT. ABOVE THE FLOOR.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD.DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 31 C1 -CHIMNEYDIVISION 48 - ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION48 14 C1 -SOLAR ENERGY COLLECTOR CANOPY, FLAT PANELS MOUNTEDHORIZONTAL, SEE ROOF PLAN2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp 39'-6"11'-0"11'-0"9'-6"8'-0"02 21 P102 21 S209 23 A109 30 B108 62 A110'-0"Allowed Ht. Exception for Projectionsper 17.70.080.C.2Elevator, Solar, Steeples, etc.01 41 S301 41 S101 41 S19"+208.3'2rd FF+216.3'Loft FF+224.3'Studio FF+219.3'3rd FF+208.3'2nd FF+198.8'1st FF5'-0"5'-0"01 41 S1@ Bldg SW corner 01 41 S22'-6" max.A-2.4South Elevation10128a-2.4 south elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"South ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review2019-10-21 / Mtg w/Bldg-Fire-PW2020-02-24 / Plng Response2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment RespREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 41 S1 -SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE PER CITY CODE 17.24.02001 41 S2 -PROJECTION INTO SETBACK FOR CORNICES, EAVES, CHIMNEYS,PROJECTING WINDOWS AND OTHER ELEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED &ALLOWED PER CITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.A; MAX PROJECTIONALLOWED = 30".01 41 S3 -UNCOVERED DECK PROJECTION INTO SETBACK ALLOWED PERCITY ZONING 17.70.170.C.5.B; MAX PROJECTION ALLOWED = THELESSER OF 4' OR 1/2 THE REQUIRED SETBACK.DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 S2 -(E) STRUCTURE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 62 A1 -SKYLIGHTDIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY09 30 B1 -BRICK VENEER PER APPROVED MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD. 2A-3.21.6A-3.21.6FG-01FG-02FG-03 FG-05FG-06FG-07FG-04 FG-08 FG-09 FG-10 10 71 A110 71 A110 71 F110 71 F1Flood Protection Device ScheduleI.D.DescriptionWidthHeightNotesFG-01FG-02FG-03FG-04FG-05FG-06FG-07FG-08FG-09FG-10Flood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood GateFlood Gate4'-0"6'-6"4'-10"4'-0"4'-0"3'-6"4'-2"4'-8"4'-8"4'-8"3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min.3'-0" min. 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,x 3/4" marine grade plywood, see detail x,xF-1.0Flood Plan &Details10128f-1.0 flood plan & details.dwg----2020-02-11 / Progress Plotconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHT------------May 31 2021Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPSan Luis ObispoCa.934011321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa9340111/4" = 1'-0"Flood Gate PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2020-02-24 / Plng ResponseREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 B1 -ALL UTILITES & EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LOCATED IN AREAS THAT AREDRY FLOOD PROOFED OR BE ELEVATED 1' MIN. ABOVE THE BFE.01 11 B2 -RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 1' ABOVETHE BFE.DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 71 A1 -GARAGE AREA USED SOLELY FOR PARKING VEHICLES ANDLIMITED STORAGE, AREAS OF THE GARAGE BELOW THE BFE MUSTBE CONSTRUCTED WITH FLOOD-RESISTANT MATERIALS10 71 F1 -AREA FLOODPROOFED, TOGETHER WITH ATTENDANT UTILITY ANDSANITARY FACILITIES, SO THAT THE STRUCTURE IS WATERTIGHT WITHWALLS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPERMEABLE TO THE PASSAGE OF WATEWITH STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS CAPABLE OF RESISTINGHYDROSTATIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS AND EFFECTS OFBUOYANCY2020-05-05 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp2020-07-08 / Dev Rvw Comment Resp 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 1:07 PM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Attachments:ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Incomplete Letter V3.pdf Hello Keith, As required by law, I must provide the attached incomplete letter within 30 days of receiving a submittal when a project is incomplete. I have reduced the items in this letter to those that are currently seen as critical. These will need to be addressed for the project to move forward. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:43 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I was tied up yesterday so have not discussed timing with Rob yet. I will get ahold of him today and let you know asap about timing. I am not sure if this afternoon or Monday will be better for him but I wanted to confirm for you that I have received you email & am working on responding. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2020 11:58 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, 2 I would like to set up a time to have a web meeting to discuss this project with you and the applicant further. Thursday afternoon or Monday morning would work for me, but please let me know if there is a better time for you. I do also want to let you know that your interpretation and application of 17.70.170, C. “Allowed projections…” is incorrect and not supported, as this applies to “projections” from the building, and can not be used to allow building walls to encroach into the otherwise required setbacks. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org June 12, 2020 Sent via Email Once Upon a Time, LP PO Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: Completeness Review #3: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street): Development review of a new four-story single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit, include a roof top deck. Dear Once Upon a Time, LP: Thank you for the May 15, 2020 submittal for the Garden Green Building 3 project. We have reviewed your application and found it to be incomplete. We will be unable to process your application until additional information and/or revisions have been submitted, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Preliminary review is necessary to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a list of items that need to be addressed prior to taking action on your project. Preliminary review indicates that your application will remain in an incomplete status until the following information and/or revisions are submitted: Note: Upon resubmittal please provide a narrative indicating where responses to these items can be found on plans. Department comments/completeness items: Planning Division - Community Development Department Initial note: The currently proposed project is being reviewed for compliance with today’s codes, standards, and guidelines. While there may have been a previously approved project on this site, the approval of that structure has no influence on the current comments provided, and therefore should not be referenced in response to these comments. 1. Property lines on elevation drawings show that portions of the structure are not in compliance with setback standards. Please modify project so that all proposed buildings meet setback requirements unless setback exception is formally requested and added to project description (support for such an exception has not been evaluated). Zoning regulations section sited on plans (allowed projections) does not apply to the primary walls or parapets of the structure as they are not “projections” into the otherwise required setback. ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #3 June 12, 2020 Page 2 2. Site plan shows the footprint of an existing structure near the west property line. This structure does not currently appear on mapping programs. Please verify the existence of this structure and remove from plans if not currently existing. Additional Note: The structure as a whole, and the upper story windows and roof deck, must be consistent with Land Use Policy 2.3.9.G, which states: New Buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. Past projects with concerns for privacy from upper story windows were conditioned to have those windows be “frosted” or otherwise modified so that light may be provided but view is obscured. Past project which include roof decks have provided additional setback from property lines than the minimum required setback, or other measures to reduce the impact to neighboring property’s privacy. Please consider measures to protect the privacy neighbors. If you have any questions on the above planning comments, or any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 805-781-7091, or by e-mail at: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org The above list includes all of the items initially identified as necessary for us to certify your application as complete. The City may ask for additional information upon more detailed review of your project. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the specific items necessary to submit for a complete application, please contact me at (805) 781-7091. Sincerely, Kyle Van Leeuwen CDD Assistant Planner 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:06 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Thank you Keith, My schedule today has been pretty well eaten up and I will be out of the office tomorrow. Let’s shoot for a time next week, besides Monday morning I have a relatively open schedule the rest of the week as well. KVL From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:43 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Kyle, I was tied up yesterday so have not discussed timing with Rob yet. I will get ahold of him today and let you know asap about timing. I am not sure if this afternoon or Monday will be better for him but I wanted to confirm for you that I have received you email & am working on responding. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2020 11:58 AM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I would like to set up a time to have a web meeting to discuss this project with you and the applicant further. Thursday afternoon or Monday morning would work for me, but please let me know if there is a better time for you. I do also want to let you know that your interpretation and application of 17.70.170, C. “Allowed projections…” is incorrect and not supported, as this applies to “projections” from the building, and can not be used to allow building walls to encroach into the otherwise required setbacks. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner 2 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 11:58 AM To:Keith Hall Subject:1321 Garden Street Hello Keith, I would like to set up a time to have a web meeting to discuss this project with you and the applicant further. Thursday afternoon or Monday morning would work for me, but please let me know if there is a better time for you. I do also want to let you know that your interpretation and application of 17.70.170, C. “Allowed projections…” is incorrect and not supported, as this applies to “projections” from the building, and can not be used to allow building walls to encroach into the otherwise required setbacks. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:37 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Agreed, but it wasn’t, so we are stuck. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:36 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden The density on the other half of the project, the exisitng building, now cannot support the number of bedrooms already created. This should have been recorded as all one common interest project. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:26 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden I hear you, I remember struggling with the same thing, but eventually they wore me down. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:22 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Ok Thanks. I guess I’ll drop the density issue. Its kind of ridiculous that now they get more density for not building the project they are required to build. Not even consistent with the density breakdown for the previous project. But im over it. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:33 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden See note on map that references Parcel 2 as a standard lot with Parcel 1 as the common interest lot (bottom right on Page 2 and 3). Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner 2 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:42 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Attachments:old project.JPG Below is a link where you can find the old project, there is no excuse for calling these projects the same, the only similarity between them is that they were both residences. \\ Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:39 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Yup. But when they say we should call the new project is “essentially the same” as the previous. I’ll remind them why we cannot, because they would lose at least two bedrooms. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:37 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Agreed, but it wasn’t, so we are stuck. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:36 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden The density on the other half of the project, the exisitng building, now cannot support the number of bedrooms already created. This should have been recorded as all one common interest project. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:26 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden I hear you, I remember struggling with the same thing, but eventually they wore me down. 2 Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:22 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Ok Thanks. I guess I’ll drop the density issue. Its kind of ridiculous that now they get more density for not building the project they are required to build. Not even consistent with the density breakdown for the previous project. But im over it. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:33 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden See note on map that references Parcel 2 as a standard lot with Parcel 1 as the common interest lot (bottom right on Page 2 and 3). Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:33 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden Attachments:PM_074_032_001.pdf See note on map that references Parcel 2 as a standard lot with Parcel 1 as the common interest lot (bottom right on Page 2 and 3). Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:22 PM To:Bell, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Ok Thanks. I guess I’ll drop the density issue. Its kind of ridiculous that now they get more density for not building the project they are required to build. Not even consistent with the density breakdown for the previous project. But im over it. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:33 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden See note on map that references Parcel 2 as a standard lot with Parcel 1 as the common interest lot (bottom right on Page 2 and 3). Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:26 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden I hear you, I remember struggling with the same thing, but eventually they wore me down. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:22 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Ok Thanks. I guess I’ll drop the density issue. Its kind of ridiculous that now they get more density for not building the project they are required to build. Not even consistent with the density breakdown for the previous project. But im over it. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:33 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden See note on map that references Parcel 2 as a standard lot with Parcel 1 as the common interest lot (bottom right on Page 2 and 3). Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:39 PM To:Bell, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Yup. But when they say we should call the new project is “essentially the same” as the previous. I’ll remind them why we cannot, because they would lose at least two bedrooms. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:37 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Agreed, but it wasn’t, so we are stuck. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:36 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden The density on the other half of the project, the exisitng building, now cannot support the number of bedrooms already created. This should have been recorded as all one common interest project. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:26 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden I hear you, I remember struggling with the same thing, but eventually they wore me down. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:22 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Ok Thanks. I guess I’ll drop the density issue. Its kind of ridiculous that now they get more density for not building the project they are required to build. Not even consistent with the density breakdown for the previous project. But im over it. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:33 PM 2 To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden See note on map that references Parcel 2 as a standard lot with Parcel 1 as the common interest lot (bottom right on Page 2 and 3). Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:36 PM To:Bell, Kyle Subject:RE: 1321 Garden The density on the other half of the project, the exisitng building, now cannot support the number of bedrooms already created. This should have been recorded as all one common interest project. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:26 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden I hear you, I remember struggling with the same thing, but eventually they wore me down. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:22 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Ok Thanks. I guess I’ll drop the density issue. Its kind of ridiculous that now they get more density for not building the project they are required to build. Not even consistent with the density breakdown for the previous project. But im over it. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:33 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden See note on map that references Parcel 2 as a standard lot with Parcel 1 as the common interest lot (bottom right on Page 2 and 3). Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Friday, May 15, 2020 12:42 AM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Garden St. Loft Attachments:Garden St Loft_Matl & Color_2020-05-15sm.pdf Kyle, We will be delivering the response to the 2nd round of City comments on the 1321/3 Garden St. Loft project on Friday May 15. I am sending this email before actually sending the materials samples with the submittal because some of the materials samples are large and heavy (paver size : 5.5W x 8.25L x 2.5 T). It has been my experience that physical samples at this stage are essentially redundant because I always have to specify paint brush outs and sample submittals in the construction phase in order to get the desired result. If you really insist on having them I will send them but I believe that you will have more trouble storing them than you will have determining that the materials are OK based on our virtual submittal (attached). It will be submitted as a booklet with the plans & written response if that meets your needs. In this era of COVID-19 physical separation more acceptance of digital submittals is emerging so maybe this will work for you. I really think that it is the more efficient approach anyway. Let me know what works for you. You can reach me on my cell phone 805 296 5421. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 khA D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S MATERIALS & COLORS GARDEN STREET LOFT 1321 & 1323 Garden St. khA keith hall ARCHITECT CONTACT INFORMATION OBJECTIVE The purpose of this submittal is to present the colors and materials proposed for this project in the context of the existing built earlier phase of development and the neighborhood as a whole. During this time of embracing digital submittals to better facilitate remote working and social distancing khA has prepared a virtual submittal for the materials sample and color presentation. Many of the proposed selected are based on the existing Townhomes that where built out as a number of years ago. The intent is to create a sense of context through the use of common color and texture. To demonstrate that the materials selected achieve this goal, khA has photographed and documented the proposed material selections in a setting where they are placed adjacent to or on the existing materials on site. The photo study that follows provides additional explanation. khA suggest that this approach is even more appropriate to show compatibility than providing loose physical samples out of context of the on site existing materials because this submittal provides a side by side comparison that is not achieved by simply furnishing physical samples of the proposed materials. Office Address: Keith Hall, Architect Pacific Coast Center 75 Higuera Street, Suite 165 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 T: 805.541.9160 Project Contact: Keith Hall, LEED AP C: 805.296.5421 khall@parallelDesignStudios.com www.parallelDesignStudios.com Submittal Date : 2020-05-15 khA keith hall ARCHITECT khA DE S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S PLASTER VIEW 1: FULL SUN STRAIGHT ON VIEW 2: SHADE 2a: Overhead 2b: Looking Up 2c: Straight On PRODUCT . Manufacturer : LaHabra Color : X-434 (Fallbrook) Finish : Santa Barbara D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S khA BRICK khA DE S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S PAVER VIEW 1: FULL SUN OVERVIEW VIEW 2: EDGE (w/Color ID) PRODUCT . Manufacturer : Air-Vol Block Type : Roman Color : Cream Brown Pattern : 1-1-1 D E S I G N S T U D I O S | A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S khA STEEL RAIL & ACCENTS VIEW 1: FILTERED SUN Note: Existing Rail has variation in color. View 1 is lighter than the proposed sample & View 2 is darker. The proposed sample is the average between the light & dark VIEW 2: FULL SUN VIEW 3: COLOR ID (w/Color ID) kh A keith hall ARCHITECT P A C I F I C C O A S T C E N T E R 7 5 H I G U E R A S T R E E T S U I T E 1 6 5 S A N L U I S O B I S P O C A 9 3 4 0 1 T 8 0 5 5 4 1 9 1 6 0 x 3 C 8 0 5 2 9 6 5 4 2 1 W w w w . p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m E k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m 1 From:Rippe, Patricia <Patricia.Rippe@fema.dhs.gov> Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:41 PM To:Hannula, Hal Cc:Gillespie, Julia Subject:Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Attachments:P-936_sec2_508.pdf Hi Hal, San Luis Obispo has been assigned to me and Julia Gillespie. Julia is currently deployed to support the COVID-19 response. Thanks for the question about multi use properties. I understand that currently the live-work residence is in a Zone AO and the living/residential area is on the second floor above the flood depth. Below the living area (ground floor) is a garage, access and limited storage. The proposal is to modify the ground floor to include office space and a toilet room. You asked a couple of questions: 1) In this case of a defined live-work unit, is the expansion of the floor area beyond parking, access, and limited storage for office purposes acceptable. a. Yes an office and toilet would be allowed if the structure is either floodproofed or elevated. Obviously, in this situation you are considering floodproofing. FEMA regs related to the toilet: “New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate the infiltration of discharges from the systems into floodwaters (44 CFR §60.3(a)(6)(i))”. A backflow preventer is needed. 2) If supported, should we consider the office areas as expanded and recognized non-residential uses such as storage or just consider them as commercial like uses. a. For floodplain management purposes multi-use structures are categorized as either residential or non-residential based on the use of the ground floor. In this case the ground floor will be office use which is considered non- residential. Floodproofing is allowed for non-residential structures. FEMA regs: “Within any Zone AO on the community’s FIRM, all new construction and Substantial Improvement of nonresidential structures must (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified), or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely floodproofed to that level to meet the floodproofing standards specified in 44 §60.3(c)(3)(ii) and 60.3(c)(8)”. 3) They are proposing dry floodproofing and flood barriers to protect the office areas and access at the lower floor. Although prudent, it seems like they would really need to construct all improvements at the lower office level with flood-resistant construction rather than relying on flood protection at the exterior envelope. a. If the work to convert the ground floor to office use meets the City’s Substantial Damage threshold (typically 50% of market value) then the building materials used below the BFE must be resistant to flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a) (3)(ii)). If this conversion is less than substantial improvement, then this is optional but prudent, to use your words. FEMA would recommend this approach. Please note that in order for dry floodproofing to achieve a favorable NFIP insurance rating, it must extend to the BFE + 1 foot of freeboard. I have attached a good document on floodproofing for your review. In addition, below are a couple of links to Technical Bulletins on this subject: 1. Technical Bulletin 2, Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements (2008). Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning the required use of flood-damage resistant construction materials for building components located below the Base Flood Elevation in Special Flood Hazard Areas (both A and V zones). https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/2655 2. Technical Bulletin 3, Non-Residential Floodproofing - Requirements and Certification (1993). Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning watertight construction and the required certification for floodproofed non-residential buildings in Zones A, AE, A1-A30, AR, AO, and AH whose lowest floors are below the Base Flood Elevation. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3473 2 If you have additional questions please email me. Sincerely, Patricia Rippe Senior Floodplain Management Specialist FEMA Region IX 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 (510) 627-7015 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-1 T he most effective flood mitigation methods are relocation and elevation, but when these methods are not feasible or cost-effective, floodproofing may be an appropriate alternative. Some emergency mea- sures can be accomplished without expert construction assistance, and many can be used for low-level or nuisance flooding while significantly reducing losses from these types of events. The development of a floodproofing strategy should include considerations of a number of factors that will influence the design of the floodproofing measure or measures. This chapter contains a discussion of these fac- tors, which are: ■■Design requirements. Regulatory requirements, building codes, design standards, and other guidance documents (Section 2.1) ■■Design loads and site characteristics. Hydrostatic loads, hydrodynamic loads, wave loads, impact loads from flood-borne debris, internal drainage, and site drainage (Section 2.2) ■■Flood characteristics. Flood elevations, duration of flooding, rate of floodwater rise and fall, flood frequency (Section 2.3) ■■Site factors. Flood hazard boundaries, erosion and scour, and geotechnical considerations (Section 2.4) ■■Functional, operational, and economic factors. Functional use requirements of the building, occupant safety, flood warning time, flood emergency operations plans, inspection and maintenance plans, and BCAs (Section 2.5) ■■Vulnerability assessments. All-hazards vulnerability assessments, structural condition assessments of the building, and utility assessments (Section 2.6) Design Considerations in Floodproofing Cross Reference Have questions about the NFIP? See FEMA F-084, Answers to Questions about the NFIP (FEMA 2011b) at: http:// www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/doc- uments/272. This document is intended to acquaint the public with the NFIP. It is designed for readers who do not need a detailed history or technical or legal explanations but who do need a basic understanding of the program and the answers to some frequently asked ques- tions. For legal definitions, see the NFIP Flood Insurance Manual (FEMA 2013), and National Flood Insurance Program Regulations (FEMA 2009a). 2-2 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.1 Regulatory Requirements, Building Codes, Design Standards, and Guidance Documents Floodproofing may be proposed voluntarily by building owners or may be necessary to meet floodplain man- agement regulations or building codes. This section contains a discussion of the floodplain management regulations and building codes that can affect the type and design of floodproofing measures. 2.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program Communities that participate in the NFIP are required to adopt and enforce local regulations for development in mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) to reduce the risk of flooding (see 44 CFR Parts 59 and 60). However, communities are encouraged to adopt requirements that exceed Federal regulations. Homeowners, renters, and business owners, as well as communities that own buildings in participating communities are eli- gible for NFIP flood insurance coverage. With the inclusion of NFIP-consistent provisions in the International Code Series (I-Codes), communi- ties that have adopted the I-Codes have two ways of enforcing NFIP flood-resistant design and con- struction requirements for buildings and structures: ■■Using the I-Codes with NFIP-consistent provisions intact and IBC Appendix G; or ■■Using the I-Codes with NFIP-consistent provisions intact and local floodplain management regulations that include requirements comparable to those in Appendix G. These tools are designed to work together to result in buildings and structures, and all other development, that are resistant to flood loads and flood damage. If a participating community has not adopted the I-Codes or if the NFIP-consistent provisions of the codes are not intact, the community must adopt local floodplain management regulations that include detailed and specific requirements for buildings and structures. Consensus standards are incor- porated into building codes by reference; ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (2010), and ASCE 24 are two consensus standards that are consistent with NFIP regulations. See Section 2.1.7 for more information on consensus standards. Figure 2-1 shows how building design is regulated by the NFIP regulations and building codes. *NFIP-consistent administrative provisions, community-specific adoption of Flood Insurance Studies and maps, and technical requirements for development outside the scope of the building code (and higher standards, in some communities) Figure 2-1. Satisfying NFIP requirements through building codes FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-3 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING The requirements in 44 CFR Part 60 apply to all devel- opment, which the NFIP broadly defines to include buildings and structures, site work, roads and bridges, and other activities. The regulations require buildings to be designed and constructed to resist flood damage, which is achieved primarily through elevation. Dry floodproofing can be used to fulfill the requirements for non-residential buildings in SFHAs that are not sub- ject to high velocity wave action. Some requirements apply to existing buildings when the cost of repairing or improving a building in an SFHA equals or exceeds 50 percent of the building’s market value. The NFIP requires that new and Substantially Improved buildings be constructed in ways that minimize or prevent flood damage. As with new non-residential buildings, existing non-residential buildings may be brought into compli- ance by elevating them on compliant foundations or, if determined to be feasible, by implementing dry flood- proofing measures. The NFIP’s performance requirements are identical for new construction and for Substantial Improvement or repair of Substantial Damage of existing buildings. Some of the key requirements are: ■■Buildings shall be designed and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy (44 CFR §60.3(a)(3)(i)). ■■Building materials used below the BFE shall be resistant to flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a) (3)(ii)). ■■Buildings shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a)(3)(iii)). ■■Buildings shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air- conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components (44 CFR §60.3(a)(3) (iv)). Terminology “Substantial Damage” is damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before- damage condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the struc- ture before the damage occurred (FEMA 2010c). “Substantial Improvement” is any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or improvement of a building, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the building before the improvement or repair is started (cer- tain historic structures may be excluded) (FEMA 2010c). Substantially Impermeable: FEMA uses USACE’s definition of substantially imper- meable from Flood Proofing Regulations (USACE 1995). This document states that a substantially impermeable wall “shall not permit the accumulation of more than 4 inches of water depth during a 24-hour period and, sump pumps shall be required to control this seepage.” Special Note The NFIP establishes minimum crite- ria and design performance requirements that communities participating in the NFIP must enforce for structures in SFHAs. The criteria specify how a structure should be constructed in order to minimize or reduce the potential for flood damage. A primary requirement is that buildings shall be ele- vated to or above the BFE. Depending on flood zone, non-residential buildings may be protected with specifically designed and certified dry floodproofing measures that are watertight below and protect to the BFE. See Section 2.1.2 for information on the Floodproofing Certificate. 2-4 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems (44 CFR §60.3(a)(5)). ■■New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate the infiltration of discharges from the systems into floodwaters (44 CFR §60.3(a)(6)(i)). ■■All new construction and Substantial Improvement of non-residential structures within Zones A1–30, AE, and AH on the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) must (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level or, (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy (44 CFR §60.3(c)(3)). ■■Within any Zone AO on the community’s FIRM, all new construction and Substantial Improvement of nonresidential structures must (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified), or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely floodproofed to that level to meet the floodproofing standards specified in 44 §60.3(c)(3)(ii) and 60.3(c)(8). When dry floodproofing measures are proposed for non-residential buildings, communities that participate in the NFIP require applicants to provide certifica- tion that registered professional engineers or architects have developed or reviewed the structural design, spec- ifications, and plans for proposed dry floodproofing measures. In addition, the dry floodproofing design and proposed methods of construction are to be certi- fied as being in accordance with accepted standards of practice (see Section 2.1.2). The standards of practice require that the building, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that it is watertight below the BFE, with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components Special Note This publication specifies that in order for dry floodproofing to achieve a favorable NFIP insurance rating, it must extend to the BFE + 1 foot of freeboard. For new construc- tion or Substantial Improvement/Damage, it must extend to the BFE. However, the owner may choose to protect an existing building from lesser events of shallower, more frequent flooding using dry flood- proofing measures provided Substantial Improvement/Damage is not triggered. Special Note The NFIP does not strictly prohibit haz- ardous materials from areas subject to flooding, but requiring such materials to be protected from floodwaters, is an effec- tive way to reduce or eliminate the chance of damage associated with the release of harmful materials. FEMA 480, Floodplain Management Requirements, A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials, provides a list of potential con- taminants that may be of concern (FEMA 2005). FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-5 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING that are capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy associated with the design flood event. Although NFIP regulations require non-residential buildings to be watertight and protected only to the BFE for floodplain management purposes (to meet NFIP regulations), protection to a higher level is necessary for dry floodproofing measures to be considered for NFIP flood insurance rating purposes. Because of the addi- tional risk associated with dry floodproofed buildings, to receive an insurance rating based on 1-percent- annual-chance (100-year) flood protection, a building must be dry floodproofed to an elevation at least 1 foot above the BFE. Insurance premiums will be lower if dry floodproofing extends higher than the BFE + 1 foot. Dry floodproofed buildings with active floodproofing measures and requiring human intervention are subject to higher insurance premiums than dry floodproofed buildings with completely passive floodproofing mea- sures that do not require human intervention. Wet floodproofing also has implications for NFIP flood insurance rating purposes. NFIP floodplain manage- ment regulations restrict the use of space below the BFE to parking of vehicles, building access, and storage. Although floodwalls or levees can be used to keep floodwaters away from buildings, implementing these measures will not affect a building’s flood insurance rating unless the flood control structure is accredited in accordance NFIP requirements (44 CFR §65.10) and provides protection from at least the 1-percent-annual- chance (100-year) flood. In addition, floodwalls or levees as a retrofit measure will not bring the building into compliance with NFIP requirements for Substantial Improvement/Damage. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 provide other requirements for dry and wet floodproofing based on the NFIP. Table 2-1. NFIP General Requirements for Dry Floodproofing NFIP General Requirements for Dry Floodproofing References For new construction and Substantial Improvement/Damage, permitted only in non- residential buildings in special flood hazard areas not subject to high velocity wave action (i.e., permitted in Zone A). 44 CFR §60.3(c)(3) 44 CFR §60.3(c)(8) 44 CFR §60.3(c)(4) Technical Bulletin 3 (FEMA 1993a) Must be designed so the structure is watertight below the BFE with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of floodwater.(a) Attendant utility and sanitary facilities must be completely floodproofed to below the BFE.(a) A registered design professional must develop and/or review structural designs, specifications, and plans and certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice. Not permitted in Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zone V). (a) Dry floodproofed properties are eligible for insurance only if floodproofing extends to 1 foot above the BFE; 44 CFR §60.3(c)(3) requires floodproofing to the BFE. Special Note A building that is valued at $150,000 and located in a zone A can have differing insurance premiums based on the level of floodproofing. If the building is floodproofed to 1 foot above the BFE, the annual pre- mium would be approximately $1380. If the same building is floodproofed to 2 feet above the BFE, the annual premium would be approximately $540. The increase in floodproofing design level would result in a 61 percent savings in annual insurance premiums that would be passed onto the building owner. 2-6 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Table 2-2. NFIP General Requirements for Wet Floodproofing NFIP General Wet Floodproofing Requirements References Permitted only for attached garages or parking, access, and storage areas below the BFE 44 CFR §60.3(a)(3) 44 CFR §60.3(c)(5) 44 CFR §60.6(a) 44 CFR §60.6(a)(7) Technical Bulletin 7 (FEMA 1993b) Some historic structures, accessory structures, structures functionally dependent on proximity to water, and agricultural buildings may be wet floodproofed Portions of the structure below the BFE must be constructed of flood-resistant materials Must be designed to allow for automatic entry and exit of floodwaters 2.1.2 Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Buildings in Zone A When dry floodproofing is used to comply with local regulations or building code requirements, the NFIP and model building codes require the submission of a certificate stating that the design satisfies all applica- ble requirements. Strictly speaking, certification is not required for retrofit measures that are not required to meet the minimum requirements; however, FEMA rec- ommends that communities require it for all retrofit dry floodproofing projects. The recommended form to use for this purpose is the FEMA Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Structures (FEMA Form 086- 0-34) (FEMA 2012b). This form is required for the floodproofing measures to be recognized for NFIP flood insurance purposes. It is important to note that this certificate is not an “as-built” certification; it is used by the designer only to certify the design. Certification of design is not required for wet floodproofing. For floodwalls and levees, a certificate is required only if the mitigation results in a change to the FIRM. The design certification is required for the following types of buildings in Zone A: ■■Dry floodproofed non-residential structures (no residential uses) ■■Dry floodproofed portions of mixed-use buildings that have all residential uses located above the floodproofing design elevation The certificate is submitted as part of the permit appli- cation and has the following three sections: Special Note Design professionals need to be aware of several requirements not explicitly noted on current floodproofing certificates, spe- cifically, they must: ■ Provide interior drainage (pumps) to control seepage into building ■ Provide a continuous source of elec- tricity to operate any necessary floodproofing components ■ Use flood-resistant materials in areas where seepage is expected to occur ■ Conduct planning, including developing a flood emergency operations plan and an inspection and maintenance plan To ensure better documentation and to demonstrate the importance of implement- ing active measures, FEMA suggests that local officials require a photograph of the building to be submitted with the certificate. If there are openings on the floodproofed portion of the building, the photograph should be taken with opening protection fully installed/in place. Further, the designer should sign off on the floodproofing certificate stating that he or she has reviewed the emergency operations plan AND inspection and main- tenance plan and that they are adequate. Finally, additional technical documenta- tion, such as design drawings and material specifications, may be required for insur- ance purposes. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-7 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■Section I. FIRM information, including community number, map panel number, date of the FIRM index, flood zone, and BFE. ■■Section II. Floodproofing information. The designer is required to identify the floodproofing design elevation and the height of the floodproofing measures above the lowest adjacent grade. ■■Section III. Certification by the design professional licensed in the State where the project is located. The designer signs to certify that the dry floodproofed area of the building, together with attendant utilities and sanitary facilities, will be watertight to the floodproofed design elevation indicated, with walls that are substantially impermeable to the passage of water. The designer is also required to certify that all structural components are capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic flood forces, including the effects of buoyancy, and anticipated debris impact forces. The designer provides copies of the completed certificate to the building owner who submits it with the permit application to his/her insurance agent/company and the community official. Communities are required to maintain copies of design certifications as part of their commitment to the NFIP. 2.1.3 Floodproofing Historic Buildings The NFIP gives special consideration to the unique value of designated historic buildings and structures. Provided such structures retain their designations, communities do not have to require them to be brought into compliance if the structures will be Substantially Improved or have been Substantially Damaged. The NFIP definition of “historic structures” includes structures that are (1) listed or preliminarily determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, (2) certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Department of Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered his- toric district or a district preliminarily determined to qualify as a registered historic district, or (3) designated as a historic site under a State or local historic preservation program that is approved by the Secretary of the Department of Interior. The definition does not include structures that are merely old, those that residents refer to as historic, or those that happen to be located in historic districts. Section 4.5.3 includes a case study involving the application of floodproofing to historic buildings. When voluntary retrofit floodproofing measures are applied to historic buildings, the measures should be designed to mitigate or reduce the flood risk while preserving the building’s historic integrity. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and a design professional (engineer or architect), preferably one experienced in rehabilitating historic structures, is necessary. Ideally, any retrofit floodproofing measure applied to a historic building and/or its site will not affect the property’s designation. If a structure does not retain its historic designation, it is subject to the basic NFIP requirements for Substantial Improvement/Damage. Retrofit floodproofing measures for historic buildings need not be comprehensive to provide at least some degree of protection. The techniques listed below may have minimal impact on the historically significant fea- tures of the structure (FEMA 2008b): ■■Elevating electrical and mechanical systems and utilities ■■Relocating contents ■■Creating positive drainage, where the grade allows water to drain away from the building ■■Using flood damage-resistant materials 2-8 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■Filling in basements or wet floodproofing basements ■■Installing small floodwalls to protect openings such as window wells 2.1.4 National Policies for Federal Actions in Floodplains When Federal assistance is provided for the planning, design, and construction of buildings or for the repair of existing buildings located in SFHAs (and within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance [500-year] floodplain if the activity funded is a “critical action” or critical facility), the funding agency is required to address additional considerations. Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to follow a decision-making process to avoid, to the extent possible, the short- and long-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid supporting floodplain development directly or indirectly whenever there is a practicable alternative. If there is no practicable alternative, the Federal agency must take steps to mini- mize any adverse impacts on people’s lives, property, and the floodplain’s natural and beneficial functions. EO 11988 applies directly to Federal agencies and indirectly to tribes, States, and local governments through Federal actions and requirements. FEMA’s regulations in 44 CFR Part 9 set forth the agency’s policy, procedure, and responsibilities for implementation and enforcement of EO 11988 and also EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Other Federal agencies have similar regulations or policies that satisfy the requirements of the order. As defined in 44 CFR §9.4, a critical action is an action for which even a slight chance of flooding is too great. The minimum floodplain of concern for critical actions is the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) floodplain. Critical actions include actions that create or extend the useful life of structures or facilities such as those that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explo- sive, toxic or water reactive materials; hospitals, nursing homes, and housing for the elderly; emergency opera- tion centers, data storage centers; utility systems and power generating plants. Warning Although 44 CFR Part 9 implementation rules addresses “critical actions” in SFHAs (actions for which even a slight chance of flooding is too great), sometimes relocating a critical action (building) is a better option than elevating or floodproofing Special Note 44 CFR §9.11(d)(1) states that FEMA, as part of its implementation of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, tshall apply certain min- imization provisions. Specifically, FEMA funding shall not be used to support new construction or Substantial Improvement in a floodway, and no new construction in a coastal high hazard area, except for (i) a functionally dependent use or (ii) a struc- ture or facility which facilitates an open space use. 44 CFR §59.1 defines the regulatory flood- way as the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increas- ing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. 44 CFR §59.1 defines the coastal high hazard area as an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-9 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Critical actions should be given special consideration when developing regulatory alternatives and floodplain management plans. Under EO 11988 and 44 CFR Part 9, critical actions are required to avoid the 0.2 per- cent-annual-chance (500-year) floodplain or to elevate or protect structures and essential components to the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) flood level. Critical actions should not occur in a floodplain, if possible. The 8-step decision-making process called for in EO 11988 is further developed and clarified in 44 CFR §9.6(b). FEMA uses the decision-making process illustrated in Figure 2-2 to satisfy the requirements. Figure 2-2. FEMA’s 8-step decision-making process for compliance with Executive Order (EO) 11998 and 44 CFR Part 9 2-10 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.1.5 Local Floodplain Management Regulations To participate in the NFIP, communities are required to adopt and enforce local floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum requirements established in 44 CFR Parts 59 and 60. Until the advent of model building codes that included flood provisions deemed consistent with NFIP requirements for buildings (see Section 2.1.1), communities adopted stand-alone floodplain management regulations or ordinances that included administrative, land use, and building requirements. Some States have requirements that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements, and many communities adopt higher standards to achieve a greater level of protection and public safety. The most common higher standards are: ■■Requirement to protect to a higher elevation than the minimum requirement (freeboard) ■■A cumulative Substantial Improvement in which the improvements and repairs are tallied over a certain period of time (e.g., 5 or 10 years). The effect of a cumulative improvement provision is that more existing buildings are required to be brought into compliance with the requirements for new construction ■■Prohibition of new construction in the floodway, SFHA, or conservation zones ■■Prohibition of the use of building materials and practices that have proven to be ineffective in flooding ■■Restrictions on the use and type of construction fill material 2.1.6 Model Building Codes Many States and communities regulate the construction of buildings by adopting and enforcing building codes based on model building codes. Building codes have minimum requirements on issues such as structural design, materials, fire safety, number and location of exits, natural hazard mitigation, sanitary facilities, light and ventilation, environmental control, fire protection, and energy conservation. Building codes apply to the construction of new buildings and structures and to existing buildings and structures, including alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement, repair, and change of occupancy. The I-Codes and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Building Construction and Safety Code (NFPA 5000 [2012]) were the first model codes to include comprehensive provisions for flood hazards. The flood provisions were incorporated into building codes in the early 2000s. Both codes are consistent with the minimum provisions of the NFIP that pertain to the design and construction of buildings and other structures. The IBC and International Existing Building Code (IEBC [2012]) are pertinent to this manual because they address the primary requirements for design and construction of non-residential buildings and because of their widespread use in the United States. The IBC contains flood provisions, and the IEBC references the flood provisions of the IBC for all repairs, additions, and alterations to existing buildings in flood hazard areas that are proposed to be Substantially Improved or that have sustained Substantial Damage. Warning For any building that is proposed for dry floodproofing, always determine whether the community where the building is locat- ed has adopted higher standards. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-11 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING The IBC incorporates by reference a number of standards developed through a formal or accredited consensus process. The standards that are related to flood-resis- tant design are ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, and ASCE 24, Flood Resistant Design and Construction. The IBC addresses flood loads and flood-resistant construction primarily in Section 1612. FEMA has determined that the flood provisions of the I-Codes are consistent with NFIP requirements for buildings and structures. The family of I-Codes addresses all of the key building requirements of the NFIP. Communities that enforce building codes based on the I-Codes should coordinate their floodplain management ordinances with the codes to minimize duplication and conflicts and to ensure that all requirements are addressed, including requirements for devel- opment other than buildings and structures. Some key code requirements from the 2012 IBC are described in Table 2-3 (previous editions of the IBC have the same or similar requirements). A dry floodproofing retrofit project may trigger several sections of a community’s building code that must be considered during the design. The designer or engineer should be cognizant of codes that may be triggered when considering flood mitigation projects (see code trigger example on page 2-13). Cross Reference The International Code Council’s family of building codes can be purchased at http:// www.iccsafe.org/. The I-Codes are NOT available for free (although some States have made them available through sepa- rate copyright agreements). Excerpts of the flood provisions of the I-Codes are posted on the FEMA Building Science Web site: http://www.fema.gov/building-science. 2-12 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Table 2-3. Key Code Requirements for Flood-Resistant Design from IBC 2012 IBC 2012 Section(a)Requirement Comments 110.3.3 [Required Inspections] Lowest Floor Elevation In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certificate required in Section 1612.5 shall be submitted to the building official. Requires submission of elevation certificate once lowest floor has been constructed, before further vertical construction. 1403.6 [Exterior Walls] Flood Resistance For buildings in flood hazard areas as established in Section 1612.3, exterior walls extending below the elevation required by Section 1612 shall be constructed with flood-damage-resistant materials. Wood shall be pressure-preservative treated in accordance with AWPA-U1-12, Use Category System: User Specification for Treated Wood (AWPA 2012) for the species, product, and end use using a preservative listed in Section 4 of AWPA U1 or decay-resistant heartwood of redwood, black locust, or cedar. Requires buildings in flood hazard areas to use flood-damage-resistant materials on exterior walls below the required elevation. 1605.2.1 [Structural Design] Load Combinations (using strength design or load and resistance factor design) and Other Loads. Where flood loads, Fa, are to be considered in the design, the load combinations of Section 2.3.3 of ASCE 7 shall be used. Where self-straining loads, T, are considered in design, their structural effects in combination with other loads shall be determined in accordance with Section 2.4.4 of ASCE 7. Where an ice-sensitive structure is subjected to loads due to atmospheric icing, the load combinations of Section 2.3.4 of ASCE 7 shall be considered. Requires buildings designed for flood hazard areas to be designed to resist flood loads, along with other loads. 1605.3.1.2 [Structural Design] Load Combinations (using allowable stress design) and Other Loads. Where flood loads, Fa, are to be considered in design, the load combinations of Section 2.4.2 of ASCE 7 shall be used. Where self-straining loads, T, are considered in design, their structural effects in combination with other loads shall be determined in accordance with Section 2.4.4 of ASCE 7. Where an ice-sensitive structure is subjected to loads due to atmospheric icing, the load combinations of Section 2.3.4 of ASCE 7 shall be considered. Requires buildings designed for flood hazard areas to be designed to resist flood loads, along with other loads. 1612.1 [Structural Design] Flood Loads Within flood hazard areas as established in Section 1612.3, all new construction of buildings, structures and portions of buildings and structures, including Substantial Improvement and restoration of Substantial Damage to buildings and structures, shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of flood hazards and flood loads. For buildings that are located in more than one flood hazard area, the provisions associated with the most restrictive flood hazard area shall apply. Requires all new buildings, Substantial Improvement, and repair of Substantial Damage to be designed to resist the most restrictive flood hazard applicable to the location. 1612.4 [Structural Design] Flood Loads The design and construction of buildings and structures located in flood hazard areas, including flood hazard areas subject to high-velocity wave action, shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of ASCE 7 and with ASCE 24. References ASCE 7 and ASCE 24 for the specific requirements for the design and construction of buildings in flood hazard areas. International Building Code (IBC), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) (a) Flood-resistant provisions of the I-Codes can be found at http://www.fema.gov/building-science/building-code-resources. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-13 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.1.7 Consensus Standards The consensus standards relevant to flood-resistant design are ASCE 7 and ASCE 24. The requirements in these standards are consistent with the minimum NFIP requirements. ASCE 7 outlines methods to determine design loads and load combinations in flood hazard areas, includ- ing hydrostatic loads, hydrodynamic loads, wave loads, and debris impact loads. To compute the loads and load combinations, the designer must identify site-spe- cific characteristics, including flood depths, velocities, waves, and the likelihood that debris impacts need to be considered. ASCE 24 addresses design and construction require- ments for buildings in flood hazard areas, including floodways, coastal high hazard areas, and other high- risk flood hazard areas such as alluvial fans, flash flood areas, mudslide areas, erosion-prone areas, and high- velocity areas. ASCE 24 sets forth requirements for elevation, foundation designs, enclosures below elevated buildings, materials, dry and wet floodproofing, utility Code Trigger Example An example of a requirement that could be triggered by a floodproofing retrofit project is means of egress. The IEBC has criteria on means of egress that may be relevant depending on the level of altera- tion. Level 2 alterations “include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment.” Under the IEBC, in a Level 2 alteration, the requirements for both Level 1 and Level 2 alterations need to be followed. The requirements may involve finish, structural, accessibility/egress, fire-resistance, and other requirements. For example, a Level 2 alteration may trigger means of egress requirements that include: ■ Minimum number of exits in the work area, as required by the IBC (some buildings are required to have only one exit if certain criteria are met ■ Fire escapes requirements such as unobstructed access ■ New fire escape requirements ■ Mezzanine egress requirements ■ Requirements for openings in corridor walls ■ Means of egress lighting, exit signs, handrails, and guard Warning ASCE 24 addresses design and con- struction requirements for buildings in coastal high-hazard areas (Zone V), Coastal A Zones, and high-flood-veloci- ty areas but limits the applications of dry floodproofing in these areas because of increased hydrodynamic and wave loads. Cross Reference ASCE standards are available for purchase at: http://www.asce.org/codes-standards/. Highlights of ASCE 24 are posted on the FEMA Building Science Web page: http:// www.fema.gov/building-science. 2-14 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING installations, building access, and miscellaneous structures (e.g., decks, porches, patios, garages, chimneys and fireplaces, pools, above- and below-ground storage tanks). ASCE 24, Section 6.2 and Commentary 6.2, Dry Floodproofing, specify design and construction require- ments for dry floodproofing when used for the construction of new buildings or when existing buildings are proposed to be Substantially Improved (including repair of Substantial Damage). Table 2-4 provides a list of general requirements and limitations for dry floodproofing. ASCE 24 promulgates the standards of practice and should be used for floodproofing retrofits, even if the work does not constitute a Substantial Improvement. Table 2-4. ASCE 24 Requirements and Limitations for Dry Floodproofing ASCE 24 Section Dry Floodproofing Requirements and Limitations Minimum Elevation of Floodproofing (Table 6-1) Specifies the minimum elevation of dry floodproofing relative to the base flood elevation (BFE) or design flood elevation (DFE) as a function of structure/risk category and limits use of dry floodproofing to flood hazard areas outside of high risk flood hazard areas. Limitations (Section 6.2.1) Dry floodproofing of buildings is not permitted in: ■•Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zone V) ■•Coastal A Zones ■•Other High Risk Flood Areas where the following are known to occur: alluvial fan flooding, flash floods, mudslides, ice jams, high velocity flows, or erosion ■•Areas where flood velocities adjacent to buildings is greater than 5 feet per second during the design flood Requirements (Section 6.2.2) Buildings shall be designed and constructed: ■•So that any area below the applicable elevation specified in Table 6-1 is flood resistant with walls that are substantially impermeable to the passage of water ■•To resist all flood related loads resulting from flooding to the elevation listed in Table 6-1, including hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, and other flood related loads, including the effects of buoyancy ■•To have soil or fill adjacent to the structure compacted and protected against erosion and scour in accordance with ASCE 24, Section 2.4 ■•To have at least one door satisfying building code requirements as an exit door or primary means of escape above the applicable elevation specified in Table 6-1 Human Intervention (Section 6.2.3) Buildings proposed to be dry floodproofed that require human intervention to activate or implement measures prior to flooding shall be permitted only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: ■•Minimum of 12-hour warning time, unless community operates a flood warning system and implements an emergency plan to ensure safe evacuation and the community can provide a minimum warning time to allow the implementation of measures requiring human implementation ■•Removable shields or covers for openings must be designed to resist flood loads specified in Section 1.6 ■•Flood emergency plan must be approved by the authority having jurisdiction, shall specify certain information critical to implementation, and shall be posted in at least two locations within structure FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-15 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Section 6.3 and Commentary 6.3, Wet Floodproofing, in ASCE 24 specify design and construction require- ments for wet floodproofing measures. Table 2-5 provides a list of general requirements for wet floodproofing. ASCE 24 Section 6.3 and Commentary 6.3 should be reviewed for more information on these requirements. Table 2-5. ASCE 24 Requirements and Limitations for Wet Floodproofing ASCE 24 Section Wet Floodproofing Requirements and Limitations Limitations on use (Section 6.3.1) ■•Wet floodproofing of enclosed areas below elevations listed in Table 6-1 shall be limited to: Category I structures (from Table 1-1, includes certain agricultural structures, certain temporary facilities, and minor storage facilities) ■•Enclosures used solely for parking, building access or storage ■•Structures that are functionally dependent on close proximity to water ■•Agricultural structures not included in Category I structures that cannot be located elsewhere and that are used solely for agricultural purposes Requirements (Section 6.3.2) Wet floodproofing shall be accomplished by: ■•Use of techniques that minimize damage to the structure associated with flood loads ■•Meeting the requirements for enclosures (Section 2.6 or Section 4.6) depending on the flood hazard area ■•Installation of utilities, including plumbing fixtures, in conformance with the requirements of Section 7 (Utilities) 2.1.8 Additional Federal Guidance Documents Two important Federal guidance documents on flood- proofing are: ■■NFIP Technical Bulletin 3-93, Non- Residential Floodproofing: Requirements and Certification for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in Accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA 1993a) ■■USACE’s Flood Proofing Regulations (EP 1165-2-314), a technical model for floodproofing-related regulations but not a regulation (USACE 1995) FEMA’s Technical Bulletins provide guidance on complying with the minimum requirements of exist- ing NFIP regulations on limited topics including non-residential floodproofing, wet floodproofing, flood damage-resistant materials, and elevators. The NFIP Technical Bulletin 3-93 provides step-by-step guidance on: Terminology Regulations and building codes establish the requirements that must be met. Guidance is addi- tional information that may be useful to code officials and others who are responsible for inter- preting, enforcing, and complying with regulations and codes. Guidance can also provide recommen- dations that are beyond the minimum requirements of building codes, standards or regulations. Cross Reference FEMA’s Technical Bulletins are available at: http:// www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-2/ nfip-technical-bulletins. USACE’s Flood Proofing Regulations is available at: http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng- pamphlets/EP_1165-2-314/toc.htm. 2-16 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■NFIP regulations that apply to the design of floodproofing for non-residential buildings ■■Planning considerations (e.g., warning time, flood characteristics) ■■Minimum engineering considerations and equations for calculating flood forces ■■Preparing the Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Structures (see Section 2.1.2) USACE’s Flood Proofing Regulations was among the earliest documents to provide an administrative and technical model for code design and enforcement and to present detailed information on implementing flood- proofing techniques. It has served as the framework for the preparation of numerous other floodproofing publications. Flood Proofing Regulations pertains to riverine flooding and does not address wave action, cor- rosion, or erosion associated with coastal flooding, debris impact, mudslides, or high-density fluid problems. 2.2 Design Loads and Site Characteristics Floodproofing measures must ensure that buildings will be designed and constructed to resist flotation, col- lapse, and lateral movement associated with flooding. The loads and conditions discussed in this section include but are not limited to: ■■Flood-related hazards such as hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads, flood-borne debris impact loads, and internal and site drainage considerations ■■Site-specific soil and geotechnical considerations such as soil pressure, bearing capacity, land subsidence, erosion, scour, and shrink-swell potential This section provides an overview of how these forces can act on a building. See FEMA P-259, Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures (FEMA 2012a) for more informa- tion on flood-related loads and conditions. 2.2.1 Identifying the Base Flood Elevation Determining the expected BFE is critical to understanding the site-specific flood risk. The flood zone and esti- mated BFE of a project area are identified using a FIRM panel. Flood hazard area boundaries on many FIRMs are delineated for the 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance (100-year and 500-year) flood. Figure 2-3 shows the location of a subject building on a FIRM. The area with blue dots is the 1-percent-annual- chance (100-year) flood hazard area. The area with black dots is the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) flood hazard area. After the building is located on the FIRM, the flood profiles in the relevant Flood Insurance Study (FIS) should be used to verify the BFE and to determine the flood elevations for other modeled flood recurrence intervals. Cross Reference For areas in which BFEs have not been established, designers can refer to FEMA 265 Zone A Manual: Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas (FEMA 1995) (http://www.fema.gov/media- library/assets/documents/7273). This guide provides information on obtaining and devel- oping BFEs. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-17 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Figure 2-3. Building and stream location on a FIRM Some FIRMs do not show the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) flood hazard area, and many FIRMs do not provide detailed information about predicted flood elevations along every body of water, especially smaller streams and tributaries. When existing data are insufficient, additional statistical methods and engineering analyses are necessary to determine the flood-prone areas and the appropriate characteristics of flooding. If a proposed or existing site has been affected or has the potential to be affected by flooding, a site-specific topo- graphic survey is critical to delineate the land below the flood elevation. If detailed flood elevation information is not available, a floodplain study may be required to identify the important flood characteristics and data required for sound design. 2.2.2 Design Flood Elevation The I-Codes, ASCE 7, and ASCE 24 define the design flood elevation (DFE) as “elevation of the design flood, including wave height, relative to the datum specified on the community’s flood hazard map.” The design flood is the “greater of the following two flood events: (1) the base flood, affecting those areas identified as SFHAs on the community’s FIRM or (2) the flood corresponding to the area designated as a flood hazard area on a 2-18 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING community’s flood hazard map or otherwise legally designated.” Some communities use the DFE to refer to the BFE plus locally required additional height (usually referred to as “freeboard”). The I-Codes and ASCE 24 specify the elevation of buildings or the elevation of floodproofing measures based on the Occupancy/Risk Category of the building. All buildings are required to be assigned a category, which is then used in ASCE 24 to determine the level of protection. The more important the building, as indicated by the assigned category, the higher the level of protection. 2.2.3 Determining the Flood Depth The first step in determining the flood depth for a site is to identify the DFE that is specified by the build- ing code or the floodplain management regulations that are enforced by the governing authority. The most common flood elevation used for design is the BFE. ASCE 24 requires some height of freeboard above the BFE, the amount of which is determined by the build- ing occupancy. Local regulations and requirements should be compared to ASCE 24, and the most restric- tive condition should be followed. Terminology Base flood elevation (BFE) – The elevation of the base flood relative to the datum specified on a community’s FIRM. The base flood has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (commonly called the 100-year flood). BFEs are shown on FIRMs for many SFHAs. The BFE is the NFIP’s minimum elevation to which the lowest floor of a building must be elevated or floodproofed (Zone A). In Zone V, the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member must be elevated to or above the BFE; floodproofing is not permitted in Zone V. Many SFHAs are shown on FIRMs without BFEs; in these areas, community officials and permit applicants are required to obtain and use information from other sources, or must estimate or develop BFEs at specific locations. Freeboard – An added margin of safety, expressed in feet above a specific flood elevation, usually the BFE. In States and communities that require freeboard, buildings are required to be elevated or flood- proofed to the higher elevation. For example, if a community adopts a 2-foot freeboard, non-residential buildings are required to be elevated or floodproofed to 2 feet above the BFE. Design flood elevation (DFE) – The elevation of the design flood relative to the datum specified on the community’s FIRM. The design flood is associated with the greater of the area subject to the base flood or the area designated as a flood hazard area on a community flood map or otherwise designated. The I-Codes, ASCE 7, and ASCE 24 use the term DFE. In most communities, the DFE is identical to the BFE. Communities may designate a design flood (or DFE) in order to regulate based on a flood of record, to account for future increases in flood levels based on upland development, or to incorporate freeboard. Cross Reference The FEMA publication, Managing Floodplain Development through the NFIP, IS-9 (FEMA 2007a), provides guidance on determining flood elevations through flood profiles in the FIS. The document can be downloaded here: http://www.fema.gov/ media-library/assets/documents/6029. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-19 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING If NFIP compliance is not required (the building does not have to meet the requirements of Substantial Improvement/Damage), then the flood depth is based on the flood protection level selected by the owner or designer. On the other hand, if the building must be brought into compliance with the requirements of NFIP, the flood depth is equal to the BFE/DFE. The second step is to determine the expected elevation of the ground at the site. The expected ground eleva- tion must account for any erosion, scour, subsidence, or other ground-eroding conditions that occur over time. Erosion is possible even in low-velocity flooding areas and can increase future flood hazards by lower- ing ground levels. Land subsidence is the lowering of the ground as a result of water, oil, gas extraction, soil consolidation, decomposition of organic material, and tectonic movement. The lowest expected ground ele- vation is determined by considering subsidence and erosion during flood conditions. In this publication, the flood depth (H) is defined as the difference between the flood protection level and the lowest eroded ground surface elevation (GS) adjacent to the building (see Equation 2-1). Because these data are usually obtained from different sources, determining whether they are based on the same datum is impor- tant. If not, standard datum corrections must be applied. H = DFE – GS where: H = flood depth (ft) DFE = flood protection level or design flood elevation (ft) GS = lowest eroded ground surface elevation adjacent to the building (ft) Equation 2-1. Flood depth Determining the flood depth associated with the flood protection level is most important for load calcula- tions. Nearly every other flood load parameter or calculation (e.g., hydrostatic load, hydrodynamic load, debris impact load, local scour depth) depends directly or indirectly on the flood depth. The flood depth is shown in Figure 2-4. For new construction or Substantial Improvement, if NFIP compliance is required, the flood pro- tection level should be equal to the BFE/DFE. Special Note Subsidence effects can be estimated by lowering all existing ground elevations at the site by the product of the subsidence rate times the building lifetime. For exam- ple, if subsidence occurs at a rate of 0.05 foot/year and the building lifetime is 50 years, the profile should be lowered 2.5 feet. 2-20 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.2.4 Determining Hydrostatic Loads Hydrostatic pressures occur when floodwaters come into contact with a foundation, building, or building element. These pressures are always perpendicular to the building surface and increase linearly with depth or “head” of water below the surface of the water. Hydrostatic pressures can cause severe deflection or displace- ment of buildings or building components if water levels on opposite sides of the component (or inside and outside the building) are substantially different. Figure 2-5 shows equal and unequal hydrostatic pressures applied to the exterior of a building. Dry floodproofing results in unequal hydrostatic forces that must be accounted for in the floodproofing design. Figure 2-4. Flood depth FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-21 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Figure 2-5. Equal (A) and unequal (B) hydrostatic pressures applied to the exterior elements of a building; (B) shows the building protected by dry floodproofing methods applied The sum of the pressures over the surface under consideration represents the load acting on that surface. For structural analysis, hydrostatic forces are defined to act: ■■Vertically upward on the underside of any submerged members such as floor slabs, walls, and footings ■■Laterally on perimeter walls, piers, and similar vertical surfaces The basic equation for analyzing the lateral force from hydrostatic pressures from the flood depth to the lowest eroded ground surface elevation adjacent to the building is illustrated in Equation 2-2. 2-22 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING fsta = ½ PhH = ½ γw H 2 where: fsta = hydrostatic force from flood depth (lb/lf) acting at a distance H/3 above ground Ph = hydrostatic pressure due to standing water at a depth of H (lb/ft 2), (Ph = γw H ) γw = specific weight of water (62.4 lb/ft3 for fresh water and 64.0 lb/ft3 for saltwater) H = flood depth (ft) Equation 2-2. Lateral hydrostatic forces The resultant hydrostatic force fsta acts at a point two-thirds of the distance down from the water surface or one- third the distance up from the bottom of the flooded or submerged surface. If any portion of the building is below grade, saturated soil pressures must be included in the design load calcu- lations. Saturated soil pressures include pressure from both the soil and water acting on the structure’s wall and are applied from the lowest adjacent grade of the building to the bottom of the flooded or submerged surface. Since the lateral hydrostatic force equation already calculates standing water pressures from the, bottom of the flooded or submerged surface a differential soil force equation must be used so that hydrostatic pressures are not accounted for twice in the load calculations. The differential soil forces (fdif) equation is calculated by subtracting the unit weight of water from the equiva- lent fluid weight of the saturated soil (a combination of the unit weight of water and the effective saturated weight of soil based on a conversion from lateral earth pressure derived from shear strength properties). The equivalent fluid weights of the submerged soil and water can be found in various design manuals, including Table 4-3 in FEMA P-259 (FEMA 2012a). When a structure is subject to hydrostatic forces from both saturated soil and standing water, the resultant cumulative lateral force is the sum of the lateral water hydrostatic force and the differential soil force. The basic equation for computing fdif is illustrated in Equation 2-3. Although the differential soil force equation is not specifically site dependent, the equation is considered a more conservative approach for floodproofing design. Expansive or swelling soils may significantly increase lateral earth pressures and foundation heave pressures, and need to be evaluated separately and added to these cumulative forces. See Section 2.4.3 for discussion of procedures to evaluate these geotechnical behaviors. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-23 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING fdif = ½ (S – γw ) D 2 where: fdif = differential soil/water force acting at a distance D/3 from the point under consideration (lb/lf) S = equivalent fluid weight of submerged soil and water (lb/ft3) (shown in Table 4-3 of FEMA 259) D = depth of saturated soil from adjacent grade to the (bottom of the flooded or submerged surface ft) γw = specific weight of water (62.4 lb/ft3 for fresh water and 64.0 lb/ft3 for saltwater) Equation 2-3. Submerged soil and water forces Figure 2-6 shows a building subject to hydrostatic forces from saturated soil and water. fdif acts at a point D/3 where D is the distance from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the flooded or submerged surface. 2-24 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Figure 2-6. Hydrostatic forces acting on a foundation wall In a basement, vertical hydrostatic pressure acts on the bases of the foundation walls and on the concrete floor slab. The total vertical hydrostatic force that acts on the structure is the volume of floodwater displaced by the submerged structure multiplied by the specific weight of water. Vertical hydrostatic forces on a structure, also known as buoyant forces, must be resisted by the weight of the building itself. When a building is too light to resist buoyancy, other opposing forces, such as those from ground or soil anchors, must be added. Buoyant or flotation forces on a building can be of great concern when the elevation of floodwaters on the exterior of a building exceeds the elevation of floodwaters inside the building. When a below-grade foundation or crawl space is backfilled with compacted structural fill that supports the floor slab, unbalanced lateral and vertical loads against the walls and foundation slab will be reduced. This is one way to help counteract the buoyancy forces during flooding. The basic equation for analyzing buoyancy forces is shown in Equation 2-4. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-25 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Fbuoy = γw (Vol) where: Fbuoy = vertical hydrostatic force resulting from the displacement of a given volume of floodwater (lb) γw = specific weight of water (62.4 lb/ft3 for fresh water and 64.0 lb/ft3 for saltwater) Vol = volume of floodwater displaced by a submerged object (ft3) Equation 2-4. Buoyancy forces As noted in Equation 2-4, the specific weight of freshwater is 62.4 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3), while the spe- cific weight of saltwater is slightly higher at 64 lb/ft3. Both fresh and saltwater are relatively dense, so buoyant forces can be extreme. For example, the buoyant forces on a 24-by-36-foot foundation with 4 feet of freshwater flooding can be as high as 214,272 pounds (24 ft x 36 ft x 4 ft x 62 lb/ft3). Approximately 250,000 pounds of buoyant force will exceed the weight of all but the heaviest structures. It is assumed that the foundation walls and slab are substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Buildings with substantially impermeable base- ment walls and floor that have sump pumps to remove water that enters the basement can experience increased buoyant forces. When substantially impermeable buildings with below-grade areas are exposed to flooding, they can actually float on the floodwaters they displace. The computation of hydrostatic forces is vital to the successful design of floodwalls, sealants, closures, shields, foundation walls, slabs, and a variety of other dry floodproofing measures. Computation of these forces is illus- trated in Sections 4.1.2.2 through 4.1.2.6 of FEMA P-259. 2.2.5 Determining Hydrodynamic Forces Water flowing around a building, structural elements, and other submerged objects imposes loads on sub- merged building elements. These loads are known as hydrodynamic loads (see Figure 2-7). Hydrodynamic loads are a function of flow velocity and structural geometry and include frontal impact on the upstream face, drag along the sides, and suction on the down- stream side. One of the most difficult steps in quantifying loads imposed by moving water is deter- mining the expected floodwater velocity. Special Note Sources of data for determining expected flood velocity include hydraulic calculations, historical measurements, Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) velocity data grids, and rules of thumb. If no data exist for flood flow velocity for a site, contact an experienced hydrologist or hydraulic engineer for estimates. 2-26 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Figure 2-7. Hydrodynamic and impact loads For the purpose of this publication, floodwater veloc- ity is assumed to be 5 feet per second (ft/sec) or less. ASCE 24, which is incorporated by reference in the IBC, states that dry floodproofing should be limited to areas where flood velocities are less than or equal to 5 ft/ sec during the design flood. The velocity of floodwater is also assumed to be constant (i.e., steady-state flow). Hydrodynamic loads can be calculated using Equation 25. Equation 2-5 provides the total hydrodynamic force against a building of a given surface area, A. Dividing the total force by either length or width yields a force per linear unit; dividing by surface area, A, yields a force per unit area. Special Note The 5 ft/sec velocity restriction for flood- proofing is not a requirement of the NFIP but is used in USACE’s Flood Proofing Regulations (1995) in the design of struc- tures exposed to water loads from stagnant or flowing waters. Although effective dry floodproofing can be designed for higher velocities, this is a reasonable existing limit that addresses safety of dry floodproofed structures during a flood. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-27 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Fdyn = Cd r A where: Fdyn = horizontal drag force (lb) Cd = drag coefficient (taken from Table 2-6) r = mass density of fluid (1.94 slugs/ft3 for fresh water and 1.99 slugs/ft3 for saltwater) V = velocity of floodwater (ft/sec) A = surface area of obstruction normal to flow (ft 2) = (w)(H) if the object is completely immersed Equation 2-5. Hydrodynamic load The drag coefficient used in Equation 2-5 can be found in the Shore Protection Manual, Volume 2 (USACE 1984). Additional guidance is provided in Section 5.4.3 of ASCE 7. The drag coefficient is a function of the shape of the object around which flow is directed. When an object is something other than a round, square, or rectangular pile, the coefficient is determined by one of the following ratios (see Table 2-6): 1. The ratio of the width of the object (w) to the height of the object (h) if the object is completely immersed in water, or 2. The ratio of the width of the object (w) to the flood depth of the water (H ) if the object is not fully immersed V 2 2 Fdyn acts at a point H/2, half way between the water elevation and the eroded ground surface 2-28 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Table 2-6. Drag Coefficients for Ratios of Width to Depth (w/H) and Width to Height (w/h) Width to Height Ratio (w/H or w/h)Drag Coefficient (Cd) 1–12 1.25 13–20 1.3 21–32 1.4 33–40 1.5 41–80 1.75 81–120 1.8 >120 2.0 Source: Shore Protection Manual, Volume 2 (USACE 1984) Flow around a building or building element also creates flow-perpendicular forces (lift forces). When a build- ing element is rigid, lift forces can be assumed to be small. When the element is not rigid, lift forces can be greater than drag forces. The equation for lift force is the same as that for hydrodynamic force except that the drag coefficient (Cd ) is replaced with the lift coefficient (Cl ). In this publication, the foundations of buildings in low-velocity riverine areas are considered rigid, and since hydrodynamic lift forces for rigid foundations are assumed to be small, they can be ignored. 2.2.6 Determining Impact Loads Debris impact loads are imposed on a building by objects carried by moving water. The magnitude of these loads is difficult to predict, but a reasonable allowance must be made for them in the design of floodproofing mea- sures. Factors that affect debris impact load include size, shape, and weight of the waterborne object; flood veloc- ity; velocity of the waterborne object compared to the flood velocity; duration of the impact; portion of the building to be struck; depth of flooding; and blockage upstream of structure. Detailed guidance, including an equation for calculating debris loads, first appeared in ASCE 7 Commentary; guidance can also be found in Section 4.1.2.9 in FEMA P-259 (FEMA 2012a) and Section 8.5.10 of FEMA P-55 (FEMA 2011c). Figure 2-8 depicts normal impact loads for a structure. 2.2.7 Interior Drain Systems When floodwater surrounds a building or saturates surrounding soils, it has a high probability of seeping into the building through the exterior walls, foundations, and slabs. Interior drain systems for buildings are designed to keep water from accumulating in those interior below-grade areas. These systems do not require the soil to be excavated from around the exterior below-grade walls to install underdrains. Figure 2-8. Frontal impact from debris FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-29 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Sump pumps are perhaps the most familiar method of dewatering below-grade areas. The sump is generally constructed so that its bottom is well below the base of the floor slab. Water in the areas adjacent to below- grade walls and floor migrate along the lines of least resistance, which should be toward and into the sump. It may be necessary to provide a more readily accessible path of least resistance for water that has collected in the fill material and around the structure to follow. To achieve this, pipe segments are inserted and some- times drilled through the below-grade wall and into the fill behind, purposefully allowing the interior to flood. Gravel is placed around the pipe segments on the exterior of the foundation wall to filter the surrounding soil, not allowing it to enter the interior of the building. The pipe segments are then connected to larger diameter pipes running along a gravel-filled trench or cove area into the floor slab and into one or more sumps (see Figure 2-9). Interior drain systems can be overwhelmed by a quickly rising water table and are subject to potential power outages. Figure 2-9. Typical interior drain systems In selecting a sump pump for use in floodproofing, the designer should consider the advantages of each pump type and make a selection based on requirements determined from the investigation of the building. Considerations include pump capacity (gpm [gallons per minute]), pump head (vertical height that the water is lifted), and electrical power required to operate the pump. Section 3.7 provides more detail on internal drainage systems design. Warning Drilling holes around the interior floor slab and installing interior drains under the floor slab should be done in small segments. Cutting and replacing the perimeter of the interior floor slab in sections will prevent the foundation wall from rotating inward toward the interior of the building. 2-30 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.2.8 Determining Site Drainage for Floodwalls and Levees A floodwall is a freestanding, permanent, engineered structure designed to prevent encroachment of floodwa- ters. Levees are constructed with compacted soil. Levees are more common than floodwalls as flood protection for a single building or a limited number of buildings, but given the cost of levees compared to other flood mitigation measures and the amount of land they require, they are less common for a single building than many of the other floodproofing measures discussed in this publication. Nevertheless, a properly designed and constructed floodwall or levee can be effective as a barrier to inundation. The drainage system for the area enclosed by a floodwall or levee must accommodate the precipitation runoff from the interior area (and any contributing areas such as roofs and higher ground parcels) and the anticipated seepage through or under the floodwall or levee during flooding conditions (see Figure 2-10). Drainage sys- tems may include pumps and holding ponds depending on the topography and layout of the site. Figure 2-10. Rectangular area enclosed by a floodwall or levee To determine the amount of precipitation that can col- lect in the contained area, the rainfall intensity, in inches per hour, must be determined for a particular location. This value is multiplied by the enclosed area, Aa (in square feet), a terrain runoff coefficient (c), and a con- version factor of 0.01. The answer is given in gpm. See Equation 2-6. When determining rainfall intensity, it is recommended to consult with water resource specialists and hydrolo- gists. Overdesigning site drainage is a relatively easy way to provide added protection, however an under-designed system will cause increased damage to a particular site. Warning The rational equation is used to compute the amount of precipitation runoff from a given area. It has limited applicability and should only be used for areas that are 200 acres or less. Some other constraints include: ■ The method should only be used for areas where rainfall is distributed uniformly. ■ The method does not account for stor- age in the drainage area. ■ Rainfall intensity is assumed to be uni- form throughout the duration of the storm. Special Note The terrain runoff coefficient, c, is used to model the runoff characteristics of different land uses. Use the value for the predomi- nant land use in the subject area or develop a weighted average for areas with multiple land uses. The most common coefficients are 0.70 for residential areas, 0.90 for com- mercial areas, and 0.40 for undeveloped land. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-31 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Qa = 0.01cirAa where: Qa = runoff from the enclosed area (gpm) 0.01 = factor converting the answer to gpm c = most suitable terrain runoff coefficient ir = intensity of rainfall (in./hr) Aa = area enclosed by the floodwall or levee (ft 2) Equation 2-6. Runoff quantity in an enclosed area Some levees and floodwalls extend only partially around a property and tie into higher ground (see Figure 2-11). In such cases, the amount of precipitation that can flow downhill as runoff into the protected area, Aa, must be included. To calculate this value, the area discharging to the area partially enclosed by the floodwall or levee, Ab, should be estimated. This value is then multiplied by the previously determined rainfall intensity, ir , by the most suitable terrain runoff coefficient, and by 0.01. See Equation 2-7. When determining the mini- mum discharge size for pumps in enclosed areas, the designer should consider the impacts of the lag time between when the peak discharge is experienced in the enclosed area and the outfall to which it drains (i.e., inside and outside the enclosed area) and the storage capacity in the enclosed area after the gravity discharge system closes. If the designer is not familiar with storm lag time and the computation of storage in an enclosed area, the designer should consult an experienced hydrologist or hydraulic engineer. 2-32 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Qb = 0.01cirAb where: Qb = runoff from additional contributing area (gpm) 0.01 = factor converting the answer to gpm c = most suitable terrain runoff coefficient ir = intensity of rainfall (in./hr) Ab = area discharging to the area partially enclosed by the floodwall or levee (ft2) Equation 2-7. Runoff quantity from higher ground into a partially enclosed area Seepage under or through the floodwall and levee along with the natural capillarity of the soil layer contribute to water inside the protected area. The water level inside the floodwall or levee increases as the depth of flood- ing outside the floodproofing structure increases and may compromise the effectiveness of the floodwall or levee for long-duration events if not addressed. The estimated seepage flow rates from the floodwall or levee vary depending on the site conditions and should be calculated by a geotechnical engineer or designer. Seepage rates may vary greatly with factors such as the depth of retained water and soil type. The values for inflow in the enclosed area, runoff from uphill areas draining into the enclosure, and seepage through or under the floodwall/levee should be summed to estimate the minimum discharge size, Qsp, in gpm. See Equation 2-8. Figure 2-11. Rectangular area partially enclosed by a floodwall or levee FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-33 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Qsp = Qa + Qb + Qc where: Qsp = minimum discharge for pump installation (gpm) Qa = discharge from an enclosed area (from Equation 2-6) (gpm) Qb = discharge from higher ground to partially enclosed area (from Equation 2-7) (gpm) Q c = discharge from seepage through a floodwall or levee (gpm) Equation 2-8. Minimum discharge for pump installation Important considerations in determining the minimum discharge size of a pump are the storage available in the enclosed area and the lag time between when the peak discharge is experienced in the enclosed area and the outfall to which it drains. Pumps continue to operate during flooding events (assuming power is constant or backup power is available), but gravity drains close when the floodwater elevation outside the enclosed area exceeds the elevation of the drain pipe/flap gate. 2.2.9 Understanding the All-Hazards Approach In addition to flooding, a building might be subject to other hazards such as earthquakes, high winds, or tor- nadoes. The registered design professional should incorporate an all-hazards approach when selecting and designing floodproofing measures to avoid increasing the vulnerability of the structure, envelope, and systems to damage from other hazards. A mitigation measure that is appropriate for flooding, such as elevating a heavy chiller unit, may subject the building to greater seismic forces during earthquakes and increase vulnerability to damage unless the seismic hazard is accurately accounted for in the design. Table 2-7 lists some FEMA resources with design guidance on mitigating damage to new and existing non- residential construction for multiple hazards. 2-34 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Table 2-7. FEMA Resources on Design Guidance Hazard Resource Seismic ■•FEMA 232, Homebuilders’ Guide to Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction (2006) ■•FEMA P-420, Engineering Guideline for Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation (2009) ■•FEMA 454, Designing for Earthquakes: A Manual for Architects (2006) ■•FEMA 547, Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (2007) ■•FEMA P-749, Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts (2010) ■•FEMA P-750, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings (2009) Tornadoes ■•FEMA P-320, Taking Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business, Third Edition (2008) ■•FEMA P-361, Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms (2008) High Winds ■•FEMA P-55, Coastal Construction Manual (2011) ■•Protect Your Property from High Winds (2011); eight flyers Multi-Hazard ■•FEMA P-424, Design Guide for School Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (2010) ■•FEMA 543, Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds (2007) ■•FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Winds (2007) 2.3 Other Flood Characteristics Other flood characteristics of a site must be considered when determining whether dry floodproofing measures are best suited for a site. Flood characteristics that must also be considered include the duration of flooding, rate of floodwater rise and fall, and flood frequency. These flood characteristics not only indicate the expected nature of flooding in a given area, they can also be used to anticipate the performance of dry floodproofing measures based on the potential hazards associated with each flood characteristic. 2.3.1 Duration of Flooding Duration is the measure of how long water remains above normal levels. The duration of riverine flood- ing is primarily a function of watershed size and the longitudinal slope of the valley (slope influences how fast water drains). Small watersheds are more likely to experience a rapid rise and fall of floodwaters. Larger, shallow, basin-like watersheds adjacent to large rivers may be flooded for weeks or months. Special Note NFIP Technical Bulletin 2, Flood Damage- Resistant Materials Requirements (FEMA 2008a), defines a “flood [damage]-resistant material” as “any building product [mate- rial, component or system] capable of withstanding direct and prolonged contact with floodwaters without sustaining signifi- cant damage.” “Prolonged contact” means at least 72 hours, and “significant damage” means any damage requiring more than cosmetic repair. An NFIP requirement is “building materials used below the BFE shall be resistant to flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a)(3)(ii)).” FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-35 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Prolonged contact with floodwaters may make some mitigation measures, including dry floodproofing, inappropriate because of the increased chance of seepage and potential structural failure. Long periods of inundation are more likely to cause greater damage to structural members and finishes than short periods of flooding. Increased durations also result in a higher probability of floodwater accumulation and ultimately affects pump design for interior drainage. Designers should consider the duration of flooding when determin- ing the applicability of selected building materials, pump design, and flood mitigation measures. 2.3.2 Rate of Floodwater Rise and Fall Steep topography and locations with small drain- age areas may experience flash flooding, an event in which floodwater can rise very quickly with little or no warning. High-velocity water flows usually accom- pany flash floods and preclude certain types of flood mitigation measures, especially those requiring human intervention. If a building is susceptible to flash floods, insufficient warning time may make the timely installation of shields on windows, doors, and floodwalls and the acti- vation of pump systems and backup energy sources impossible. Temporarily relocating movable contents to a higher level may also be impractical. Floodproofing is not appropriate for sites in flash flood areas because of the potentially short warning time. Active floodproofing measures (those requiring human intervention) may be effective if a building is not subject to flash flooding and the area has adequate flood warning systems. Rapid rates of the rise and fall of floodwater can also lead to unequal hydrostatic pressures on a building. The probability of unequal hydrostatic pressures increases when building exteriors are designed to be watertight. 2.3.3 Flood Frequency Flood frequency analyses define the probability that a flood of a specific size will be equaled or exceeded in any given year. A flood elevation with a 1-percent- annual-chance flood of being equaled or exceeded in a given year is referred to as the “base flood,” com- monly called the 100-year flood. Figure 2-12 illustrates the relationship between flood recurrence intervals and the probability of the event occurring within a given period. The probability that a base flood will be equaled or exceeded is 26 percent during a 30-year period. During a 70-year period (the potential useful life of many buildings), the probability increases to 50 percent. Although the base flood serves as the basis for NFIP insurance rates and regulatory floodplain man- agement requirements, the relative frequency of any Special Note Although buildings are required to be protected only to the BFE for floodplain management purposes (to meet the NFIP regulations), protection to a higher level is necessary for the floodproofing measures to be considered for flood insurance rating purposes. It is possible to protect buildings from lesser flood events using dry flood- proofing measures, but doing so will not bring buildings into compliance with the NFIP. Warning ASCE 24 does not permit the use of dry floodproofing for buildings in high-risk flood hazard areas. These include alluvial fan, flash flood, mudslide, erosion-prone, high-velocity, wave action, and ice jam and debris-prone areas. 2-36 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING given flood (e.g., 2-year or 10-year) serves as a useful reference point when selecting a retrofitting option and evaluating cost effectiveness. 2.3.4 Future Conditions Designers should use past events and trends as an indication of the nature and severity of effects likely to occur during those forecast events. Information about past events at the site of interest and at similar sites should be considered. This historical information should be combined with knowledge about the site and local condi- tions to estimate future hazard effects on the site. 2.4 Site Factors Site characteristics such as flood hazard boundaries, vulnerability to erosion or local scour, and geotechnical considerations play a critical role in determining applicable floodproofing measures. 2.4.1 Flood Hazard Boundaries As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the boundaries of flood hazard areas are delineated on FIRMs, which are developed based on data described in FISs. Designers may use data from FIRMs and FISs to determine the boundaries of the various flood hazard areas, flood depth, flood elevation, and flood frequency for a given site. Figure 2-12. Relationship between flood recurrence intervals and the probability of an event occurring within a given period FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-37 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING In addition to the aforementioned flood characteristics that can affect buildings, site location in relation to the floodplain is also an important factor when considering dry floodproofing. Designers should note whether buildings are in or near the floodway, on the floodway fringe, near road crossings or other obstructions because these may divert floodwaters toward the site. 2.4.2 Erosion Erosion refers to the wearing or washing away of land and can occur in riverine as well as in coastal environ- ments. Erosion is difficult to predict and is capable of threatening existing structures by lowering ground elevations, causing instability and failure in embankments, and transporting sediments landward or down- stream. Erosion may also increase flood forces by increasing water depths. Erosion may be caused by natural actions such as flood-inducing storms and may be exacerbated by human actions such as constructing flood diversion or flood protection structures, dredging channels, damming rivers, and altering surface vegetation. Riverine erosion affects the stability of stream banks and adjacent structures through the interaction of mul- tiple geophysical and geotechnical factors. Variables that affect the stability (or erodibility) of stream banks include: ■■Slope ■■Critical height ■■Inclination ■■Cohesive strength of the soil in the slope ■■Level and variation of groundwater in the slope ■■Degree of stabilization of the surface of the slope ■■Level and variation in level of water on the toe of the slope ■■Distance of the structure in question from the shoulder of the stream bank ■■Shear strength of the soil ■■Frequency of rise and fall of the surface of the stream Consideration of siting and the erodibility of land is critical when planning floodproofing projects because moving floodwater can undermine foundations and cause building, floodwall, and levee failure. Shallow foundation systems generally do not provide sufficient protection against soil erosion without some type of additional protection or armoring measure of below-grade elements. The local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service has information concerning the erodibility of the soils native to a specific site, and com- munity officials may have knowledge of local soil types and know whether erosion has occurred during past floods. The analysis of erosion impacts to stream banks and nearby structures is a detailed effort that is usually accom- panied by detailed geotechnical investigations. 2-38 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.4.3 Geotechnical Considerations Site-specific soil properties are important factors in the design of any surface intended to resist flood loads. The properties include: ■■Saturated soil forces ■■Allowable bearing capacity ■■Potential for scour ■■Land subsidence ■■Frost zone location ■■Permeability ■■Shrink-swell potential The computation of lateral soil forces and determination of soil-bearing capacity are critical in the design of dry floodproofed foundations and walls. These forces and related geotechnical behaviors include a consider- ation of the frost depth, potential expansive or collapsible soils, or potential scour and erosion, and play an important role in selecting an acceptable foundation. Likewise, the permeability and compaction behavior of soils are key factors in selecting borrow materials for backfill, levee, or floodwall construction. For more infor- mation on these geotechnical issues, see Chapter 4 of FEMA P259 (2012a). Site investigations for soils include surface and subsurface investigations. Surface investigations can identify the potential for landslides and evidence of areas affected by erosion or scour, determine accessibility for equipment needed for subsurface testing and construction, and help identify the suitability of a particular foundation type based on the performance of existing structures. Subsurface exploration provides invaluable data on soils below grade. The data are both qualitative (e.g., soil classification) and quantitative (e.g., bear- ing capacity). Subsurface exploration is complex and site-dependent. For example, testing for expansive soil requires assessing samples at various depths for plasticity, expansion index, and swell pressure to determine resulting swell forces under saturation conditions. Consultation with a geotechnical engineer familiar with the site is strongly recommended. 2.5 Functional, Operational, and Economic Factors The functional, operational, and economic factors that should be considered when determining the appropri- ate floodproofing method for a building are: ■■Functional use requirements of the building (how the flood-prone portions of the building are used) ■■Occupant safety ■■Flood warning time ■■Flood emergency operations plan ■■Inspection and maintenance plan ■■Economic factors FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-39 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.5.1 Functional Use Requirements of the Building The functions of non-residential buildings and whether active floodproofing measures (those requiring human intervention) can be used affect the types of floodproofing measures that are appropriate. For example, if a doorway that may be vulnerable to flooding is used by personnel and for freight delivery, permanently filling in the doorway is not feasible. Likewise, if extended interruption of function would be detrimental, floodproof- ing is not feasible because personnel should not occupy a building that is affected by floodwaters. Relocation may be a better option in this situation. The current and future use of buildings must be evaluated carefully when deciding to what degree access can be limited, determining how long the facilities can be closed during floods, and assessing whether the effects of events exceeding the design flood can be tolerated. Use requirements that should be considered when deciding whether floodproofing is a good option for non- residential buildings include but are not limited to: ■■Access requirements ■■Level and duration of business interruption that can be tolerated ■■Ability to accommodate flood damage repair ■■Ability to maintain dry floodproofing measures once implemented Critical and essential facilities such as emergency operation centers, hospitals, and nursing homes may be floodproofed even if they are unoccupied during a flood event. Communities have an interest in protecting the contents of these facilities to minimize the downtime of such buildings and to ensure post-flood functionality. The protection and usage of critical and essential facilities may be vital to ensure an immediate response to the flood event and a rapid recovery. 2.5.2 Occupant Safety The relationship of floodproofing options to occupant safety must be evaluated in the pre-design phase. Safe access to and egress from floodproofed buildings is a critical factor in the determination of whether flood- proofing measures that depend on human intervention are appropriate. If a floodproofed building is likely to be completely surrounded by floodwaters, provisions must be made for the evacuation of all occupants before the building is isolated. Evacuation is essential because it is possi- ble that floods may exceed the design capacity of the floodproofing measures, which could result in extreme danger to any occupants who remain at the site. For events larger than the design event, specific additional emergency procedures should be developed. Special Note NWS river forecast centers can be acces- sed here: http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ rfc/rfc.php. The Advanced Hydrology Prediction Ser- vice (AHPS) offers data such as: ■ Flood forecast levels ■ Probabilities of a river exceeding minor, moderate, or major flooding ■ Chances of a river exceeding a certain level, volume, and flow of water ■ Maps of areas surrounding the forecast point likely to be flooded 2-40 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING If the proposed floodproofing measure is active (requires human intervention), all roads that provide access to the building should remain passable long enough for the floodproofing measures to be installed and for all personnel to safely evacuate the site. 2.5.3 Flood Warning Time Some floodproofing methods require adequate warning to be successful. The length of warning time required varies from a few hours to several days depending on the complexity of the floodproofing method. For flood warnings to be effective, they must be issued promptly, and the forecasts that inform the flood warnings must be accurate. A flood forecasting system should be able to determine when a flood is imminent and predict when specific areas will be flooded. Determining when and at what elevation the flood will crest may also be necessary. States and communities may have flood warning sys- tems in place. Building owners should contact their local emergency management agency to determine any active flood warning systems in place. River-flood forecasts are also prepared by National Weather Service (NWS) river-forecast centers and dis- seminated to the public by NWS offices. However, many non-residential buildings are located on smaller streams that are not included in a major forecasting network. In these areas, interested property owners can work with appropriate local and State agencies to develop an adequate flood forecasting system. During periods of flooding, the NWS river-forecast centers issue forecasts of the height of the flood crest, the date and time when the river is expected to over- flow its banks, and the date and time the flow in the river is expected to recede to within its banks. The U.S. Geological Survey and the NWS work together during a flood to collect and use the most up-to-date data and to update forecasts as new information is acquired. The NWS is also responsible for issuing flood and flash flood watches and warnings. The NWS conveys the data to other Federal agencies and to State and local agencies for use in flood management and disaster mitigation. State and local emergency management officials use the flood data to make informed decisions on how and when to evacuate their communities. Building owners and operators should follow the guidance of State Terminology A flood watch indicates potential for flooding. A flood warning means that flooding is imminent. Special Note When removable shields are to be used, flood emergency plans must include: ■ Storage location for the shields ■ Method of installation ■ Conditions that activate installation ■ Maintenance of shields and attachment devices ■ Periodic practice of installing shields ■ Testing sump pumps and other drain- age measures ■ Inspecting necessary material and equipment to activate floodproofing Source: ASCE 24-05, Section 6.2.3 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-41 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING and local emergency management agencies, local weather reports, the NWS, or a local flood warning system regarding when to evacuate. The typical flood warning time should be considered when selecting a floodproof- ing measure. 2.5.4 Flood Emergency Operations Plan Flood emergency operations plans are highly recommended for floodproofing methods. Plans should contain information on how floodproofing measures will work during and after the flooding event. For example, equipment such as sump pumps that require electricity will need to maintain power throughout the duration of the flood event. Maintaining power may require installing a generator and devel- oping an operations plan for the generator to function during and after the flood event until power is restored. Maintaining power can be complicated by the fact that dry floodproofed areas should not be occupied during the flood event. Fueling and generator maintenance may require the generator to be located in an area above the desired level of flood protection. Preparation of plans is the responsibility of the building owner or operator. The design professional certifying the floodproofing project is solely responsible for how the measures resist flood loads and make the building watertight but should be consulted on the maintenance, testing, and inspection schedule of the project. A flood emergency operations plan should do the following: ■■Establish a chain of command and assign responsibilities to each person involved in the installation and maintenance of the floodproofing measures. This will range from the authority to activate personnel through the duration of the event and restoration of the building to normal operations. The assigned personnel should not be assigned additional overlapping emergency duties to make sure that the floodproofing measures are installed in a timely manner and maintained. The chain of command should also take into account where assigned personnel live and their ability to access the site in an emergency. If key personnel are not available, a plan for succession of command and/or delegation of authority should also be covered. ■■Delineate notification procedures for all personnel involved in the floodproofing operation. This includes details on making sure personnel can get to the building and enter areas of the building necessary to install the floodproofing measures. These areas include the floodproofed portion of the building and any storage facilities that house the flood shields and pumps. ■■Assign personnel duties and include a description of the locations of floodproofing measures, installation procedures, and repair procedures. Instructions for each location should be posted close to the location. ■■Include evacuation instructions for all personnel who normally occupy the building, and for the personnel who have installed the measures, what to do after the floodproofing measures are accomplished. Evacuation routes should be posted in the floodproofed areas. Any doors necessary to exit the floodproofed area should be marked and should not be possible to lock in a manner that prevents egress from the floodproofed area. 2-42 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■Include a periodic drill and training program to make sure personnel clearly understand the procedures and timeliness by which they need to accomplish floodproofing measures and complete evacuation. Drills should be conducted at least once a year and coordinated with community officials. ■■Include a schedule for regular evaluation and update of the flood emergency operations plan to reflect changes in personnel and procedures. At a minimum, the plan should be posted in two clearly marked locations, but it is recommended that either the entire plan or relevant sections be posted close to every location where flood shields are to be installed. Requirements for the flood emergency operations plan are in FEMA’s NFIP Technical Bulletin 3-93 (FEMA 1993a). Although flood emergency operations plans are not required for wet floodproofing and floodwalls/levee miti- gation measures, plans should be considered a best practice to ensure the effectiveness of all flood mitigation measures. 2.5.5 Inspection and Maintenance Plan An inspection and maintenance plan should cover both the maintenance of the floodproofing measures and periodic inspections of the components. Inspections should cover the entire floodproofing system, includ- ing the walls, floor slab, openings, flood shields, valves, drainage system, and any pump system. A list of repairs should be developed after each inspection and imple- mented as required. Maintenance procedures should not rely on the annual inspection for identification but should be part of routine operations of the building’s facility maintenance staff. Inspection and maintenance items include but are not limited to: ■■Wall systems, for cracks in the structural system or waterproofing coatings. Repair of cracks should be addressed immediately because ignoring them could result in significant structural damage to the building during a flood event. ■■Entire floor slab, to make sure settlement or other cracks have not appeared. Additionally, it is important to make sure the floor slab is able to provide drainage for any water that may leak into the building. ■■Openings, to clear debris trapped in the supports for flood shields, damage to permanently mounted hardware or gaskets, which would prevent proper operation of a flood shield. ■■Flood shields, for damage to attached gaskets, proper labels identifying the proper location, and damage to the actual shield, which might prevent it from performing properly. The inspection should include an inventory of shields and all the hardware required to properly install them. ■■Backflow valves or shutoff valves, to make sure they can properly operate and are clear of debris. ■■Drainage system and pump systems, to make sure there is no damage to piping or debris that would prevent the pipes from draining properly. Sump pits should be inspected and cleared of any sediment Special Note Some communities require annual inspec- tions of dry floodproofed buildings, especially if human intervention is required. Annual inspections lead to an increased awareness and effectiveness of floodproof- ing systems and also reduce concerns about liability. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-43 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING that may have built up. Switches and sump pumps should be inspected and tested to make sure they will run properly. If a generator is necessary for operation of the sump pump, it should be tested periodically to verify it will start and run during a flood event. ■■An inventory of flood emergency equipment, supplies, and required tools to ensure that all required items are available in the event of a flood. The inventory should include a listing of the tools and where they are stored. 2.5.6 Economic Factors When floodproofing has been determined to be feasible considering regulatory requirements and the physical characteristics of the site and building, the most cost-effective floodproofing option can be identified. A BCA can be used to validate cost-effectiveness. BCA is a way to estimate the future benefits of a mitigation project and compare the benefits to the cost. The result of the analysis is a benefit-cost ratio (BCR), which is derived by dividing the project’s net benefits by the project cost. In a cost-effective project, the total cost of floodproofing (installation, operation, and maintenance) is less than the value of physical flood damage, lost earnings, and other economic impacts that are likely to occur if the structure is not floodproofed. The BCR is a numerical expression of the cost-effectiveness of a project. A proj- ect is considered cost-effective when the BCR is 1.0 or greater, indicating the benefits of a prospective hazard mitigation project are sufficient to justify the costs. Benefits are defined as avoided damage, and a BCA estimate may not account for all of the potential benefits. Therefore, a BCR of less than 1.0 should not automatically remove dry floodproofing from consideration. The BCA described in Appendix B is used by FEMA to evaluate cost-effectiveness of projects under mitiga- tion grant programs. 2.6 Building Vulnerability Assessments For a building to remain functional during and follow- ing a natural hazard event, it must be undamaged, have sustained limited damage that does not prevent the building from functioning, or have sustained damage that can be readily repaired. Determining how well a building can withstand a natural hazard requires a building vulnerability assessment. A vulnerability assessment can identify weaknesses in a building’s structure, envelope, and electrical and mechanical systems. The assessment can determine which natural hazards the building can withstand as is and which mitigation opportunities are available to make the building more hazard resistant. Cross Reference FEMA P-424, Design Guide for Improving School Safety in Earthquakes, Flood and High Winds (FEMA 2010a), contains check- lists that can be used to assess a building’s vulnerability to these natural hazards. The manual is geared to schools, but the guid- ance is also appropriate for other facilities. The flood checklist in FEMA P-424 is pro- vided in Appendix C. 2-44 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.6.1 All-Hazards Vulnerability Assessment The overall success of a building can only be achieved by identifying and managing natural hazard vulnerabili- ties. When mitigation measures for a flooding hazard are considered, an understanding of the other hazards, including frequency of occurrence of those other hazards, is important if the building is expected to perform as required by the owner. If other hazards are present that are likely to cause significant damage to the building and flooding is a relatively minor hazard, floodproofing alone may not be the best option. The following should be completed and the results considered before the decision about floodproofing or other types of mitigation is made: ■■Obtain the most up-to-date published hazard data to assess the vulnerability of the subject site ■■Conduct or update a detailed risk assessment if there is reason to believe the physical site conditions have changed significantly since the hazard data were published or the published hazard data are not representative of the subject site ■■Review or revise an existing risk assessment if there is reason to believe the physical site conditions will change significantly over the expected life of the building ■■Ask the designer to review options that will mitigate the effects of any identified hazards in addition to the flooding risk after a risk assessment has been completed 2.6.2 Structural Condition Assessment Assessing a building’s vulnerability to flood involves identifying structural components that could fail when exposed to flood forces and structural components that could degrade or deteriorate when inundated with floodwaters. Structural degradation is much more of a problem in residential construction where wood framing is more prevalent than in non-residen- tial construction. Structural degradation in commercial or industrial facilities is typically much less of a con- cern because the structures are usually built with steel, masonry, concrete, or other materials that offer inher- ent resistance to damage from floodwater inundation. Interior and exterior finishes in commercial and industrial buildings, however, may be vulnerable to Special Note In structural engineering, there are two approaches in design and analyses: ASD (Allowable Stress Design) and LRFD (Load Resistance Factor Design). ASD is the older approach but is still widely used in wood, steel, and masonry design. LRFD is the newer approach. It is used almost exclusively in concrete design and fre- quently in steel design. Provisions for LRFD have been recently added to codes and standards governing wood and masonry design. In ASD, service loads are applied to a structure, and the resulting stresses that the service loads create are calculated. The calculated stresses are compared with the maximum allowable stress for each component in the structure. Allowable stresses are determined by applying fac- tors of safety to ultimate stress (typically stress at failure). If the calculated stresses from service loads are less than the allow- able stresses, the design is acceptable. In LRFD, the service loads are increased by load factors, and the ultimate strength of a structure is reduced by resistance factors. If the factored loads are less than the fac- tored strengths, the design is acceptable. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-45 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING degradation from floodwater inundation because they are not often constructed with flood damage-resistant materials. Assessing a building in two stages is recommended. First, a preliminary assessment is completed to help deter- mine the overall feasibility of flood mitigation. The preliminary assessment is often based only on a visual examination of the building and, when available, a review of construction drawings. The depth of floodproof- ing desired can also be determined in the preliminary assessment. If the preliminary assessment suggests that flood mitigation is possible, the next stage is to perform additional site and drawing reviews and conduct testing and analyses to confirm that flood mitigation is feasible. A detailed assessment requires accurate drawings of the building or, if drawings are not available, invasive testing to determine the structural aspects and condition of the building. Soil tests to determine the type and perme- ability of soils onsite may also needed. The loads for the proposed dry floodproofed area must then be determined. Load determination is discussed in Sections 2.2.4 through 2.2.6. When the loads are determined, the next step is to evaluate all portions of the building to assess its ability to withstand flood loads created by dry floodproofing without floatation, col- lapse, or lateral movement. All building components below the flood level may be exposed to flood loads, and portions of the building above the flood level can be exposed to flood loads (particularly buoyant forces) that translate through the building’s structure. At a minimum, foundation walls, the connections between the foundation walls, and the floor slab below and structure above, and the floor slabs themselves should be evalu- ated. Figure 2-13 shows the major building components that are often exposed to flood loads. Identifying structural vulnerabilities to floods involves quantifying the loads a flood will apply to a structure and the resistance the structure has to resist the loads. For a building’s structure to withstand a flood, its struc- tural components must be adequate to resist the applied flood loads without being overstressed (Allowable Stress Design [ASD]) or without the ultimate strength of the structural components being exceeded when exposed to factored flood loads in Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD). Figure 2-13. Basic building components exposed to flood loads 2-46 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING The walls should be inspected to verify that they are vertically plumb and that no bowing exists. An out-of- plumb wall can result from excessive pressure at the top or bottom of the wall. A bowed wall can result from excessive bending in the wall. Concrete and masonry walls should also be checked for staining, which can result from corrosion in the rein- forcing steel. If steel has extensive corrosion, its tensile strength or the strength of the bond from the steel to the concrete or masonry can be reduced, and the strength of the wall can be compromised. Staining can also result from water being in frequent contact with the walls, which may suggest that the soils are permeable enough to allow even short-duration floodwaters to expose the walls to hydrostatic loads. Bowing, lateral movement, corrosion, staining, and evidence of frequent water entry all may indicate that the building is not an ideal candidate for dry floodproofing. Once the preliminary assessment confirms that the foundation walls are free of evidence of existing structural problems, a determination must be made regarding the feasibility of strengthening them to resist flood loads from a design event. Except when a design flood will produce only a low level of flooding (about 2 feet), some wall strengthening will likely be required. The feasibility of ensuring the walls can be made to resist flood loads is typically done during subsequent evaluations when the details of the wall construction (thickness, height, reinforcement, and connection details) are known. Walls can be strengthened with steel beams or grouting (concrete masonry unit [CMU] walls) or by overlay- ing fiber-reinforced polymers or carbon fiber strapping systems composed of sheets or strips that form a grid across the wall. How the wall system will be floodproofed is important to consider before selecting a system to improve the wall strength. If the waterproofing or sealant is to be applied on the same wall face as the wall- strengthening retrofit, the two measures need to be compatible. Floor slabs should be evaluated in a manner similar to the wall system. As-built drawings are a good place to begin evaluating the slab, but it is likely that some field investigations will need to be done in order to ascer- tain the true properties of the slab. The initial evaluation should include any deficiencies in the floor slab that need to be addressed before correcting the floor slab to resist buoyancy forces. Issues such as settlement in the concrete slab may present retrofitting challenges if not properly corrected (see Figure 2-14). The reason for cracking in the slab is important to identify. Cracks may occur from soil expansion, soil contraction, or washing out of soils. Soils can wash out if underdrain lines were not properly installed when the building was constructed. On large commercial slabs where equipment such as forklifts are used, joints in the concrete slab should be checked to ensure that the slab has not rocked and created a void below the joints. When the floor slab has been evaluated, the soil under the slab should be assessed to determine whether it may present problems under flood conditions. Some soils have low permeability and are slow to become saturated by floodwaters while highly permeable soils may become saturated quickly and need to be drained. Highly permeable soils may require installing underdrain lines, which should be sized for flood conditions. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-47 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Per NFIP requirements, dry floodproofing measures must be designed to meet the minimum requirements of being substantially impermeable, and these require- ments assume there is no sump pump. For additional protection, the NFIP requires the installation of a sump pump when dry floodproofing is used as a retrofit tech- nique, despite substantially impermeable requirements. See Section 3.7 for information on internal drainage systems. Whether or not underdrain lines are installed, the slab should be examined to determine the thick- ness and size and location of the slab reinforcing steel. This examination may require some destructive testing because slab reinforcing steel is usually small diameter wire mesh, which is difficult to detect. Unless designed to support heavy equipment, slabs generally cannot resist hydrostatic forces if water is allowed to accumulate beneath them because floor slabs are typically designed to resist dead loads applied from above when they are continuously supported by soils below. Most soil supported slabs, if reinforced, have rein- forcement designed primarily for controlling thermal and shrinkage cracks. Reinforcement for controlling shrinkage and thermal effects alone is inadequate to enable the slabs to function as beams exposed to negative (upward) bending from buoyancy. If the reinforcing steel is too low to provide uplift resistance in the slab sec- tion, the slab will need to be retrofitted. If the slab is imagined as a beam, the reinforcing steel should be placed on the opposite side of the beam from the applied load or in the side of the slab in tension. Slabs supported by soils also lack positive connections that prevent the slabs from being lifted because they rely only on their self-weight to avoid being displaced vertically. Figure 2-14. Significant differential settlement in the foundation causing slab failure Special Note Even in buildings that are designed to be substantially impermeable, sump pumps are required to control seepage, and flood damage-resistant materials, which are described in FEMA Technical Bulletin 2, Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements (FEMA 2008a), must be used in all areas where seepage is likely to occur. 2-48 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Although concrete can be added to thicken slabs (and increase their resistance to uplift strictly by increas- ing their weight), it is typically impractical to mitigate slabs to resist buoyant forces. If water can accumulate under a floor slab and installing underfloor drains cannot alleviate hydrostatic pressures acting to lift the slab, the building may not be a candidate for dry floodproofing. The only other mitigation technique that could be used to resist buoyancy on a concrete slab is to install soil anchors through the slab into the soil beneath the slab to provide upward resistance. In addition, buoyant forces acting on submerged materials reduce their effective dead load and ability to resist uplift and overturning moments. Therefore, before dry floodproofing projects are undertaken, the overall sta- bility of a building needs to be checked to ensure that buoyant forces will not make the building unstable. The load combinations contained in Chapter 2 of ASCE 7 should be used to evaluate the stability of the dry floodproofed building. The deficiencies in the slab and the normal use of the floodproofed area are important considerations in select- ing a retrofitting measure. If the area requires equipment to drive across the slab or maintenance crews to work in the area, maintaining a flat, unobstructed slab may be important. Similarly, maintaining the existing ceiling height may justify other retrofitting considerations. The condition assessment should not only determine the ability of structural components to withstand flood loads, but also their impermeability. For example, basement walls between adjacent buildings should be evalu- ated for flood load resistance and impermeability. This is especially important in an urban environment or in buildings constructed in phases; otherwise, the source of flooding may become the adjacent building. Structural components, window wells, ventilation openings, and utilities (discussed in the subsequent section) can each be floodwater points of entry if not properly assessed and mitigated. 2.6.3 Vulnerability Assessments for Electrical and Mechanical Utilities and Systems Utility and system assessments can determine how well the utilities that serve a facility and the major mechani- cal, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems in a facility can resist natural hazards. Although utilities and MEP systems can be damaged by high winds, seismic events, and winter storms, this discussion is focused on their vulnerability to flooding. In a discussion of system vulnerabilities, it is beneficial to distinguish utilities from systems components. Utilities are generally external to the building, while most mechanical and electrical sys- tems are internal. Although utilities themselves can be vulnerable to flooding, this document focuses primarily on the vulnerability of buildings associated with utilities when they acts as conduits and allow floodwaters to enter a building. Utilities can be electrical or mechanical. Electrical utilities typically include power, communication (both cop- per-based and fiber-optic), and occasionally hard-wired annunciation systems such as fire alarm loops. This document focuses on electrical power utilities. Mechanical utilities include domestic water service, water ser- vice for fire suppression, steam service, and utilities to collect and dispose of sanitary sewer and storm sewer. In many municipalities, fossil fuels, namely natural gas, are also brought to buildings. Utilities can be private or municipal and can be part of a campus, which is the case when a group of buildings are supplied by a cen- tral plant. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-49 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Electrical utilities are often described as “dry utilities,” and mechanical utilities are often described as “wet utilities.” Electrical systems include power distribution, controls, lighting, fire alarm, telephone, and IT (information technology). Mechanical systems include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); domestic water systems; drain, waste, and vent systems; smoke control systems; fuel storage and distribution systems; and fire suppression systems. Figure 2-15 shows common locations of these systems in buildings. 2.6.3.1 Utilities General Utilities often enter a building below grade. In areas where groundwater levels are high and in areas vulnerable to flooding, all utility penetrations are potential sources of water entry. In assessing the vulnerability of water entry through utilities, consider the following questions: ■■The sealing of penetrations: When utilities enter the building, are the spaces around the conduits and pipes properly sealed to prevent water entry? ■■The sealing of conduits: When conduits enter a building, are the spaces between cables within the conduits sealed to prevent water entry? ■■Backflow prevention: For wet utilities, are measures in place to prevent floodwaters from entering the building through piping systems? ■■Utility trenches: Are utility trenches provided with submarine doors or other methods that will prevent floodwaters from migrating between buildings? 2.6.3.2 Electrical Utilities Electrical utilities may be overhead or underground. Overhead utilities are inherently resistant to damage from a design flood unless they are located below the DFE. When designed for submerged installations, the buried portions of underground electrical utilities are also generally resistant to flood damage, but above-ground com- ponents of underground electrical utilities such as below-grade electrical vaults, pad-mounted transformers, pad-mounted switchgear, and electrical substations can be damaged by floods when located below the DFE. Figure 2-15. Typical systems in buildings 2-50 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING The following list summarizes the components of electrical utilities that may be damaged by flood inundation when located below the DFE. These components should be considered when assessing flood vulnerabilities associated with electric utilities. ■■Electrical substations ■■Pad-mounted transformers and other pad-mounted equipment (switchgear) ■■Live-front electrical equipment (i.e., equipment with exposed energized terminations) in underground manholes ■■Cable terminations and splices not designed for submerged conditions ■■Underground transformer vaults ■■Meter centers ■■Electrical service equipment (switchboards in larger facilities, service panels in smaller facilities) ■■Network interface devices for communication utilities ■■Fire alarm master boxes below the DFE 2.6.3.3 Mechanical Utilities Pressurized mechanical utilities such as domestic water services, fire suppression service, and fossil fuel services are generally resistant to flooding. Some vulnerability to floodwater inundation may exist in above-ground equipment such as pressure regulators and utility meters for natural gas lines. Occasionally pressurized systems rely on electrically driven pumps to maintain system pressure. These systems can become vulnerable to flood- water contamination if power is lost to electrically driven pumps. When system pressure is lost, pressurized systems are often assumed to be contaminated, and “boil water before use” orders are given until the system pressures can be restored and the systems can be decontaminated or disinfected. Non-pressurized mechanical utilities such as gravity-draining sanitary sewers and gravity-draining storm sewers generally are not damaged by slow-moving or riverine flooding. However, they can become conduits that allow floodwaters to flow into a facility. Backflow prevention devices can reduce the potential for floodwa- ters entering facilities through non-pressurized utilities. These devices, which are essentially check valves that allow flows only in one direction, require periodic maintenance and testing to ensure they are functional and will not obstruct normal flows. 2.6.3.4 Electrical Systems Nearly all electrical systems in a facility below the DFE are vulnerable to flooding. Electrical wiring, communi- cation equipment, fire alarm and security systems, and other electrical equipment are inherently vulnerable to inundation unless specifically designed for submerged applications, and few electrical devices used in buildings are designed to be submerged. Conduit systems should not be considered watertight, and although the exterior sheaths of some electrical cables can resist water infiltration, they should not be considered 100 percent effec- tive unless designed and installed for submerged applications. Sump pumps, underwater lighting fixtures, and some sensing devices or transducers are possible exceptions, but these devices account for only a small percent- age of the electrical equipment in a typical facility. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-51 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.6.3.5 Mechanical Systems The vulnerability of mechanical systems to damage from flooding varies greatly. Pressurized piping such as domestic water systems, chilled water piping systems, and hot water piping systems can generally be exposed to flood inundation without significant damage. When flooding is saltwater flooding or when floodwaters are corrosive, piping systems may need to be cleaned to prevent degradation. In pressurized systems, pumps and controls can be damaged from floodwaters unless designed for submerged use. Pipe insulation, particularly insulation that is not closed-cell foam, typically needs to be replaced after inunda- tion. Any pipe insulation below the DFE should be considered vulnerable to flooding unless it is closed-cell foam. Forced-air distribution systems are particularly vulnerable to flood damage. The ducts are designed for air pres- sures that are typically measured in inches or fractions of inches of water column and cannot resist hydrostatic pressures from even small depths of floodwaters. Also, duct systems are rarely watertight, and floodwaters can enter ducts, saturate internal insulation, contaminate duct systems, and lead to the formation of molds and mildews that can significantly affect air quality. When contaminated, it is often more practical to remove and replace submerged ducts system than to try to clean them particularly with insulated duct systems. Any ducts below the DFE should be considered vulnerable to flooding. Floodwaters may also enter exhaust vents that remove stale air from a building’s interior and intake vents that provide fresh make-up air. Water can flow into clothes dryer vents and bathroom or kitchen exhaust vents if the floodwater is higher than the exit locations on the building. Boilers, chillers, domestic water heater, booster pumps, and HVAC controls are rarely designed for submerged installation and will be damaged by floodwater inundation. Fuel distribution and storage systems can be vulnerable to flooding. Although fuel distribution piping is a closed pressurized system that is able to resist relatively high external and internal pressures, fuel tanks are much less so and can be damaged by floodwaters. Fuel tanks are typically designed to resist only internal pres- sures that result from the weight of the fuel stored within them and from filling operations. Tanks, unless specifically designed for submerged conditions, can fail when exposed to the external pressures that result from floodwater inundation. Tank failures can result from crushing pressures, which increase with the depth of inundation, and from anchorage failures, which increase with the amount of floodwater displaced by the tank. During Hurricane Sandy, many tanks located below grade were damaged when floodwaters filled basements. All tanks below the DFE should be considered vulnerable unless they are designed to resist crushing pressures and anchored to resist buoyancy. In addition, fuel tanks are often located on the lowest floor of a building and pumps are installed to pump fuel to equipment, such as emergency generators, located on upper floors. When pumps are located below the DFE, they can be vulnerable to flooding. During vulnerability assessments, fuel pumps located below the DFE along with their power and control wiring should be considered vulnerable unless designed for submerged use. 1 From:Hannula, Hal Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:35 PM To:Rippe, Patricia Cc:Gillespie, Julia Subject:RE: Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Hi Patricia, I hope that you, Julia, colleagues, and families are well. Thanks for the quick and concise response. We will proceed with the mixed-use strategy with limited commercial uses at the lower floor being dry floodproofed as is normal for development within our Downtown. Thanks again and take care. Hal Hal Hannula Supervising Civil Engineer Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhannula@slocity.org T 805.781.7201 C 805.431.0083 slocity.org From: Rippe, Patricia <Patricia.Rippe@fema.dhs.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:41 PM To: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Cc: Gillespie, Julia <julia.gillespie@fema.dhs.gov> Subject: Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Hi Hal, San Luis Obispo has been assigned to me and Julia Gillespie. Julia is currently deployed to support the COVID-19 response. Thanks for the question about multi use properties. I understand that currently the live-work residence is in a Zone AO and the living/residential area is on the second floor above the flood depth. Below the living area (ground floor) is a garage, access and limited storage. The proposal is to modify the ground floor to include office space and a toilet room. You asked a couple of questions: 1) In this case of a defined live-work unit, is the expansion of the floor area beyond parking, access, and limited storage for office purposes acceptable. a. Yes an office and toilet would be allowed if the structure is either floodproofed or elevated. Obviously, in this situation you are considering floodproofing. FEMA regs related to the toilet: “New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate the infiltration of discharges from the systems into floodwaters (44 CFR §60.3(a)(6)(i))”. A backflow preventer is needed. 2) If supported, should we consider the office areas as expanded and recognized non-residential uses such as storage or just consider them as commercial like uses. a. For floodplain management purposes multi-use structures are categorized as either residential or non-residential based on the use of the ground floor. In this case the ground floor will be office use which is considered non- 2 residential. Floodproofing is allowed for non-residential structures. FEMA regs: “Within any Zone AO on the community’s FIRM, all new construction and Substantial Improvement of nonresidential structures must (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified), or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely floodproofed to that level to meet the floodproofing standards specified in 44 §60.3(c)(3)(ii) and 60.3(c)(8)”. 3) They are proposing dry floodproofing and flood barriers to protect the office areas and access at the lower floor. Although prudent, it seems like they would really need to construct all improvements at the lower office level with flood-resistant construction rather than relying on flood protection at the exterior envelope. a. If the work to convert the ground floor to office use meets the City’s Substantial Damage threshold (typically 50% of market value) then the building materials used below the BFE must be resistant to flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a) (3)(ii)). If this conversion is less than substantial improvement, then this is optional but prudent, to use your words. FEMA would recommend this approach. Please note that in order for dry floodproofing to achieve a favorable NFIP insurance rating, it must extend to the BFE + 1 foot of freeboard. I have attached a good document on floodproofing for your review. In addition, below are a couple of links to Technical Bulletins on this subject: 1. Technical Bulletin 2, Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements (2008). Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning the required use of flood-damage resistant construction materials for building components located below the Base Flood Elevation in Special Flood Hazard Areas (both A and V zones). https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/2655 2. Technical Bulletin 3, Non-Residential Floodproofing - Requirements and Certification (1993). Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning watertight construction and the required certification for floodproofed non-residential buildings in Zones A, AE, A1-A30, AR, AO, and AH whose lowest floors are below the Base Flood Elevation. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3473 If you have additional questions please email me. Sincerely, Patricia Rippe Senior Floodplain Management Specialist FEMA Region IX 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 (510) 627-7015 1 From:Hannula, Hal Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:45 PM To:Keith & Tracy Hall Cc:Rob Rossi; Vickey Farley; Avila, Richard Subject:FW: Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Attachments:P-936_sec2_508.pdf Hi Keith, See the attached favorable response from FEMA regarding treating a live-work unit as a mixed-use building which allows for “dry” floodproofing the lower floor or the segregated commercial space at the first floor. I asked the general question to clear the Planning completeness review. We will need to take a closer look at your overall strategy but at least we know that the expansion of the lower floor area beyond parking , access, and limited storage related to a residential occupancy is allowed for designated non-residential uses. The elevator and equipment location, utility designs, etc. will need to all comply with our ordinances and FEMA Technical Bulletins. Feel free to contact me or Richard at any time. Regards, Hal Hal Hannula Supervising Civil Engineer Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhannula@slocity.org T 805.781.7201 C 805.431.0083 slocity.org From: Rippe, Patricia <Patricia.Rippe@fema.dhs.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:41 PM To: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Cc: Gillespie, Julia <julia.gillespie@fema.dhs.gov> Subject: Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Hi Hal, San Luis Obispo has been assigned to me and Julia Gillespie. Julia is currently deployed to support the COVID-19 response. Thanks for the question about multi use properties. I understand that currently the live-work residence is in a Zone AO and the living/residential area is on the second floor above the flood depth. Below the living area (ground floor) is a garage, access and limited storage. The proposal is to modify the ground floor to include office space and a toilet room. You asked a couple of questions: 1) In this case of a defined live-work unit, is the expansion of the floor area beyond parking, access, and limited storage for office purposes acceptable. a. Yes an office and toilet would be allowed if the structure is either floodproofed or elevated. Obviously, in this situation you are considering floodproofing. FEMA regs related to the toilet: “New and replacement sanitary 2 sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate the infiltration of discharges from the systems into floodwaters (44 CFR §60.3(a)(6)(i))”. A backflow preventer is needed. 2) If supported, should we consider the office areas as expanded and recognized non-residential uses such as storage or just consider them as commercial like uses. a. For floodplain management purposes multi-use structures are categorized as either residential or non-residential based on the use of the ground floor. In this case the ground floor will be office use which is considered non- residential. Floodproofing is allowed for non-residential structures. FEMA regs: “Within any Zone AO on the community’s FIRM, all new construction and Substantial Improvement of nonresidential structures must (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified), or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely floodproofed to that level to meet the floodproofing standards specified in 44 §60.3(c)(3)(ii) and 60.3(c)(8)”. 3) They are proposing dry floodproofing and flood barriers to protect the office areas and access at the lower floor. Although prudent, it seems like they would really need to construct all improvements at the lower office level with flood-resistant construction rather than relying on flood protection at the exterior envelope. a. If the work to convert the ground floor to office use meets the City’s Substantial Damage threshold (typically 50% of market value) then the building materials used below the BFE must be resistant to flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a) (3)(ii)). If this conversion is less than substantial improvement, then this is optional but prudent, to use your words. FEMA would recommend this approach. Please note that in order for dry floodproofing to achieve a favorable NFIP insurance rating, it must extend to the BFE + 1 foot of freeboard. I have attached a good document on floodproofing for your review. In addition, below are a couple of links to Technical Bulletins on this subject: 1. Technical Bulletin 2, Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements (2008). Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning the required use of flood-damage resistant construction materials for building components located below the Base Flood Elevation in Special Flood Hazard Areas (both A and V zones). https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/2655 2. Technical Bulletin 3, Non-Residential Floodproofing - Requirements and Certification (1993). Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning watertight construction and the required certification for floodproofed non-residential buildings in Zones A, AE, A1-A30, AR, AO, and AH whose lowest floors are below the Base Flood Elevation. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3473 If you have additional questions please email me. Sincerely, Patricia Rippe Senior Floodplain Management Specialist FEMA Region IX 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 (510) 627-7015 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-1 T he most effective flood mitigation methods are relocation and elevation, but when these methods are not feasible or cost-effective, floodproofing may be an appropriate alternative. Some emergency mea- sures can be accomplished without expert construction assistance, and many can be used for low-level or nuisance flooding while significantly reducing losses from these types of events. The development of a floodproofing strategy should include considerations of a number of factors that will influence the design of the floodproofing measure or measures. This chapter contains a discussion of these fac- tors, which are: ■■Design requirements. Regulatory requirements, building codes, design standards, and other guidance documents (Section 2.1) ■■Design loads and site characteristics. Hydrostatic loads, hydrodynamic loads, wave loads, impact loads from flood-borne debris, internal drainage, and site drainage (Section 2.2) ■■Flood characteristics. Flood elevations, duration of flooding, rate of floodwater rise and fall, flood frequency (Section 2.3) ■■Site factors. Flood hazard boundaries, erosion and scour, and geotechnical considerations (Section 2.4) ■■Functional, operational, and economic factors. Functional use requirements of the building, occupant safety, flood warning time, flood emergency operations plans, inspection and maintenance plans, and BCAs (Section 2.5) ■■Vulnerability assessments. All-hazards vulnerability assessments, structural condition assessments of the building, and utility assessments (Section 2.6) Design Considerations in Floodproofing Cross Reference Have questions about the NFIP? See FEMA F-084, Answers to Questions about the NFIP (FEMA 2011b) at: http:// www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/doc- uments/272. This document is intended to acquaint the public with the NFIP. It is designed for readers who do not need a detailed history or technical or legal explanations but who do need a basic understanding of the program and the answers to some frequently asked ques- tions. For legal definitions, see the NFIP Flood Insurance Manual (FEMA 2013), and National Flood Insurance Program Regulations (FEMA 2009a). 2-2 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.1 Regulatory Requirements, Building Codes, Design Standards, and Guidance Documents Floodproofing may be proposed voluntarily by building owners or may be necessary to meet floodplain man- agement regulations or building codes. This section contains a discussion of the floodplain management regulations and building codes that can affect the type and design of floodproofing measures. 2.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program Communities that participate in the NFIP are required to adopt and enforce local regulations for development in mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) to reduce the risk of flooding (see 44 CFR Parts 59 and 60). However, communities are encouraged to adopt requirements that exceed Federal regulations. Homeowners, renters, and business owners, as well as communities that own buildings in participating communities are eli- gible for NFIP flood insurance coverage. With the inclusion of NFIP-consistent provisions in the International Code Series (I-Codes), communi- ties that have adopted the I-Codes have two ways of enforcing NFIP flood-resistant design and con- struction requirements for buildings and structures: ■■Using the I-Codes with NFIP-consistent provisions intact and IBC Appendix G; or ■■Using the I-Codes with NFIP-consistent provisions intact and local floodplain management regulations that include requirements comparable to those in Appendix G. These tools are designed to work together to result in buildings and structures, and all other development, that are resistant to flood loads and flood damage. If a participating community has not adopted the I-Codes or if the NFIP-consistent provisions of the codes are not intact, the community must adopt local floodplain management regulations that include detailed and specific requirements for buildings and structures. Consensus standards are incor- porated into building codes by reference; ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (2010), and ASCE 24 are two consensus standards that are consistent with NFIP regulations. See Section 2.1.7 for more information on consensus standards. Figure 2-1 shows how building design is regulated by the NFIP regulations and building codes. *NFIP-consistent administrative provisions, community-specific adoption of Flood Insurance Studies and maps, and technical requirements for development outside the scope of the building code (and higher standards, in some communities) Figure 2-1. Satisfying NFIP requirements through building codes FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-3 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING The requirements in 44 CFR Part 60 apply to all devel- opment, which the NFIP broadly defines to include buildings and structures, site work, roads and bridges, and other activities. The regulations require buildings to be designed and constructed to resist flood damage, which is achieved primarily through elevation. Dry floodproofing can be used to fulfill the requirements for non-residential buildings in SFHAs that are not sub- ject to high velocity wave action. Some requirements apply to existing buildings when the cost of repairing or improving a building in an SFHA equals or exceeds 50 percent of the building’s market value. The NFIP requires that new and Substantially Improved buildings be constructed in ways that minimize or prevent flood damage. As with new non-residential buildings, existing non-residential buildings may be brought into compli- ance by elevating them on compliant foundations or, if determined to be feasible, by implementing dry flood- proofing measures. The NFIP’s performance requirements are identical for new construction and for Substantial Improvement or repair of Substantial Damage of existing buildings. Some of the key requirements are: ■■Buildings shall be designed and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy (44 CFR §60.3(a)(3)(i)). ■■Building materials used below the BFE shall be resistant to flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a) (3)(ii)). ■■Buildings shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a)(3)(iii)). ■■Buildings shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air- conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components (44 CFR §60.3(a)(3) (iv)). Terminology “Substantial Damage” is damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before- damage condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the struc- ture before the damage occurred (FEMA 2010c). “Substantial Improvement” is any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or improvement of a building, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the building before the improvement or repair is started (cer- tain historic structures may be excluded) (FEMA 2010c). Substantially Impermeable: FEMA uses USACE’s definition of substantially imper- meable from Flood Proofing Regulations (USACE 1995). This document states that a substantially impermeable wall “shall not permit the accumulation of more than 4 inches of water depth during a 24-hour period and, sump pumps shall be required to control this seepage.” Special Note The NFIP establishes minimum crite- ria and design performance requirements that communities participating in the NFIP must enforce for structures in SFHAs. The criteria specify how a structure should be constructed in order to minimize or reduce the potential for flood damage. A primary requirement is that buildings shall be ele- vated to or above the BFE. Depending on flood zone, non-residential buildings may be protected with specifically designed and certified dry floodproofing measures that are watertight below and protect to the BFE. See Section 2.1.2 for information on the Floodproofing Certificate. 2-4 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems (44 CFR §60.3(a)(5)). ■■New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate the infiltration of discharges from the systems into floodwaters (44 CFR §60.3(a)(6)(i)). ■■All new construction and Substantial Improvement of non-residential structures within Zones A1–30, AE, and AH on the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) must (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level or, (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy (44 CFR §60.3(c)(3)). ■■Within any Zone AO on the community’s FIRM, all new construction and Substantial Improvement of nonresidential structures must (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified), or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely floodproofed to that level to meet the floodproofing standards specified in 44 §60.3(c)(3)(ii) and 60.3(c)(8). When dry floodproofing measures are proposed for non-residential buildings, communities that participate in the NFIP require applicants to provide certifica- tion that registered professional engineers or architects have developed or reviewed the structural design, spec- ifications, and plans for proposed dry floodproofing measures. In addition, the dry floodproofing design and proposed methods of construction are to be certi- fied as being in accordance with accepted standards of practice (see Section 2.1.2). The standards of practice require that the building, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that it is watertight below the BFE, with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components Special Note This publication specifies that in order for dry floodproofing to achieve a favorable NFIP insurance rating, it must extend to the BFE + 1 foot of freeboard. For new construc- tion or Substantial Improvement/Damage, it must extend to the BFE. However, the owner may choose to protect an existing building from lesser events of shallower, more frequent flooding using dry flood- proofing measures provided Substantial Improvement/Damage is not triggered. Special Note The NFIP does not strictly prohibit haz- ardous materials from areas subject to flooding, but requiring such materials to be protected from floodwaters, is an effec- tive way to reduce or eliminate the chance of damage associated with the release of harmful materials. FEMA 480, Floodplain Management Requirements, A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials, provides a list of potential con- taminants that may be of concern (FEMA 2005). FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-5 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING that are capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy associated with the design flood event. Although NFIP regulations require non-residential buildings to be watertight and protected only to the BFE for floodplain management purposes (to meet NFIP regulations), protection to a higher level is necessary for dry floodproofing measures to be considered for NFIP flood insurance rating purposes. Because of the addi- tional risk associated with dry floodproofed buildings, to receive an insurance rating based on 1-percent- annual-chance (100-year) flood protection, a building must be dry floodproofed to an elevation at least 1 foot above the BFE. Insurance premiums will be lower if dry floodproofing extends higher than the BFE + 1 foot. Dry floodproofed buildings with active floodproofing measures and requiring human intervention are subject to higher insurance premiums than dry floodproofed buildings with completely passive floodproofing mea- sures that do not require human intervention. Wet floodproofing also has implications for NFIP flood insurance rating purposes. NFIP floodplain manage- ment regulations restrict the use of space below the BFE to parking of vehicles, building access, and storage. Although floodwalls or levees can be used to keep floodwaters away from buildings, implementing these measures will not affect a building’s flood insurance rating unless the flood control structure is accredited in accordance NFIP requirements (44 CFR §65.10) and provides protection from at least the 1-percent-annual- chance (100-year) flood. In addition, floodwalls or levees as a retrofit measure will not bring the building into compliance with NFIP requirements for Substantial Improvement/Damage. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 provide other requirements for dry and wet floodproofing based on the NFIP. Table 2-1. NFIP General Requirements for Dry Floodproofing NFIP General Requirements for Dry Floodproofing References For new construction and Substantial Improvement/Damage, permitted only in non- residential buildings in special flood hazard areas not subject to high velocity wave action (i.e., permitted in Zone A). 44 CFR §60.3(c)(3) 44 CFR §60.3(c)(8) 44 CFR §60.3(c)(4) Technical Bulletin 3 (FEMA 1993a) Must be designed so the structure is watertight below the BFE with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of floodwater.(a) Attendant utility and sanitary facilities must be completely floodproofed to below the BFE.(a) A registered design professional must develop and/or review structural designs, specifications, and plans and certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice. Not permitted in Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zone V). (a) Dry floodproofed properties are eligible for insurance only if floodproofing extends to 1 foot above the BFE; 44 CFR §60.3(c)(3) requires floodproofing to the BFE. Special Note A building that is valued at $150,000 and located in a zone A can have differing insurance premiums based on the level of floodproofing. If the building is floodproofed to 1 foot above the BFE, the annual pre- mium would be approximately $1380. If the same building is floodproofed to 2 feet above the BFE, the annual premium would be approximately $540. The increase in floodproofing design level would result in a 61 percent savings in annual insurance premiums that would be passed onto the building owner. 2-6 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Table 2-2. NFIP General Requirements for Wet Floodproofing NFIP General Wet Floodproofing Requirements References Permitted only for attached garages or parking, access, and storage areas below the BFE 44 CFR §60.3(a)(3) 44 CFR §60.3(c)(5) 44 CFR §60.6(a) 44 CFR §60.6(a)(7) Technical Bulletin 7 (FEMA 1993b) Some historic structures, accessory structures, structures functionally dependent on proximity to water, and agricultural buildings may be wet floodproofed Portions of the structure below the BFE must be constructed of flood-resistant materials Must be designed to allow for automatic entry and exit of floodwaters 2.1.2 Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Buildings in Zone A When dry floodproofing is used to comply with local regulations or building code requirements, the NFIP and model building codes require the submission of a certificate stating that the design satisfies all applica- ble requirements. Strictly speaking, certification is not required for retrofit measures that are not required to meet the minimum requirements; however, FEMA rec- ommends that communities require it for all retrofit dry floodproofing projects. The recommended form to use for this purpose is the FEMA Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Structures (FEMA Form 086- 0-34) (FEMA 2012b). This form is required for the floodproofing measures to be recognized for NFIP flood insurance purposes. It is important to note that this certificate is not an “as-built” certification; it is used by the designer only to certify the design. Certification of design is not required for wet floodproofing. For floodwalls and levees, a certificate is required only if the mitigation results in a change to the FIRM. The design certification is required for the following types of buildings in Zone A: ■■Dry floodproofed non-residential structures (no residential uses) ■■Dry floodproofed portions of mixed-use buildings that have all residential uses located above the floodproofing design elevation The certificate is submitted as part of the permit appli- cation and has the following three sections: Special Note Design professionals need to be aware of several requirements not explicitly noted on current floodproofing certificates, spe- cifically, they must: ■ Provide interior drainage (pumps) to control seepage into building ■ Provide a continuous source of elec- tricity to operate any necessary floodproofing components ■ Use flood-resistant materials in areas where seepage is expected to occur ■ Conduct planning, including developing a flood emergency operations plan and an inspection and maintenance plan To ensure better documentation and to demonstrate the importance of implement- ing active measures, FEMA suggests that local officials require a photograph of the building to be submitted with the certificate. If there are openings on the floodproofed portion of the building, the photograph should be taken with opening protection fully installed/in place. Further, the designer should sign off on the floodproofing certificate stating that he or she has reviewed the emergency operations plan AND inspection and main- tenance plan and that they are adequate. Finally, additional technical documenta- tion, such as design drawings and material specifications, may be required for insur- ance purposes. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-7 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■Section I. FIRM information, including community number, map panel number, date of the FIRM index, flood zone, and BFE. ■■Section II. Floodproofing information. The designer is required to identify the floodproofing design elevation and the height of the floodproofing measures above the lowest adjacent grade. ■■Section III. Certification by the design professional licensed in the State where the project is located. The designer signs to certify that the dry floodproofed area of the building, together with attendant utilities and sanitary facilities, will be watertight to the floodproofed design elevation indicated, with walls that are substantially impermeable to the passage of water. The designer is also required to certify that all structural components are capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic flood forces, including the effects of buoyancy, and anticipated debris impact forces. The designer provides copies of the completed certificate to the building owner who submits it with the permit application to his/her insurance agent/company and the community official. Communities are required to maintain copies of design certifications as part of their commitment to the NFIP. 2.1.3 Floodproofing Historic Buildings The NFIP gives special consideration to the unique value of designated historic buildings and structures. Provided such structures retain their designations, communities do not have to require them to be brought into compliance if the structures will be Substantially Improved or have been Substantially Damaged. The NFIP definition of “historic structures” includes structures that are (1) listed or preliminarily determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, (2) certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Department of Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered his- toric district or a district preliminarily determined to qualify as a registered historic district, or (3) designated as a historic site under a State or local historic preservation program that is approved by the Secretary of the Department of Interior. The definition does not include structures that are merely old, those that residents refer to as historic, or those that happen to be located in historic districts. Section 4.5.3 includes a case study involving the application of floodproofing to historic buildings. When voluntary retrofit floodproofing measures are applied to historic buildings, the measures should be designed to mitigate or reduce the flood risk while preserving the building’s historic integrity. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and a design professional (engineer or architect), preferably one experienced in rehabilitating historic structures, is necessary. Ideally, any retrofit floodproofing measure applied to a historic building and/or its site will not affect the property’s designation. If a structure does not retain its historic designation, it is subject to the basic NFIP requirements for Substantial Improvement/Damage. Retrofit floodproofing measures for historic buildings need not be comprehensive to provide at least some degree of protection. The techniques listed below may have minimal impact on the historically significant fea- tures of the structure (FEMA 2008b): ■■Elevating electrical and mechanical systems and utilities ■■Relocating contents ■■Creating positive drainage, where the grade allows water to drain away from the building ■■Using flood damage-resistant materials 2-8 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■Filling in basements or wet floodproofing basements ■■Installing small floodwalls to protect openings such as window wells 2.1.4 National Policies for Federal Actions in Floodplains When Federal assistance is provided for the planning, design, and construction of buildings or for the repair of existing buildings located in SFHAs (and within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance [500-year] floodplain if the activity funded is a “critical action” or critical facility), the funding agency is required to address additional considerations. Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to follow a decision-making process to avoid, to the extent possible, the short- and long-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid supporting floodplain development directly or indirectly whenever there is a practicable alternative. If there is no practicable alternative, the Federal agency must take steps to mini- mize any adverse impacts on people’s lives, property, and the floodplain’s natural and beneficial functions. EO 11988 applies directly to Federal agencies and indirectly to tribes, States, and local governments through Federal actions and requirements. FEMA’s regulations in 44 CFR Part 9 set forth the agency’s policy, procedure, and responsibilities for implementation and enforcement of EO 11988 and also EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Other Federal agencies have similar regulations or policies that satisfy the requirements of the order. As defined in 44 CFR §9.4, a critical action is an action for which even a slight chance of flooding is too great. The minimum floodplain of concern for critical actions is the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) floodplain. Critical actions include actions that create or extend the useful life of structures or facilities such as those that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explo- sive, toxic or water reactive materials; hospitals, nursing homes, and housing for the elderly; emergency opera- tion centers, data storage centers; utility systems and power generating plants. Warning Although 44 CFR Part 9 implementation rules addresses “critical actions” in SFHAs (actions for which even a slight chance of flooding is too great), sometimes relocating a critical action (building) is a better option than elevating or floodproofing Special Note 44 CFR §9.11(d)(1) states that FEMA, as part of its implementation of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, tshall apply certain min- imization provisions. Specifically, FEMA funding shall not be used to support new construction or Substantial Improvement in a floodway, and no new construction in a coastal high hazard area, except for (i) a functionally dependent use or (ii) a struc- ture or facility which facilitates an open space use. 44 CFR §59.1 defines the regulatory flood- way as the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increas- ing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. 44 CFR §59.1 defines the coastal high hazard area as an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-9 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Critical actions should be given special consideration when developing regulatory alternatives and floodplain management plans. Under EO 11988 and 44 CFR Part 9, critical actions are required to avoid the 0.2 per- cent-annual-chance (500-year) floodplain or to elevate or protect structures and essential components to the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) flood level. Critical actions should not occur in a floodplain, if possible. The 8-step decision-making process called for in EO 11988 is further developed and clarified in 44 CFR §9.6(b). FEMA uses the decision-making process illustrated in Figure 2-2 to satisfy the requirements. Figure 2-2. FEMA’s 8-step decision-making process for compliance with Executive Order (EO) 11998 and 44 CFR Part 9 2-10 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.1.5 Local Floodplain Management Regulations To participate in the NFIP, communities are required to adopt and enforce local floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum requirements established in 44 CFR Parts 59 and 60. Until the advent of model building codes that included flood provisions deemed consistent with NFIP requirements for buildings (see Section 2.1.1), communities adopted stand-alone floodplain management regulations or ordinances that included administrative, land use, and building requirements. Some States have requirements that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements, and many communities adopt higher standards to achieve a greater level of protection and public safety. The most common higher standards are: ■■Requirement to protect to a higher elevation than the minimum requirement (freeboard) ■■A cumulative Substantial Improvement in which the improvements and repairs are tallied over a certain period of time (e.g., 5 or 10 years). The effect of a cumulative improvement provision is that more existing buildings are required to be brought into compliance with the requirements for new construction ■■Prohibition of new construction in the floodway, SFHA, or conservation zones ■■Prohibition of the use of building materials and practices that have proven to be ineffective in flooding ■■Restrictions on the use and type of construction fill material 2.1.6 Model Building Codes Many States and communities regulate the construction of buildings by adopting and enforcing building codes based on model building codes. Building codes have minimum requirements on issues such as structural design, materials, fire safety, number and location of exits, natural hazard mitigation, sanitary facilities, light and ventilation, environmental control, fire protection, and energy conservation. Building codes apply to the construction of new buildings and structures and to existing buildings and structures, including alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement, repair, and change of occupancy. The I-Codes and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Building Construction and Safety Code (NFPA 5000 [2012]) were the first model codes to include comprehensive provisions for flood hazards. The flood provisions were incorporated into building codes in the early 2000s. Both codes are consistent with the minimum provisions of the NFIP that pertain to the design and construction of buildings and other structures. The IBC and International Existing Building Code (IEBC [2012]) are pertinent to this manual because they address the primary requirements for design and construction of non-residential buildings and because of their widespread use in the United States. The IBC contains flood provisions, and the IEBC references the flood provisions of the IBC for all repairs, additions, and alterations to existing buildings in flood hazard areas that are proposed to be Substantially Improved or that have sustained Substantial Damage. Warning For any building that is proposed for dry floodproofing, always determine whether the community where the building is locat- ed has adopted higher standards. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-11 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING The IBC incorporates by reference a number of standards developed through a formal or accredited consensus process. The standards that are related to flood-resis- tant design are ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, and ASCE 24, Flood Resistant Design and Construction. The IBC addresses flood loads and flood-resistant construction primarily in Section 1612. FEMA has determined that the flood provisions of the I-Codes are consistent with NFIP requirements for buildings and structures. The family of I-Codes addresses all of the key building requirements of the NFIP. Communities that enforce building codes based on the I-Codes should coordinate their floodplain management ordinances with the codes to minimize duplication and conflicts and to ensure that all requirements are addressed, including requirements for devel- opment other than buildings and structures. Some key code requirements from the 2012 IBC are described in Table 2-3 (previous editions of the IBC have the same or similar requirements). A dry floodproofing retrofit project may trigger several sections of a community’s building code that must be considered during the design. The designer or engineer should be cognizant of codes that may be triggered when considering flood mitigation projects (see code trigger example on page 2-13). Cross Reference The International Code Council’s family of building codes can be purchased at http:// www.iccsafe.org/. The I-Codes are NOT available for free (although some States have made them available through sepa- rate copyright agreements). Excerpts of the flood provisions of the I-Codes are posted on the FEMA Building Science Web site: http://www.fema.gov/building-science. 2-12 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Table 2-3. Key Code Requirements for Flood-Resistant Design from IBC 2012 IBC 2012 Section(a)Requirement Comments 110.3.3 [Required Inspections] Lowest Floor Elevation In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certificate required in Section 1612.5 shall be submitted to the building official. Requires submission of elevation certificate once lowest floor has been constructed, before further vertical construction. 1403.6 [Exterior Walls] Flood Resistance For buildings in flood hazard areas as established in Section 1612.3, exterior walls extending below the elevation required by Section 1612 shall be constructed with flood-damage-resistant materials. Wood shall be pressure-preservative treated in accordance with AWPA-U1-12, Use Category System: User Specification for Treated Wood (AWPA 2012) for the species, product, and end use using a preservative listed in Section 4 of AWPA U1 or decay-resistant heartwood of redwood, black locust, or cedar. Requires buildings in flood hazard areas to use flood-damage-resistant materials on exterior walls below the required elevation. 1605.2.1 [Structural Design] Load Combinations (using strength design or load and resistance factor design) and Other Loads. Where flood loads, Fa, are to be considered in the design, the load combinations of Section 2.3.3 of ASCE 7 shall be used. Where self-straining loads, T, are considered in design, their structural effects in combination with other loads shall be determined in accordance with Section 2.4.4 of ASCE 7. Where an ice-sensitive structure is subjected to loads due to atmospheric icing, the load combinations of Section 2.3.4 of ASCE 7 shall be considered. Requires buildings designed for flood hazard areas to be designed to resist flood loads, along with other loads. 1605.3.1.2 [Structural Design] Load Combinations (using allowable stress design) and Other Loads. Where flood loads, Fa, are to be considered in design, the load combinations of Section 2.4.2 of ASCE 7 shall be used. Where self-straining loads, T, are considered in design, their structural effects in combination with other loads shall be determined in accordance with Section 2.4.4 of ASCE 7. Where an ice-sensitive structure is subjected to loads due to atmospheric icing, the load combinations of Section 2.3.4 of ASCE 7 shall be considered. Requires buildings designed for flood hazard areas to be designed to resist flood loads, along with other loads. 1612.1 [Structural Design] Flood Loads Within flood hazard areas as established in Section 1612.3, all new construction of buildings, structures and portions of buildings and structures, including Substantial Improvement and restoration of Substantial Damage to buildings and structures, shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of flood hazards and flood loads. For buildings that are located in more than one flood hazard area, the provisions associated with the most restrictive flood hazard area shall apply. Requires all new buildings, Substantial Improvement, and repair of Substantial Damage to be designed to resist the most restrictive flood hazard applicable to the location. 1612.4 [Structural Design] Flood Loads The design and construction of buildings and structures located in flood hazard areas, including flood hazard areas subject to high-velocity wave action, shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of ASCE 7 and with ASCE 24. References ASCE 7 and ASCE 24 for the specific requirements for the design and construction of buildings in flood hazard areas. International Building Code (IBC), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) (a) Flood-resistant provisions of the I-Codes can be found at http://www.fema.gov/building-science/building-code-resources. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-13 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.1.7 Consensus Standards The consensus standards relevant to flood-resistant design are ASCE 7 and ASCE 24. The requirements in these standards are consistent with the minimum NFIP requirements. ASCE 7 outlines methods to determine design loads and load combinations in flood hazard areas, includ- ing hydrostatic loads, hydrodynamic loads, wave loads, and debris impact loads. To compute the loads and load combinations, the designer must identify site-spe- cific characteristics, including flood depths, velocities, waves, and the likelihood that debris impacts need to be considered. ASCE 24 addresses design and construction require- ments for buildings in flood hazard areas, including floodways, coastal high hazard areas, and other high- risk flood hazard areas such as alluvial fans, flash flood areas, mudslide areas, erosion-prone areas, and high- velocity areas. ASCE 24 sets forth requirements for elevation, foundation designs, enclosures below elevated buildings, materials, dry and wet floodproofing, utility Code Trigger Example An example of a requirement that could be triggered by a floodproofing retrofit project is means of egress. The IEBC has criteria on means of egress that may be relevant depending on the level of altera- tion. Level 2 alterations “include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment.” Under the IEBC, in a Level 2 alteration, the requirements for both Level 1 and Level 2 alterations need to be followed. The requirements may involve finish, structural, accessibility/egress, fire-resistance, and other requirements. For example, a Level 2 alteration may trigger means of egress requirements that include: ■ Minimum number of exits in the work area, as required by the IBC (some buildings are required to have only one exit if certain criteria are met ■ Fire escapes requirements such as unobstructed access ■ New fire escape requirements ■ Mezzanine egress requirements ■ Requirements for openings in corridor walls ■ Means of egress lighting, exit signs, handrails, and guard Warning ASCE 24 addresses design and con- struction requirements for buildings in coastal high-hazard areas (Zone V), Coastal A Zones, and high-flood-veloci- ty areas but limits the applications of dry floodproofing in these areas because of increased hydrodynamic and wave loads. Cross Reference ASCE standards are available for purchase at: http://www.asce.org/codes-standards/. Highlights of ASCE 24 are posted on the FEMA Building Science Web page: http:// www.fema.gov/building-science. 2-14 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING installations, building access, and miscellaneous structures (e.g., decks, porches, patios, garages, chimneys and fireplaces, pools, above- and below-ground storage tanks). ASCE 24, Section 6.2 and Commentary 6.2, Dry Floodproofing, specify design and construction require- ments for dry floodproofing when used for the construction of new buildings or when existing buildings are proposed to be Substantially Improved (including repair of Substantial Damage). Table 2-4 provides a list of general requirements and limitations for dry floodproofing. ASCE 24 promulgates the standards of practice and should be used for floodproofing retrofits, even if the work does not constitute a Substantial Improvement. Table 2-4. ASCE 24 Requirements and Limitations for Dry Floodproofing ASCE 24 Section Dry Floodproofing Requirements and Limitations Minimum Elevation of Floodproofing (Table 6-1) Specifies the minimum elevation of dry floodproofing relative to the base flood elevation (BFE) or design flood elevation (DFE) as a function of structure/risk category and limits use of dry floodproofing to flood hazard areas outside of high risk flood hazard areas. Limitations (Section 6.2.1) Dry floodproofing of buildings is not permitted in: ■•Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zone V) ■•Coastal A Zones ■•Other High Risk Flood Areas where the following are known to occur: alluvial fan flooding, flash floods, mudslides, ice jams, high velocity flows, or erosion ■•Areas where flood velocities adjacent to buildings is greater than 5 feet per second during the design flood Requirements (Section 6.2.2) Buildings shall be designed and constructed: ■•So that any area below the applicable elevation specified in Table 6-1 is flood resistant with walls that are substantially impermeable to the passage of water ■•To resist all flood related loads resulting from flooding to the elevation listed in Table 6-1, including hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, and other flood related loads, including the effects of buoyancy ■•To have soil or fill adjacent to the structure compacted and protected against erosion and scour in accordance with ASCE 24, Section 2.4 ■•To have at least one door satisfying building code requirements as an exit door or primary means of escape above the applicable elevation specified in Table 6-1 Human Intervention (Section 6.2.3) Buildings proposed to be dry floodproofed that require human intervention to activate or implement measures prior to flooding shall be permitted only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: ■•Minimum of 12-hour warning time, unless community operates a flood warning system and implements an emergency plan to ensure safe evacuation and the community can provide a minimum warning time to allow the implementation of measures requiring human implementation ■•Removable shields or covers for openings must be designed to resist flood loads specified in Section 1.6 ■•Flood emergency plan must be approved by the authority having jurisdiction, shall specify certain information critical to implementation, and shall be posted in at least two locations within structure FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-15 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Section 6.3 and Commentary 6.3, Wet Floodproofing, in ASCE 24 specify design and construction require- ments for wet floodproofing measures. Table 2-5 provides a list of general requirements for wet floodproofing. ASCE 24 Section 6.3 and Commentary 6.3 should be reviewed for more information on these requirements. Table 2-5. ASCE 24 Requirements and Limitations for Wet Floodproofing ASCE 24 Section Wet Floodproofing Requirements and Limitations Limitations on use (Section 6.3.1) ■•Wet floodproofing of enclosed areas below elevations listed in Table 6-1 shall be limited to: Category I structures (from Table 1-1, includes certain agricultural structures, certain temporary facilities, and minor storage facilities) ■•Enclosures used solely for parking, building access or storage ■•Structures that are functionally dependent on close proximity to water ■•Agricultural structures not included in Category I structures that cannot be located elsewhere and that are used solely for agricultural purposes Requirements (Section 6.3.2) Wet floodproofing shall be accomplished by: ■•Use of techniques that minimize damage to the structure associated with flood loads ■•Meeting the requirements for enclosures (Section 2.6 or Section 4.6) depending on the flood hazard area ■•Installation of utilities, including plumbing fixtures, in conformance with the requirements of Section 7 (Utilities) 2.1.8 Additional Federal Guidance Documents Two important Federal guidance documents on flood- proofing are: ■■NFIP Technical Bulletin 3-93, Non- Residential Floodproofing: Requirements and Certification for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in Accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA 1993a) ■■USACE’s Flood Proofing Regulations (EP 1165-2-314), a technical model for floodproofing-related regulations but not a regulation (USACE 1995) FEMA’s Technical Bulletins provide guidance on complying with the minimum requirements of exist- ing NFIP regulations on limited topics including non-residential floodproofing, wet floodproofing, flood damage-resistant materials, and elevators. The NFIP Technical Bulletin 3-93 provides step-by-step guidance on: Terminology Regulations and building codes establish the requirements that must be met. Guidance is addi- tional information that may be useful to code officials and others who are responsible for inter- preting, enforcing, and complying with regulations and codes. Guidance can also provide recommen- dations that are beyond the minimum requirements of building codes, standards or regulations. Cross Reference FEMA’s Technical Bulletins are available at: http:// www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-2/ nfip-technical-bulletins. USACE’s Flood Proofing Regulations is available at: http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng- pamphlets/EP_1165-2-314/toc.htm. 2-16 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■NFIP regulations that apply to the design of floodproofing for non-residential buildings ■■Planning considerations (e.g., warning time, flood characteristics) ■■Minimum engineering considerations and equations for calculating flood forces ■■Preparing the Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Structures (see Section 2.1.2) USACE’s Flood Proofing Regulations was among the earliest documents to provide an administrative and technical model for code design and enforcement and to present detailed information on implementing flood- proofing techniques. It has served as the framework for the preparation of numerous other floodproofing publications. Flood Proofing Regulations pertains to riverine flooding and does not address wave action, cor- rosion, or erosion associated with coastal flooding, debris impact, mudslides, or high-density fluid problems. 2.2 Design Loads and Site Characteristics Floodproofing measures must ensure that buildings will be designed and constructed to resist flotation, col- lapse, and lateral movement associated with flooding. The loads and conditions discussed in this section include but are not limited to: ■■Flood-related hazards such as hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads, flood-borne debris impact loads, and internal and site drainage considerations ■■Site-specific soil and geotechnical considerations such as soil pressure, bearing capacity, land subsidence, erosion, scour, and shrink-swell potential This section provides an overview of how these forces can act on a building. See FEMA P-259, Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures (FEMA 2012a) for more informa- tion on flood-related loads and conditions. 2.2.1 Identifying the Base Flood Elevation Determining the expected BFE is critical to understanding the site-specific flood risk. The flood zone and esti- mated BFE of a project area are identified using a FIRM panel. Flood hazard area boundaries on many FIRMs are delineated for the 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance (100-year and 500-year) flood. Figure 2-3 shows the location of a subject building on a FIRM. The area with blue dots is the 1-percent-annual- chance (100-year) flood hazard area. The area with black dots is the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) flood hazard area. After the building is located on the FIRM, the flood profiles in the relevant Flood Insurance Study (FIS) should be used to verify the BFE and to determine the flood elevations for other modeled flood recurrence intervals. Cross Reference For areas in which BFEs have not been established, designers can refer to FEMA 265 Zone A Manual: Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas (FEMA 1995) (http://www.fema.gov/media- library/assets/documents/7273). This guide provides information on obtaining and devel- oping BFEs. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-17 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Figure 2-3. Building and stream location on a FIRM Some FIRMs do not show the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) flood hazard area, and many FIRMs do not provide detailed information about predicted flood elevations along every body of water, especially smaller streams and tributaries. When existing data are insufficient, additional statistical methods and engineering analyses are necessary to determine the flood-prone areas and the appropriate characteristics of flooding. If a proposed or existing site has been affected or has the potential to be affected by flooding, a site-specific topo- graphic survey is critical to delineate the land below the flood elevation. If detailed flood elevation information is not available, a floodplain study may be required to identify the important flood characteristics and data required for sound design. 2.2.2 Design Flood Elevation The I-Codes, ASCE 7, and ASCE 24 define the design flood elevation (DFE) as “elevation of the design flood, including wave height, relative to the datum specified on the community’s flood hazard map.” The design flood is the “greater of the following two flood events: (1) the base flood, affecting those areas identified as SFHAs on the community’s FIRM or (2) the flood corresponding to the area designated as a flood hazard area on a 2-18 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING community’s flood hazard map or otherwise legally designated.” Some communities use the DFE to refer to the BFE plus locally required additional height (usually referred to as “freeboard”). The I-Codes and ASCE 24 specify the elevation of buildings or the elevation of floodproofing measures based on the Occupancy/Risk Category of the building. All buildings are required to be assigned a category, which is then used in ASCE 24 to determine the level of protection. The more important the building, as indicated by the assigned category, the higher the level of protection. 2.2.3 Determining the Flood Depth The first step in determining the flood depth for a site is to identify the DFE that is specified by the build- ing code or the floodplain management regulations that are enforced by the governing authority. The most common flood elevation used for design is the BFE. ASCE 24 requires some height of freeboard above the BFE, the amount of which is determined by the build- ing occupancy. Local regulations and requirements should be compared to ASCE 24, and the most restric- tive condition should be followed. Terminology Base flood elevation (BFE) – The elevation of the base flood relative to the datum specified on a community’s FIRM. The base flood has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (commonly called the 100-year flood). BFEs are shown on FIRMs for many SFHAs. The BFE is the NFIP’s minimum elevation to which the lowest floor of a building must be elevated or floodproofed (Zone A). In Zone V, the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member must be elevated to or above the BFE; floodproofing is not permitted in Zone V. Many SFHAs are shown on FIRMs without BFEs; in these areas, community officials and permit applicants are required to obtain and use information from other sources, or must estimate or develop BFEs at specific locations. Freeboard – An added margin of safety, expressed in feet above a specific flood elevation, usually the BFE. In States and communities that require freeboard, buildings are required to be elevated or flood- proofed to the higher elevation. For example, if a community adopts a 2-foot freeboard, non-residential buildings are required to be elevated or floodproofed to 2 feet above the BFE. Design flood elevation (DFE) – The elevation of the design flood relative to the datum specified on the community’s FIRM. The design flood is associated with the greater of the area subject to the base flood or the area designated as a flood hazard area on a community flood map or otherwise designated. The I-Codes, ASCE 7, and ASCE 24 use the term DFE. In most communities, the DFE is identical to the BFE. Communities may designate a design flood (or DFE) in order to regulate based on a flood of record, to account for future increases in flood levels based on upland development, or to incorporate freeboard. Cross Reference The FEMA publication, Managing Floodplain Development through the NFIP, IS-9 (FEMA 2007a), provides guidance on determining flood elevations through flood profiles in the FIS. The document can be downloaded here: http://www.fema.gov/ media-library/assets/documents/6029. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-19 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING If NFIP compliance is not required (the building does not have to meet the requirements of Substantial Improvement/Damage), then the flood depth is based on the flood protection level selected by the owner or designer. On the other hand, if the building must be brought into compliance with the requirements of NFIP, the flood depth is equal to the BFE/DFE. The second step is to determine the expected elevation of the ground at the site. The expected ground eleva- tion must account for any erosion, scour, subsidence, or other ground-eroding conditions that occur over time. Erosion is possible even in low-velocity flooding areas and can increase future flood hazards by lower- ing ground levels. Land subsidence is the lowering of the ground as a result of water, oil, gas extraction, soil consolidation, decomposition of organic material, and tectonic movement. The lowest expected ground ele- vation is determined by considering subsidence and erosion during flood conditions. In this publication, the flood depth (H) is defined as the difference between the flood protection level and the lowest eroded ground surface elevation (GS) adjacent to the building (see Equation 2-1). Because these data are usually obtained from different sources, determining whether they are based on the same datum is impor- tant. If not, standard datum corrections must be applied. H = DFE – GS where: H = flood depth (ft) DFE = flood protection level or design flood elevation (ft) GS = lowest eroded ground surface elevation adjacent to the building (ft) Equation 2-1. Flood depth Determining the flood depth associated with the flood protection level is most important for load calcula- tions. Nearly every other flood load parameter or calculation (e.g., hydrostatic load, hydrodynamic load, debris impact load, local scour depth) depends directly or indirectly on the flood depth. The flood depth is shown in Figure 2-4. For new construction or Substantial Improvement, if NFIP compliance is required, the flood pro- tection level should be equal to the BFE/DFE. Special Note Subsidence effects can be estimated by lowering all existing ground elevations at the site by the product of the subsidence rate times the building lifetime. For exam- ple, if subsidence occurs at a rate of 0.05 foot/year and the building lifetime is 50 years, the profile should be lowered 2.5 feet. 2-20 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.2.4 Determining Hydrostatic Loads Hydrostatic pressures occur when floodwaters come into contact with a foundation, building, or building element. These pressures are always perpendicular to the building surface and increase linearly with depth or “head” of water below the surface of the water. Hydrostatic pressures can cause severe deflection or displace- ment of buildings or building components if water levels on opposite sides of the component (or inside and outside the building) are substantially different. Figure 2-5 shows equal and unequal hydrostatic pressures applied to the exterior of a building. Dry floodproofing results in unequal hydrostatic forces that must be accounted for in the floodproofing design. Figure 2-4. Flood depth FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-21 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Figure 2-5. Equal (A) and unequal (B) hydrostatic pressures applied to the exterior elements of a building; (B) shows the building protected by dry floodproofing methods applied The sum of the pressures over the surface under consideration represents the load acting on that surface. For structural analysis, hydrostatic forces are defined to act: ■■Vertically upward on the underside of any submerged members such as floor slabs, walls, and footings ■■Laterally on perimeter walls, piers, and similar vertical surfaces The basic equation for analyzing the lateral force from hydrostatic pressures from the flood depth to the lowest eroded ground surface elevation adjacent to the building is illustrated in Equation 2-2. 2-22 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING fsta = ½ PhH = ½ γw H 2 where: fsta = hydrostatic force from flood depth (lb/lf) acting at a distance H/3 above ground Ph = hydrostatic pressure due to standing water at a depth of H (lb/ft 2), (Ph = γw H ) γw = specific weight of water (62.4 lb/ft3 for fresh water and 64.0 lb/ft3 for saltwater) H = flood depth (ft) Equation 2-2. Lateral hydrostatic forces The resultant hydrostatic force fsta acts at a point two-thirds of the distance down from the water surface or one- third the distance up from the bottom of the flooded or submerged surface. If any portion of the building is below grade, saturated soil pressures must be included in the design load calcu- lations. Saturated soil pressures include pressure from both the soil and water acting on the structure’s wall and are applied from the lowest adjacent grade of the building to the bottom of the flooded or submerged surface. Since the lateral hydrostatic force equation already calculates standing water pressures from the, bottom of the flooded or submerged surface a differential soil force equation must be used so that hydrostatic pressures are not accounted for twice in the load calculations. The differential soil forces (fdif) equation is calculated by subtracting the unit weight of water from the equiva- lent fluid weight of the saturated soil (a combination of the unit weight of water and the effective saturated weight of soil based on a conversion from lateral earth pressure derived from shear strength properties). The equivalent fluid weights of the submerged soil and water can be found in various design manuals, including Table 4-3 in FEMA P-259 (FEMA 2012a). When a structure is subject to hydrostatic forces from both saturated soil and standing water, the resultant cumulative lateral force is the sum of the lateral water hydrostatic force and the differential soil force. The basic equation for computing fdif is illustrated in Equation 2-3. Although the differential soil force equation is not specifically site dependent, the equation is considered a more conservative approach for floodproofing design. Expansive or swelling soils may significantly increase lateral earth pressures and foundation heave pressures, and need to be evaluated separately and added to these cumulative forces. See Section 2.4.3 for discussion of procedures to evaluate these geotechnical behaviors. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-23 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING fdif = ½ (S – γw ) D 2 where: fdif = differential soil/water force acting at a distance D/3 from the point under consideration (lb/lf) S = equivalent fluid weight of submerged soil and water (lb/ft3) (shown in Table 4-3 of FEMA 259) D = depth of saturated soil from adjacent grade to the (bottom of the flooded or submerged surface ft) γw = specific weight of water (62.4 lb/ft3 for fresh water and 64.0 lb/ft3 for saltwater) Equation 2-3. Submerged soil and water forces Figure 2-6 shows a building subject to hydrostatic forces from saturated soil and water. fdif acts at a point D/3 where D is the distance from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the flooded or submerged surface. 2-24 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Figure 2-6. Hydrostatic forces acting on a foundation wall In a basement, vertical hydrostatic pressure acts on the bases of the foundation walls and on the concrete floor slab. The total vertical hydrostatic force that acts on the structure is the volume of floodwater displaced by the submerged structure multiplied by the specific weight of water. Vertical hydrostatic forces on a structure, also known as buoyant forces, must be resisted by the weight of the building itself. When a building is too light to resist buoyancy, other opposing forces, such as those from ground or soil anchors, must be added. Buoyant or flotation forces on a building can be of great concern when the elevation of floodwaters on the exterior of a building exceeds the elevation of floodwaters inside the building. When a below-grade foundation or crawl space is backfilled with compacted structural fill that supports the floor slab, unbalanced lateral and vertical loads against the walls and foundation slab will be reduced. This is one way to help counteract the buoyancy forces during flooding. The basic equation for analyzing buoyancy forces is shown in Equation 2-4. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-25 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Fbuoy = γw (Vol) where: Fbuoy = vertical hydrostatic force resulting from the displacement of a given volume of floodwater (lb) γw = specific weight of water (62.4 lb/ft3 for fresh water and 64.0 lb/ft3 for saltwater) Vol = volume of floodwater displaced by a submerged object (ft3) Equation 2-4. Buoyancy forces As noted in Equation 2-4, the specific weight of freshwater is 62.4 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3), while the spe- cific weight of saltwater is slightly higher at 64 lb/ft3. Both fresh and saltwater are relatively dense, so buoyant forces can be extreme. For example, the buoyant forces on a 24-by-36-foot foundation with 4 feet of freshwater flooding can be as high as 214,272 pounds (24 ft x 36 ft x 4 ft x 62 lb/ft3). Approximately 250,000 pounds of buoyant force will exceed the weight of all but the heaviest structures. It is assumed that the foundation walls and slab are substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Buildings with substantially impermeable base- ment walls and floor that have sump pumps to remove water that enters the basement can experience increased buoyant forces. When substantially impermeable buildings with below-grade areas are exposed to flooding, they can actually float on the floodwaters they displace. The computation of hydrostatic forces is vital to the successful design of floodwalls, sealants, closures, shields, foundation walls, slabs, and a variety of other dry floodproofing measures. Computation of these forces is illus- trated in Sections 4.1.2.2 through 4.1.2.6 of FEMA P-259. 2.2.5 Determining Hydrodynamic Forces Water flowing around a building, structural elements, and other submerged objects imposes loads on sub- merged building elements. These loads are known as hydrodynamic loads (see Figure 2-7). Hydrodynamic loads are a function of flow velocity and structural geometry and include frontal impact on the upstream face, drag along the sides, and suction on the down- stream side. One of the most difficult steps in quantifying loads imposed by moving water is deter- mining the expected floodwater velocity. Special Note Sources of data for determining expected flood velocity include hydraulic calculations, historical measurements, Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) velocity data grids, and rules of thumb. If no data exist for flood flow velocity for a site, contact an experienced hydrologist or hydraulic engineer for estimates. 2-26 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Figure 2-7. Hydrodynamic and impact loads For the purpose of this publication, floodwater veloc- ity is assumed to be 5 feet per second (ft/sec) or less. ASCE 24, which is incorporated by reference in the IBC, states that dry floodproofing should be limited to areas where flood velocities are less than or equal to 5 ft/ sec during the design flood. The velocity of floodwater is also assumed to be constant (i.e., steady-state flow). Hydrodynamic loads can be calculated using Equation 25. Equation 2-5 provides the total hydrodynamic force against a building of a given surface area, A. Dividing the total force by either length or width yields a force per linear unit; dividing by surface area, A, yields a force per unit area. Special Note The 5 ft/sec velocity restriction for flood- proofing is not a requirement of the NFIP but is used in USACE’s Flood Proofing Regulations (1995) in the design of struc- tures exposed to water loads from stagnant or flowing waters. Although effective dry floodproofing can be designed for higher velocities, this is a reasonable existing limit that addresses safety of dry floodproofed structures during a flood. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-27 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Fdyn = Cd r A where: Fdyn = horizontal drag force (lb) Cd = drag coefficient (taken from Table 2-6) r = mass density of fluid (1.94 slugs/ft3 for fresh water and 1.99 slugs/ft3 for saltwater) V = velocity of floodwater (ft/sec) A = surface area of obstruction normal to flow (ft 2) = (w)(H) if the object is completely immersed Equation 2-5. Hydrodynamic load The drag coefficient used in Equation 2-5 can be found in the Shore Protection Manual, Volume 2 (USACE 1984). Additional guidance is provided in Section 5.4.3 of ASCE 7. The drag coefficient is a function of the shape of the object around which flow is directed. When an object is something other than a round, square, or rectangular pile, the coefficient is determined by one of the following ratios (see Table 2-6): 1. The ratio of the width of the object (w) to the height of the object (h) if the object is completely immersed in water, or 2. The ratio of the width of the object (w) to the flood depth of the water (H ) if the object is not fully immersed V 2 2 Fdyn acts at a point H/2, half way between the water elevation and the eroded ground surface 2-28 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Table 2-6. Drag Coefficients for Ratios of Width to Depth (w/H) and Width to Height (w/h) Width to Height Ratio (w/H or w/h)Drag Coefficient (Cd) 1–12 1.25 13–20 1.3 21–32 1.4 33–40 1.5 41–80 1.75 81–120 1.8 >120 2.0 Source: Shore Protection Manual, Volume 2 (USACE 1984) Flow around a building or building element also creates flow-perpendicular forces (lift forces). When a build- ing element is rigid, lift forces can be assumed to be small. When the element is not rigid, lift forces can be greater than drag forces. The equation for lift force is the same as that for hydrodynamic force except that the drag coefficient (Cd ) is replaced with the lift coefficient (Cl ). In this publication, the foundations of buildings in low-velocity riverine areas are considered rigid, and since hydrodynamic lift forces for rigid foundations are assumed to be small, they can be ignored. 2.2.6 Determining Impact Loads Debris impact loads are imposed on a building by objects carried by moving water. The magnitude of these loads is difficult to predict, but a reasonable allowance must be made for them in the design of floodproofing mea- sures. Factors that affect debris impact load include size, shape, and weight of the waterborne object; flood veloc- ity; velocity of the waterborne object compared to the flood velocity; duration of the impact; portion of the building to be struck; depth of flooding; and blockage upstream of structure. Detailed guidance, including an equation for calculating debris loads, first appeared in ASCE 7 Commentary; guidance can also be found in Section 4.1.2.9 in FEMA P-259 (FEMA 2012a) and Section 8.5.10 of FEMA P-55 (FEMA 2011c). Figure 2-8 depicts normal impact loads for a structure. 2.2.7 Interior Drain Systems When floodwater surrounds a building or saturates surrounding soils, it has a high probability of seeping into the building through the exterior walls, foundations, and slabs. Interior drain systems for buildings are designed to keep water from accumulating in those interior below-grade areas. These systems do not require the soil to be excavated from around the exterior below-grade walls to install underdrains. Figure 2-8. Frontal impact from debris FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-29 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Sump pumps are perhaps the most familiar method of dewatering below-grade areas. The sump is generally constructed so that its bottom is well below the base of the floor slab. Water in the areas adjacent to below- grade walls and floor migrate along the lines of least resistance, which should be toward and into the sump. It may be necessary to provide a more readily accessible path of least resistance for water that has collected in the fill material and around the structure to follow. To achieve this, pipe segments are inserted and some- times drilled through the below-grade wall and into the fill behind, purposefully allowing the interior to flood. Gravel is placed around the pipe segments on the exterior of the foundation wall to filter the surrounding soil, not allowing it to enter the interior of the building. The pipe segments are then connected to larger diameter pipes running along a gravel-filled trench or cove area into the floor slab and into one or more sumps (see Figure 2-9). Interior drain systems can be overwhelmed by a quickly rising water table and are subject to potential power outages. Figure 2-9. Typical interior drain systems In selecting a sump pump for use in floodproofing, the designer should consider the advantages of each pump type and make a selection based on requirements determined from the investigation of the building. Considerations include pump capacity (gpm [gallons per minute]), pump head (vertical height that the water is lifted), and electrical power required to operate the pump. Section 3.7 provides more detail on internal drainage systems design. Warning Drilling holes around the interior floor slab and installing interior drains under the floor slab should be done in small segments. Cutting and replacing the perimeter of the interior floor slab in sections will prevent the foundation wall from rotating inward toward the interior of the building. 2-30 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.2.8 Determining Site Drainage for Floodwalls and Levees A floodwall is a freestanding, permanent, engineered structure designed to prevent encroachment of floodwa- ters. Levees are constructed with compacted soil. Levees are more common than floodwalls as flood protection for a single building or a limited number of buildings, but given the cost of levees compared to other flood mitigation measures and the amount of land they require, they are less common for a single building than many of the other floodproofing measures discussed in this publication. Nevertheless, a properly designed and constructed floodwall or levee can be effective as a barrier to inundation. The drainage system for the area enclosed by a floodwall or levee must accommodate the precipitation runoff from the interior area (and any contributing areas such as roofs and higher ground parcels) and the anticipated seepage through or under the floodwall or levee during flooding conditions (see Figure 2-10). Drainage sys- tems may include pumps and holding ponds depending on the topography and layout of the site. Figure 2-10. Rectangular area enclosed by a floodwall or levee To determine the amount of precipitation that can col- lect in the contained area, the rainfall intensity, in inches per hour, must be determined for a particular location. This value is multiplied by the enclosed area, Aa (in square feet), a terrain runoff coefficient (c), and a con- version factor of 0.01. The answer is given in gpm. See Equation 2-6. When determining rainfall intensity, it is recommended to consult with water resource specialists and hydrolo- gists. Overdesigning site drainage is a relatively easy way to provide added protection, however an under-designed system will cause increased damage to a particular site. Warning The rational equation is used to compute the amount of precipitation runoff from a given area. It has limited applicability and should only be used for areas that are 200 acres or less. Some other constraints include: ■ The method should only be used for areas where rainfall is distributed uniformly. ■ The method does not account for stor- age in the drainage area. ■ Rainfall intensity is assumed to be uni- form throughout the duration of the storm. Special Note The terrain runoff coefficient, c, is used to model the runoff characteristics of different land uses. Use the value for the predomi- nant land use in the subject area or develop a weighted average for areas with multiple land uses. The most common coefficients are 0.70 for residential areas, 0.90 for com- mercial areas, and 0.40 for undeveloped land. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-31 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Qa = 0.01cirAa where: Qa = runoff from the enclosed area (gpm) 0.01 = factor converting the answer to gpm c = most suitable terrain runoff coefficient ir = intensity of rainfall (in./hr) Aa = area enclosed by the floodwall or levee (ft 2) Equation 2-6. Runoff quantity in an enclosed area Some levees and floodwalls extend only partially around a property and tie into higher ground (see Figure 2-11). In such cases, the amount of precipitation that can flow downhill as runoff into the protected area, Aa, must be included. To calculate this value, the area discharging to the area partially enclosed by the floodwall or levee, Ab, should be estimated. This value is then multiplied by the previously determined rainfall intensity, ir , by the most suitable terrain runoff coefficient, and by 0.01. See Equation 2-7. When determining the mini- mum discharge size for pumps in enclosed areas, the designer should consider the impacts of the lag time between when the peak discharge is experienced in the enclosed area and the outfall to which it drains (i.e., inside and outside the enclosed area) and the storage capacity in the enclosed area after the gravity discharge system closes. If the designer is not familiar with storm lag time and the computation of storage in an enclosed area, the designer should consult an experienced hydrologist or hydraulic engineer. 2-32 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Qb = 0.01cirAb where: Qb = runoff from additional contributing area (gpm) 0.01 = factor converting the answer to gpm c = most suitable terrain runoff coefficient ir = intensity of rainfall (in./hr) Ab = area discharging to the area partially enclosed by the floodwall or levee (ft2) Equation 2-7. Runoff quantity from higher ground into a partially enclosed area Seepage under or through the floodwall and levee along with the natural capillarity of the soil layer contribute to water inside the protected area. The water level inside the floodwall or levee increases as the depth of flood- ing outside the floodproofing structure increases and may compromise the effectiveness of the floodwall or levee for long-duration events if not addressed. The estimated seepage flow rates from the floodwall or levee vary depending on the site conditions and should be calculated by a geotechnical engineer or designer. Seepage rates may vary greatly with factors such as the depth of retained water and soil type. The values for inflow in the enclosed area, runoff from uphill areas draining into the enclosure, and seepage through or under the floodwall/levee should be summed to estimate the minimum discharge size, Qsp, in gpm. See Equation 2-8. Figure 2-11. Rectangular area partially enclosed by a floodwall or levee FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-33 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Qsp = Qa + Qb + Qc where: Qsp = minimum discharge for pump installation (gpm) Qa = discharge from an enclosed area (from Equation 2-6) (gpm) Qb = discharge from higher ground to partially enclosed area (from Equation 2-7) (gpm) Q c = discharge from seepage through a floodwall or levee (gpm) Equation 2-8. Minimum discharge for pump installation Important considerations in determining the minimum discharge size of a pump are the storage available in the enclosed area and the lag time between when the peak discharge is experienced in the enclosed area and the outfall to which it drains. Pumps continue to operate during flooding events (assuming power is constant or backup power is available), but gravity drains close when the floodwater elevation outside the enclosed area exceeds the elevation of the drain pipe/flap gate. 2.2.9 Understanding the All-Hazards Approach In addition to flooding, a building might be subject to other hazards such as earthquakes, high winds, or tor- nadoes. The registered design professional should incorporate an all-hazards approach when selecting and designing floodproofing measures to avoid increasing the vulnerability of the structure, envelope, and systems to damage from other hazards. A mitigation measure that is appropriate for flooding, such as elevating a heavy chiller unit, may subject the building to greater seismic forces during earthquakes and increase vulnerability to damage unless the seismic hazard is accurately accounted for in the design. Table 2-7 lists some FEMA resources with design guidance on mitigating damage to new and existing non- residential construction for multiple hazards. 2-34 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Table 2-7. FEMA Resources on Design Guidance Hazard Resource Seismic ■•FEMA 232, Homebuilders’ Guide to Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction (2006) ■•FEMA P-420, Engineering Guideline for Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation (2009) ■•FEMA 454, Designing for Earthquakes: A Manual for Architects (2006) ■•FEMA 547, Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (2007) ■•FEMA P-749, Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts (2010) ■•FEMA P-750, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings (2009) Tornadoes ■•FEMA P-320, Taking Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business, Third Edition (2008) ■•FEMA P-361, Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms (2008) High Winds ■•FEMA P-55, Coastal Construction Manual (2011) ■•Protect Your Property from High Winds (2011); eight flyers Multi-Hazard ■•FEMA P-424, Design Guide for School Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (2010) ■•FEMA 543, Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds (2007) ■•FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Winds (2007) 2.3 Other Flood Characteristics Other flood characteristics of a site must be considered when determining whether dry floodproofing measures are best suited for a site. Flood characteristics that must also be considered include the duration of flooding, rate of floodwater rise and fall, and flood frequency. These flood characteristics not only indicate the expected nature of flooding in a given area, they can also be used to anticipate the performance of dry floodproofing measures based on the potential hazards associated with each flood characteristic. 2.3.1 Duration of Flooding Duration is the measure of how long water remains above normal levels. The duration of riverine flood- ing is primarily a function of watershed size and the longitudinal slope of the valley (slope influences how fast water drains). Small watersheds are more likely to experience a rapid rise and fall of floodwaters. Larger, shallow, basin-like watersheds adjacent to large rivers may be flooded for weeks or months. Special Note NFIP Technical Bulletin 2, Flood Damage- Resistant Materials Requirements (FEMA 2008a), defines a “flood [damage]-resistant material” as “any building product [mate- rial, component or system] capable of withstanding direct and prolonged contact with floodwaters without sustaining signifi- cant damage.” “Prolonged contact” means at least 72 hours, and “significant damage” means any damage requiring more than cosmetic repair. An NFIP requirement is “building materials used below the BFE shall be resistant to flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a)(3)(ii)).” FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-35 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Prolonged contact with floodwaters may make some mitigation measures, including dry floodproofing, inappropriate because of the increased chance of seepage and potential structural failure. Long periods of inundation are more likely to cause greater damage to structural members and finishes than short periods of flooding. Increased durations also result in a higher probability of floodwater accumulation and ultimately affects pump design for interior drainage. Designers should consider the duration of flooding when determin- ing the applicability of selected building materials, pump design, and flood mitigation measures. 2.3.2 Rate of Floodwater Rise and Fall Steep topography and locations with small drain- age areas may experience flash flooding, an event in which floodwater can rise very quickly with little or no warning. High-velocity water flows usually accom- pany flash floods and preclude certain types of flood mitigation measures, especially those requiring human intervention. If a building is susceptible to flash floods, insufficient warning time may make the timely installation of shields on windows, doors, and floodwalls and the acti- vation of pump systems and backup energy sources impossible. Temporarily relocating movable contents to a higher level may also be impractical. Floodproofing is not appropriate for sites in flash flood areas because of the potentially short warning time. Active floodproofing measures (those requiring human intervention) may be effective if a building is not subject to flash flooding and the area has adequate flood warning systems. Rapid rates of the rise and fall of floodwater can also lead to unequal hydrostatic pressures on a building. The probability of unequal hydrostatic pressures increases when building exteriors are designed to be watertight. 2.3.3 Flood Frequency Flood frequency analyses define the probability that a flood of a specific size will be equaled or exceeded in any given year. A flood elevation with a 1-percent- annual-chance flood of being equaled or exceeded in a given year is referred to as the “base flood,” com- monly called the 100-year flood. Figure 2-12 illustrates the relationship between flood recurrence intervals and the probability of the event occurring within a given period. The probability that a base flood will be equaled or exceeded is 26 percent during a 30-year period. During a 70-year period (the potential useful life of many buildings), the probability increases to 50 percent. Although the base flood serves as the basis for NFIP insurance rates and regulatory floodplain man- agement requirements, the relative frequency of any Special Note Although buildings are required to be protected only to the BFE for floodplain management purposes (to meet the NFIP regulations), protection to a higher level is necessary for the floodproofing measures to be considered for flood insurance rating purposes. It is possible to protect buildings from lesser flood events using dry flood- proofing measures, but doing so will not bring buildings into compliance with the NFIP. Warning ASCE 24 does not permit the use of dry floodproofing for buildings in high-risk flood hazard areas. These include alluvial fan, flash flood, mudslide, erosion-prone, high-velocity, wave action, and ice jam and debris-prone areas. 2-36 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING given flood (e.g., 2-year or 10-year) serves as a useful reference point when selecting a retrofitting option and evaluating cost effectiveness. 2.3.4 Future Conditions Designers should use past events and trends as an indication of the nature and severity of effects likely to occur during those forecast events. Information about past events at the site of interest and at similar sites should be considered. This historical information should be combined with knowledge about the site and local condi- tions to estimate future hazard effects on the site. 2.4 Site Factors Site characteristics such as flood hazard boundaries, vulnerability to erosion or local scour, and geotechnical considerations play a critical role in determining applicable floodproofing measures. 2.4.1 Flood Hazard Boundaries As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the boundaries of flood hazard areas are delineated on FIRMs, which are developed based on data described in FISs. Designers may use data from FIRMs and FISs to determine the boundaries of the various flood hazard areas, flood depth, flood elevation, and flood frequency for a given site. Figure 2-12. Relationship between flood recurrence intervals and the probability of an event occurring within a given period FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-37 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING In addition to the aforementioned flood characteristics that can affect buildings, site location in relation to the floodplain is also an important factor when considering dry floodproofing. Designers should note whether buildings are in or near the floodway, on the floodway fringe, near road crossings or other obstructions because these may divert floodwaters toward the site. 2.4.2 Erosion Erosion refers to the wearing or washing away of land and can occur in riverine as well as in coastal environ- ments. Erosion is difficult to predict and is capable of threatening existing structures by lowering ground elevations, causing instability and failure in embankments, and transporting sediments landward or down- stream. Erosion may also increase flood forces by increasing water depths. Erosion may be caused by natural actions such as flood-inducing storms and may be exacerbated by human actions such as constructing flood diversion or flood protection structures, dredging channels, damming rivers, and altering surface vegetation. Riverine erosion affects the stability of stream banks and adjacent structures through the interaction of mul- tiple geophysical and geotechnical factors. Variables that affect the stability (or erodibility) of stream banks include: ■■Slope ■■Critical height ■■Inclination ■■Cohesive strength of the soil in the slope ■■Level and variation of groundwater in the slope ■■Degree of stabilization of the surface of the slope ■■Level and variation in level of water on the toe of the slope ■■Distance of the structure in question from the shoulder of the stream bank ■■Shear strength of the soil ■■Frequency of rise and fall of the surface of the stream Consideration of siting and the erodibility of land is critical when planning floodproofing projects because moving floodwater can undermine foundations and cause building, floodwall, and levee failure. Shallow foundation systems generally do not provide sufficient protection against soil erosion without some type of additional protection or armoring measure of below-grade elements. The local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service has information concerning the erodibility of the soils native to a specific site, and com- munity officials may have knowledge of local soil types and know whether erosion has occurred during past floods. The analysis of erosion impacts to stream banks and nearby structures is a detailed effort that is usually accom- panied by detailed geotechnical investigations. 2-38 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.4.3 Geotechnical Considerations Site-specific soil properties are important factors in the design of any surface intended to resist flood loads. The properties include: ■■Saturated soil forces ■■Allowable bearing capacity ■■Potential for scour ■■Land subsidence ■■Frost zone location ■■Permeability ■■Shrink-swell potential The computation of lateral soil forces and determination of soil-bearing capacity are critical in the design of dry floodproofed foundations and walls. These forces and related geotechnical behaviors include a consider- ation of the frost depth, potential expansive or collapsible soils, or potential scour and erosion, and play an important role in selecting an acceptable foundation. Likewise, the permeability and compaction behavior of soils are key factors in selecting borrow materials for backfill, levee, or floodwall construction. For more infor- mation on these geotechnical issues, see Chapter 4 of FEMA P259 (2012a). Site investigations for soils include surface and subsurface investigations. Surface investigations can identify the potential for landslides and evidence of areas affected by erosion or scour, determine accessibility for equipment needed for subsurface testing and construction, and help identify the suitability of a particular foundation type based on the performance of existing structures. Subsurface exploration provides invaluable data on soils below grade. The data are both qualitative (e.g., soil classification) and quantitative (e.g., bear- ing capacity). Subsurface exploration is complex and site-dependent. For example, testing for expansive soil requires assessing samples at various depths for plasticity, expansion index, and swell pressure to determine resulting swell forces under saturation conditions. Consultation with a geotechnical engineer familiar with the site is strongly recommended. 2.5 Functional, Operational, and Economic Factors The functional, operational, and economic factors that should be considered when determining the appropri- ate floodproofing method for a building are: ■■Functional use requirements of the building (how the flood-prone portions of the building are used) ■■Occupant safety ■■Flood warning time ■■Flood emergency operations plan ■■Inspection and maintenance plan ■■Economic factors FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-39 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.5.1 Functional Use Requirements of the Building The functions of non-residential buildings and whether active floodproofing measures (those requiring human intervention) can be used affect the types of floodproofing measures that are appropriate. For example, if a doorway that may be vulnerable to flooding is used by personnel and for freight delivery, permanently filling in the doorway is not feasible. Likewise, if extended interruption of function would be detrimental, floodproof- ing is not feasible because personnel should not occupy a building that is affected by floodwaters. Relocation may be a better option in this situation. The current and future use of buildings must be evaluated carefully when deciding to what degree access can be limited, determining how long the facilities can be closed during floods, and assessing whether the effects of events exceeding the design flood can be tolerated. Use requirements that should be considered when deciding whether floodproofing is a good option for non- residential buildings include but are not limited to: ■■Access requirements ■■Level and duration of business interruption that can be tolerated ■■Ability to accommodate flood damage repair ■■Ability to maintain dry floodproofing measures once implemented Critical and essential facilities such as emergency operation centers, hospitals, and nursing homes may be floodproofed even if they are unoccupied during a flood event. Communities have an interest in protecting the contents of these facilities to minimize the downtime of such buildings and to ensure post-flood functionality. The protection and usage of critical and essential facilities may be vital to ensure an immediate response to the flood event and a rapid recovery. 2.5.2 Occupant Safety The relationship of floodproofing options to occupant safety must be evaluated in the pre-design phase. Safe access to and egress from floodproofed buildings is a critical factor in the determination of whether flood- proofing measures that depend on human intervention are appropriate. If a floodproofed building is likely to be completely surrounded by floodwaters, provisions must be made for the evacuation of all occupants before the building is isolated. Evacuation is essential because it is possi- ble that floods may exceed the design capacity of the floodproofing measures, which could result in extreme danger to any occupants who remain at the site. For events larger than the design event, specific additional emergency procedures should be developed. Special Note NWS river forecast centers can be acces- sed here: http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ rfc/rfc.php. The Advanced Hydrology Prediction Ser- vice (AHPS) offers data such as: ■ Flood forecast levels ■ Probabilities of a river exceeding minor, moderate, or major flooding ■ Chances of a river exceeding a certain level, volume, and flow of water ■ Maps of areas surrounding the forecast point likely to be flooded 2-40 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING If the proposed floodproofing measure is active (requires human intervention), all roads that provide access to the building should remain passable long enough for the floodproofing measures to be installed and for all personnel to safely evacuate the site. 2.5.3 Flood Warning Time Some floodproofing methods require adequate warning to be successful. The length of warning time required varies from a few hours to several days depending on the complexity of the floodproofing method. For flood warnings to be effective, they must be issued promptly, and the forecasts that inform the flood warnings must be accurate. A flood forecasting system should be able to determine when a flood is imminent and predict when specific areas will be flooded. Determining when and at what elevation the flood will crest may also be necessary. States and communities may have flood warning sys- tems in place. Building owners should contact their local emergency management agency to determine any active flood warning systems in place. River-flood forecasts are also prepared by National Weather Service (NWS) river-forecast centers and dis- seminated to the public by NWS offices. However, many non-residential buildings are located on smaller streams that are not included in a major forecasting network. In these areas, interested property owners can work with appropriate local and State agencies to develop an adequate flood forecasting system. During periods of flooding, the NWS river-forecast centers issue forecasts of the height of the flood crest, the date and time when the river is expected to over- flow its banks, and the date and time the flow in the river is expected to recede to within its banks. The U.S. Geological Survey and the NWS work together during a flood to collect and use the most up-to-date data and to update forecasts as new information is acquired. The NWS is also responsible for issuing flood and flash flood watches and warnings. The NWS conveys the data to other Federal agencies and to State and local agencies for use in flood management and disaster mitigation. State and local emergency management officials use the flood data to make informed decisions on how and when to evacuate their communities. Building owners and operators should follow the guidance of State Terminology A flood watch indicates potential for flooding. A flood warning means that flooding is imminent. Special Note When removable shields are to be used, flood emergency plans must include: ■ Storage location for the shields ■ Method of installation ■ Conditions that activate installation ■ Maintenance of shields and attachment devices ■ Periodic practice of installing shields ■ Testing sump pumps and other drain- age measures ■ Inspecting necessary material and equipment to activate floodproofing Source: ASCE 24-05, Section 6.2.3 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-41 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING and local emergency management agencies, local weather reports, the NWS, or a local flood warning system regarding when to evacuate. The typical flood warning time should be considered when selecting a floodproof- ing measure. 2.5.4 Flood Emergency Operations Plan Flood emergency operations plans are highly recommended for floodproofing methods. Plans should contain information on how floodproofing measures will work during and after the flooding event. For example, equipment such as sump pumps that require electricity will need to maintain power throughout the duration of the flood event. Maintaining power may require installing a generator and devel- oping an operations plan for the generator to function during and after the flood event until power is restored. Maintaining power can be complicated by the fact that dry floodproofed areas should not be occupied during the flood event. Fueling and generator maintenance may require the generator to be located in an area above the desired level of flood protection. Preparation of plans is the responsibility of the building owner or operator. The design professional certifying the floodproofing project is solely responsible for how the measures resist flood loads and make the building watertight but should be consulted on the maintenance, testing, and inspection schedule of the project. A flood emergency operations plan should do the following: ■■Establish a chain of command and assign responsibilities to each person involved in the installation and maintenance of the floodproofing measures. This will range from the authority to activate personnel through the duration of the event and restoration of the building to normal operations. The assigned personnel should not be assigned additional overlapping emergency duties to make sure that the floodproofing measures are installed in a timely manner and maintained. The chain of command should also take into account where assigned personnel live and their ability to access the site in an emergency. If key personnel are not available, a plan for succession of command and/or delegation of authority should also be covered. ■■Delineate notification procedures for all personnel involved in the floodproofing operation. This includes details on making sure personnel can get to the building and enter areas of the building necessary to install the floodproofing measures. These areas include the floodproofed portion of the building and any storage facilities that house the flood shields and pumps. ■■Assign personnel duties and include a description of the locations of floodproofing measures, installation procedures, and repair procedures. Instructions for each location should be posted close to the location. ■■Include evacuation instructions for all personnel who normally occupy the building, and for the personnel who have installed the measures, what to do after the floodproofing measures are accomplished. Evacuation routes should be posted in the floodproofed areas. Any doors necessary to exit the floodproofed area should be marked and should not be possible to lock in a manner that prevents egress from the floodproofed area. 2-42 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING ■■Include a periodic drill and training program to make sure personnel clearly understand the procedures and timeliness by which they need to accomplish floodproofing measures and complete evacuation. Drills should be conducted at least once a year and coordinated with community officials. ■■Include a schedule for regular evaluation and update of the flood emergency operations plan to reflect changes in personnel and procedures. At a minimum, the plan should be posted in two clearly marked locations, but it is recommended that either the entire plan or relevant sections be posted close to every location where flood shields are to be installed. Requirements for the flood emergency operations plan are in FEMA’s NFIP Technical Bulletin 3-93 (FEMA 1993a). Although flood emergency operations plans are not required for wet floodproofing and floodwalls/levee miti- gation measures, plans should be considered a best practice to ensure the effectiveness of all flood mitigation measures. 2.5.5 Inspection and Maintenance Plan An inspection and maintenance plan should cover both the maintenance of the floodproofing measures and periodic inspections of the components. Inspections should cover the entire floodproofing system, includ- ing the walls, floor slab, openings, flood shields, valves, drainage system, and any pump system. A list of repairs should be developed after each inspection and imple- mented as required. Maintenance procedures should not rely on the annual inspection for identification but should be part of routine operations of the building’s facility maintenance staff. Inspection and maintenance items include but are not limited to: ■■Wall systems, for cracks in the structural system or waterproofing coatings. Repair of cracks should be addressed immediately because ignoring them could result in significant structural damage to the building during a flood event. ■■Entire floor slab, to make sure settlement or other cracks have not appeared. Additionally, it is important to make sure the floor slab is able to provide drainage for any water that may leak into the building. ■■Openings, to clear debris trapped in the supports for flood shields, damage to permanently mounted hardware or gaskets, which would prevent proper operation of a flood shield. ■■Flood shields, for damage to attached gaskets, proper labels identifying the proper location, and damage to the actual shield, which might prevent it from performing properly. The inspection should include an inventory of shields and all the hardware required to properly install them. ■■Backflow valves or shutoff valves, to make sure they can properly operate and are clear of debris. ■■Drainage system and pump systems, to make sure there is no damage to piping or debris that would prevent the pipes from draining properly. Sump pits should be inspected and cleared of any sediment Special Note Some communities require annual inspec- tions of dry floodproofed buildings, especially if human intervention is required. Annual inspections lead to an increased awareness and effectiveness of floodproof- ing systems and also reduce concerns about liability. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-43 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING that may have built up. Switches and sump pumps should be inspected and tested to make sure they will run properly. If a generator is necessary for operation of the sump pump, it should be tested periodically to verify it will start and run during a flood event. ■■An inventory of flood emergency equipment, supplies, and required tools to ensure that all required items are available in the event of a flood. The inventory should include a listing of the tools and where they are stored. 2.5.6 Economic Factors When floodproofing has been determined to be feasible considering regulatory requirements and the physical characteristics of the site and building, the most cost-effective floodproofing option can be identified. A BCA can be used to validate cost-effectiveness. BCA is a way to estimate the future benefits of a mitigation project and compare the benefits to the cost. The result of the analysis is a benefit-cost ratio (BCR), which is derived by dividing the project’s net benefits by the project cost. In a cost-effective project, the total cost of floodproofing (installation, operation, and maintenance) is less than the value of physical flood damage, lost earnings, and other economic impacts that are likely to occur if the structure is not floodproofed. The BCR is a numerical expression of the cost-effectiveness of a project. A proj- ect is considered cost-effective when the BCR is 1.0 or greater, indicating the benefits of a prospective hazard mitigation project are sufficient to justify the costs. Benefits are defined as avoided damage, and a BCA estimate may not account for all of the potential benefits. Therefore, a BCR of less than 1.0 should not automatically remove dry floodproofing from consideration. The BCA described in Appendix B is used by FEMA to evaluate cost-effectiveness of projects under mitiga- tion grant programs. 2.6 Building Vulnerability Assessments For a building to remain functional during and follow- ing a natural hazard event, it must be undamaged, have sustained limited damage that does not prevent the building from functioning, or have sustained damage that can be readily repaired. Determining how well a building can withstand a natural hazard requires a building vulnerability assessment. A vulnerability assessment can identify weaknesses in a building’s structure, envelope, and electrical and mechanical systems. The assessment can determine which natural hazards the building can withstand as is and which mitigation opportunities are available to make the building more hazard resistant. Cross Reference FEMA P-424, Design Guide for Improving School Safety in Earthquakes, Flood and High Winds (FEMA 2010a), contains check- lists that can be used to assess a building’s vulnerability to these natural hazards. The manual is geared to schools, but the guid- ance is also appropriate for other facilities. The flood checklist in FEMA P-424 is pro- vided in Appendix C. 2-44 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.6.1 All-Hazards Vulnerability Assessment The overall success of a building can only be achieved by identifying and managing natural hazard vulnerabili- ties. When mitigation measures for a flooding hazard are considered, an understanding of the other hazards, including frequency of occurrence of those other hazards, is important if the building is expected to perform as required by the owner. If other hazards are present that are likely to cause significant damage to the building and flooding is a relatively minor hazard, floodproofing alone may not be the best option. The following should be completed and the results considered before the decision about floodproofing or other types of mitigation is made: ■■Obtain the most up-to-date published hazard data to assess the vulnerability of the subject site ■■Conduct or update a detailed risk assessment if there is reason to believe the physical site conditions have changed significantly since the hazard data were published or the published hazard data are not representative of the subject site ■■Review or revise an existing risk assessment if there is reason to believe the physical site conditions will change significantly over the expected life of the building ■■Ask the designer to review options that will mitigate the effects of any identified hazards in addition to the flooding risk after a risk assessment has been completed 2.6.2 Structural Condition Assessment Assessing a building’s vulnerability to flood involves identifying structural components that could fail when exposed to flood forces and structural components that could degrade or deteriorate when inundated with floodwaters. Structural degradation is much more of a problem in residential construction where wood framing is more prevalent than in non-residen- tial construction. Structural degradation in commercial or industrial facilities is typically much less of a con- cern because the structures are usually built with steel, masonry, concrete, or other materials that offer inher- ent resistance to damage from floodwater inundation. Interior and exterior finishes in commercial and industrial buildings, however, may be vulnerable to Special Note In structural engineering, there are two approaches in design and analyses: ASD (Allowable Stress Design) and LRFD (Load Resistance Factor Design). ASD is the older approach but is still widely used in wood, steel, and masonry design. LRFD is the newer approach. It is used almost exclusively in concrete design and fre- quently in steel design. Provisions for LRFD have been recently added to codes and standards governing wood and masonry design. In ASD, service loads are applied to a structure, and the resulting stresses that the service loads create are calculated. The calculated stresses are compared with the maximum allowable stress for each component in the structure. Allowable stresses are determined by applying fac- tors of safety to ultimate stress (typically stress at failure). If the calculated stresses from service loads are less than the allow- able stresses, the design is acceptable. In LRFD, the service loads are increased by load factors, and the ultimate strength of a structure is reduced by resistance factors. If the factored loads are less than the fac- tored strengths, the design is acceptable. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-45 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING degradation from floodwater inundation because they are not often constructed with flood damage-resistant materials. Assessing a building in two stages is recommended. First, a preliminary assessment is completed to help deter- mine the overall feasibility of flood mitigation. The preliminary assessment is often based only on a visual examination of the building and, when available, a review of construction drawings. The depth of floodproof- ing desired can also be determined in the preliminary assessment. If the preliminary assessment suggests that flood mitigation is possible, the next stage is to perform additional site and drawing reviews and conduct testing and analyses to confirm that flood mitigation is feasible. A detailed assessment requires accurate drawings of the building or, if drawings are not available, invasive testing to determine the structural aspects and condition of the building. Soil tests to determine the type and perme- ability of soils onsite may also needed. The loads for the proposed dry floodproofed area must then be determined. Load determination is discussed in Sections 2.2.4 through 2.2.6. When the loads are determined, the next step is to evaluate all portions of the building to assess its ability to withstand flood loads created by dry floodproofing without floatation, col- lapse, or lateral movement. All building components below the flood level may be exposed to flood loads, and portions of the building above the flood level can be exposed to flood loads (particularly buoyant forces) that translate through the building’s structure. At a minimum, foundation walls, the connections between the foundation walls, and the floor slab below and structure above, and the floor slabs themselves should be evalu- ated. Figure 2-13 shows the major building components that are often exposed to flood loads. Identifying structural vulnerabilities to floods involves quantifying the loads a flood will apply to a structure and the resistance the structure has to resist the loads. For a building’s structure to withstand a flood, its struc- tural components must be adequate to resist the applied flood loads without being overstressed (Allowable Stress Design [ASD]) or without the ultimate strength of the structural components being exceeded when exposed to factored flood loads in Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD). Figure 2-13. Basic building components exposed to flood loads 2-46 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING The walls should be inspected to verify that they are vertically plumb and that no bowing exists. An out-of- plumb wall can result from excessive pressure at the top or bottom of the wall. A bowed wall can result from excessive bending in the wall. Concrete and masonry walls should also be checked for staining, which can result from corrosion in the rein- forcing steel. If steel has extensive corrosion, its tensile strength or the strength of the bond from the steel to the concrete or masonry can be reduced, and the strength of the wall can be compromised. Staining can also result from water being in frequent contact with the walls, which may suggest that the soils are permeable enough to allow even short-duration floodwaters to expose the walls to hydrostatic loads. Bowing, lateral movement, corrosion, staining, and evidence of frequent water entry all may indicate that the building is not an ideal candidate for dry floodproofing. Once the preliminary assessment confirms that the foundation walls are free of evidence of existing structural problems, a determination must be made regarding the feasibility of strengthening them to resist flood loads from a design event. Except when a design flood will produce only a low level of flooding (about 2 feet), some wall strengthening will likely be required. The feasibility of ensuring the walls can be made to resist flood loads is typically done during subsequent evaluations when the details of the wall construction (thickness, height, reinforcement, and connection details) are known. Walls can be strengthened with steel beams or grouting (concrete masonry unit [CMU] walls) or by overlay- ing fiber-reinforced polymers or carbon fiber strapping systems composed of sheets or strips that form a grid across the wall. How the wall system will be floodproofed is important to consider before selecting a system to improve the wall strength. If the waterproofing or sealant is to be applied on the same wall face as the wall- strengthening retrofit, the two measures need to be compatible. Floor slabs should be evaluated in a manner similar to the wall system. As-built drawings are a good place to begin evaluating the slab, but it is likely that some field investigations will need to be done in order to ascer- tain the true properties of the slab. The initial evaluation should include any deficiencies in the floor slab that need to be addressed before correcting the floor slab to resist buoyancy forces. Issues such as settlement in the concrete slab may present retrofitting challenges if not properly corrected (see Figure 2-14). The reason for cracking in the slab is important to identify. Cracks may occur from soil expansion, soil contraction, or washing out of soils. Soils can wash out if underdrain lines were not properly installed when the building was constructed. On large commercial slabs where equipment such as forklifts are used, joints in the concrete slab should be checked to ensure that the slab has not rocked and created a void below the joints. When the floor slab has been evaluated, the soil under the slab should be assessed to determine whether it may present problems under flood conditions. Some soils have low permeability and are slow to become saturated by floodwaters while highly permeable soils may become saturated quickly and need to be drained. Highly permeable soils may require installing underdrain lines, which should be sized for flood conditions. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-47 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Per NFIP requirements, dry floodproofing measures must be designed to meet the minimum requirements of being substantially impermeable, and these require- ments assume there is no sump pump. For additional protection, the NFIP requires the installation of a sump pump when dry floodproofing is used as a retrofit tech- nique, despite substantially impermeable requirements. See Section 3.7 for information on internal drainage systems. Whether or not underdrain lines are installed, the slab should be examined to determine the thick- ness and size and location of the slab reinforcing steel. This examination may require some destructive testing because slab reinforcing steel is usually small diameter wire mesh, which is difficult to detect. Unless designed to support heavy equipment, slabs generally cannot resist hydrostatic forces if water is allowed to accumulate beneath them because floor slabs are typically designed to resist dead loads applied from above when they are continuously supported by soils below. Most soil supported slabs, if reinforced, have rein- forcement designed primarily for controlling thermal and shrinkage cracks. Reinforcement for controlling shrinkage and thermal effects alone is inadequate to enable the slabs to function as beams exposed to negative (upward) bending from buoyancy. If the reinforcing steel is too low to provide uplift resistance in the slab sec- tion, the slab will need to be retrofitted. If the slab is imagined as a beam, the reinforcing steel should be placed on the opposite side of the beam from the applied load or in the side of the slab in tension. Slabs supported by soils also lack positive connections that prevent the slabs from being lifted because they rely only on their self-weight to avoid being displaced vertically. Figure 2-14. Significant differential settlement in the foundation causing slab failure Special Note Even in buildings that are designed to be substantially impermeable, sump pumps are required to control seepage, and flood damage-resistant materials, which are described in FEMA Technical Bulletin 2, Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements (FEMA 2008a), must be used in all areas where seepage is likely to occur. 2-48 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Although concrete can be added to thicken slabs (and increase their resistance to uplift strictly by increas- ing their weight), it is typically impractical to mitigate slabs to resist buoyant forces. If water can accumulate under a floor slab and installing underfloor drains cannot alleviate hydrostatic pressures acting to lift the slab, the building may not be a candidate for dry floodproofing. The only other mitigation technique that could be used to resist buoyancy on a concrete slab is to install soil anchors through the slab into the soil beneath the slab to provide upward resistance. In addition, buoyant forces acting on submerged materials reduce their effective dead load and ability to resist uplift and overturning moments. Therefore, before dry floodproofing projects are undertaken, the overall sta- bility of a building needs to be checked to ensure that buoyant forces will not make the building unstable. The load combinations contained in Chapter 2 of ASCE 7 should be used to evaluate the stability of the dry floodproofed building. The deficiencies in the slab and the normal use of the floodproofed area are important considerations in select- ing a retrofitting measure. If the area requires equipment to drive across the slab or maintenance crews to work in the area, maintaining a flat, unobstructed slab may be important. Similarly, maintaining the existing ceiling height may justify other retrofitting considerations. The condition assessment should not only determine the ability of structural components to withstand flood loads, but also their impermeability. For example, basement walls between adjacent buildings should be evalu- ated for flood load resistance and impermeability. This is especially important in an urban environment or in buildings constructed in phases; otherwise, the source of flooding may become the adjacent building. Structural components, window wells, ventilation openings, and utilities (discussed in the subsequent section) can each be floodwater points of entry if not properly assessed and mitigated. 2.6.3 Vulnerability Assessments for Electrical and Mechanical Utilities and Systems Utility and system assessments can determine how well the utilities that serve a facility and the major mechani- cal, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems in a facility can resist natural hazards. Although utilities and MEP systems can be damaged by high winds, seismic events, and winter storms, this discussion is focused on their vulnerability to flooding. In a discussion of system vulnerabilities, it is beneficial to distinguish utilities from systems components. Utilities are generally external to the building, while most mechanical and electrical sys- tems are internal. Although utilities themselves can be vulnerable to flooding, this document focuses primarily on the vulnerability of buildings associated with utilities when they acts as conduits and allow floodwaters to enter a building. Utilities can be electrical or mechanical. Electrical utilities typically include power, communication (both cop- per-based and fiber-optic), and occasionally hard-wired annunciation systems such as fire alarm loops. This document focuses on electrical power utilities. Mechanical utilities include domestic water service, water ser- vice for fire suppression, steam service, and utilities to collect and dispose of sanitary sewer and storm sewer. In many municipalities, fossil fuels, namely natural gas, are also brought to buildings. Utilities can be private or municipal and can be part of a campus, which is the case when a group of buildings are supplied by a cen- tral plant. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-49 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING Electrical utilities are often described as “dry utilities,” and mechanical utilities are often described as “wet utilities.” Electrical systems include power distribution, controls, lighting, fire alarm, telephone, and IT (information technology). Mechanical systems include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); domestic water systems; drain, waste, and vent systems; smoke control systems; fuel storage and distribution systems; and fire suppression systems. Figure 2-15 shows common locations of these systems in buildings. 2.6.3.1 Utilities General Utilities often enter a building below grade. In areas where groundwater levels are high and in areas vulnerable to flooding, all utility penetrations are potential sources of water entry. In assessing the vulnerability of water entry through utilities, consider the following questions: ■■The sealing of penetrations: When utilities enter the building, are the spaces around the conduits and pipes properly sealed to prevent water entry? ■■The sealing of conduits: When conduits enter a building, are the spaces between cables within the conduits sealed to prevent water entry? ■■Backflow prevention: For wet utilities, are measures in place to prevent floodwaters from entering the building through piping systems? ■■Utility trenches: Are utility trenches provided with submarine doors or other methods that will prevent floodwaters from migrating between buildings? 2.6.3.2 Electrical Utilities Electrical utilities may be overhead or underground. Overhead utilities are inherently resistant to damage from a design flood unless they are located below the DFE. When designed for submerged installations, the buried portions of underground electrical utilities are also generally resistant to flood damage, but above-ground com- ponents of underground electrical utilities such as below-grade electrical vaults, pad-mounted transformers, pad-mounted switchgear, and electrical substations can be damaged by floods when located below the DFE. Figure 2-15. Typical systems in buildings 2-50 FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING The following list summarizes the components of electrical utilities that may be damaged by flood inundation when located below the DFE. These components should be considered when assessing flood vulnerabilities associated with electric utilities. ■■Electrical substations ■■Pad-mounted transformers and other pad-mounted equipment (switchgear) ■■Live-front electrical equipment (i.e., equipment with exposed energized terminations) in underground manholes ■■Cable terminations and splices not designed for submerged conditions ■■Underground transformer vaults ■■Meter centers ■■Electrical service equipment (switchboards in larger facilities, service panels in smaller facilities) ■■Network interface devices for communication utilities ■■Fire alarm master boxes below the DFE 2.6.3.3 Mechanical Utilities Pressurized mechanical utilities such as domestic water services, fire suppression service, and fossil fuel services are generally resistant to flooding. Some vulnerability to floodwater inundation may exist in above-ground equipment such as pressure regulators and utility meters for natural gas lines. Occasionally pressurized systems rely on electrically driven pumps to maintain system pressure. These systems can become vulnerable to flood- water contamination if power is lost to electrically driven pumps. When system pressure is lost, pressurized systems are often assumed to be contaminated, and “boil water before use” orders are given until the system pressures can be restored and the systems can be decontaminated or disinfected. Non-pressurized mechanical utilities such as gravity-draining sanitary sewers and gravity-draining storm sewers generally are not damaged by slow-moving or riverine flooding. However, they can become conduits that allow floodwaters to flow into a facility. Backflow prevention devices can reduce the potential for floodwa- ters entering facilities through non-pressurized utilities. These devices, which are essentially check valves that allow flows only in one direction, require periodic maintenance and testing to ensure they are functional and will not obstruct normal flows. 2.6.3.4 Electrical Systems Nearly all electrical systems in a facility below the DFE are vulnerable to flooding. Electrical wiring, communi- cation equipment, fire alarm and security systems, and other electrical equipment are inherently vulnerable to inundation unless specifically designed for submerged applications, and few electrical devices used in buildings are designed to be submerged. Conduit systems should not be considered watertight, and although the exterior sheaths of some electrical cables can resist water infiltration, they should not be considered 100 percent effec- tive unless designed and installed for submerged applications. Sump pumps, underwater lighting fixtures, and some sensing devices or transducers are possible exceptions, but these devices account for only a small percent- age of the electrical equipment in a typical facility. FLOODPROOFING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2-51 2DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN FLOODPROOFING 2.6.3.5 Mechanical Systems The vulnerability of mechanical systems to damage from flooding varies greatly. Pressurized piping such as domestic water systems, chilled water piping systems, and hot water piping systems can generally be exposed to flood inundation without significant damage. When flooding is saltwater flooding or when floodwaters are corrosive, piping systems may need to be cleaned to prevent degradation. In pressurized systems, pumps and controls can be damaged from floodwaters unless designed for submerged use. Pipe insulation, particularly insulation that is not closed-cell foam, typically needs to be replaced after inunda- tion. Any pipe insulation below the DFE should be considered vulnerable to flooding unless it is closed-cell foam. Forced-air distribution systems are particularly vulnerable to flood damage. The ducts are designed for air pres- sures that are typically measured in inches or fractions of inches of water column and cannot resist hydrostatic pressures from even small depths of floodwaters. Also, duct systems are rarely watertight, and floodwaters can enter ducts, saturate internal insulation, contaminate duct systems, and lead to the formation of molds and mildews that can significantly affect air quality. When contaminated, it is often more practical to remove and replace submerged ducts system than to try to clean them particularly with insulated duct systems. Any ducts below the DFE should be considered vulnerable to flooding. Floodwaters may also enter exhaust vents that remove stale air from a building’s interior and intake vents that provide fresh make-up air. Water can flow into clothes dryer vents and bathroom or kitchen exhaust vents if the floodwater is higher than the exit locations on the building. Boilers, chillers, domestic water heater, booster pumps, and HVAC controls are rarely designed for submerged installation and will be damaged by floodwater inundation. Fuel distribution and storage systems can be vulnerable to flooding. Although fuel distribution piping is a closed pressurized system that is able to resist relatively high external and internal pressures, fuel tanks are much less so and can be damaged by floodwaters. Fuel tanks are typically designed to resist only internal pres- sures that result from the weight of the fuel stored within them and from filling operations. Tanks, unless specifically designed for submerged conditions, can fail when exposed to the external pressures that result from floodwater inundation. Tank failures can result from crushing pressures, which increase with the depth of inundation, and from anchorage failures, which increase with the amount of floodwater displaced by the tank. During Hurricane Sandy, many tanks located below grade were damaged when floodwaters filled basements. All tanks below the DFE should be considered vulnerable unless they are designed to resist crushing pressures and anchored to resist buoyancy. In addition, fuel tanks are often located on the lowest floor of a building and pumps are installed to pump fuel to equipment, such as emergency generators, located on upper floors. When pumps are located below the DFE, they can be vulnerable to flooding. During vulnerability assessments, fuel pumps located below the DFE along with their power and control wiring should be considered vulnerable unless designed for submerged use. 1 From:Rippe, Patricia <Patricia.Rippe@fema.dhs.gov> Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 7:20 PM To:Hannula, Hal Subject:RE: Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Anytime. From: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:35 PM To: Rippe, Patricia <Patricia.Rippe@fema.dhs.gov> Cc: Gillespie, Julia <julia.gillespie@fema.dhs.gov> Subject: RE: Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Hi Patricia, I hope that you, Julia, colleagues, and families are well. Thanks for the quick and concise response. We will proceed with the mixed-use strategy with limited commercial uses at the lower floor being dry floodproofed as is normal for development within our Downtown. Thanks again and take care. Hal Hal Hannula Supervising Civil Engineer Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhannula@slocity.org T 805.781.7201 C 805.431.0083 slocity.org From: Rippe, Patricia <Patricia.Rippe@fema.dhs.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:41 PM To: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Cc: Gillespie, Julia <julia.gillespie@fema.dhs.gov> Subject: Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Hi Hal, San Luis Obispo has been assigned to me and Julia Gillespie. Julia is currently deployed to support the COVID-19 response. Thanks for the question about multi use properties. I understand that currently the live-work residence is in a Zone AO and the living/residential area is on the second floor above the flood depth. Below the living area (ground floor) is a garage, access and limited storage. The proposal is to modify the ground floor to include office space and a toilet room. You asked a couple of questions: 1) In this case of a defined live-work unit, is the expansion of the floor area beyond parking, access, and limited storage for office purposes acceptable. 2 a. Yes an office and toilet would be allowed if the structure is either floodproofed or elevated. Obviously, in this situation you are considering floodproofing. FEMA regs related to the toilet: “New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate the infiltration of discharges from the systems into floodwaters (44 CFR §60.3(a)(6)(i))”. A backflow preventer is needed. 2) If supported, should we consider the office areas as expanded and recognized non-residential uses such as storage or just consider them as commercial like uses. a. For floodplain management purposes multi-use structures are categorized as either residential or non-residential based on the use of the ground floor. In this case the ground floor will be office use which is considered non- residential. Floodproofing is allowed for non-residential structures. FEMA regs: “Within any Zone AO on the community’s FIRM, all new construction and Substantial Improvement of nonresidential structures must (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified), or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely floodproofed to that level to meet the floodproofing standards specified in 44 §60.3(c)(3)(ii) and 60.3(c)(8)”. 3) They are proposing dry floodproofing and flood barriers to protect the office areas and access at the lower floor. Although prudent, it seems like they would really need to construct all improvements at the lower office level with flood-resistant construction rather than relying on flood protection at the exterior envelope. a. If the work to convert the ground floor to office use meets the City’s Substantial Damage threshold (typically 50% of market value) then the building materials used below the BFE must be resistant to flood damage (44 CFR §60.3(a) (3)(ii)). If this conversion is less than substantial improvement, then this is optional but prudent, to use your words. FEMA would recommend this approach. Please note that in order for dry floodproofing to achieve a favorable NFIP insurance rating, it must extend to the BFE + 1 foot of freeboard. I have attached a good document on floodproofing for your review. In addition, below are a couple of links to Technical Bulletins on this subject: 1. Technical Bulletin 2, Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements (2008). Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning the required use of flood-damage resistant construction materials for building components located below the Base Flood Elevation in Special Flood Hazard Areas (both A and V zones). https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/2655 2. Technical Bulletin 3, Non-Residential Floodproofing - Requirements and Certification (1993). Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning watertight construction and the required certification for floodproofed non-residential buildings in Zones A, AE, A1-A30, AR, AO, and AH whose lowest floors are below the Base Flood Elevation. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3473 If you have additional questions please email me. Sincerely, Patricia Rippe Senior Floodplain Management Specialist FEMA Region IX 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 (510) 627-7015 1 From:Hannula, Hal Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2020 11:25 AM To:edith.lohmann@fema.dhs.gov Subject:Question on Live-Work Units, 1321 Garden Street Hi Edie, I hope that this e-mail finds you and your family well. I’m not sure if we have spoken about this current development and zoning code trend. We now have both work-live units and live-work. The live-work includes a focus on living but might have a more obvious and dedicated work space and is allowed within residential zoning areas. The work-live product is generally a commercial space located within a code designed and analyzed commercial occupancy that includes a dwelling that is accessory to the work space. These are different from caretakers quarters in our code but not a real practical difference. My question is for a proposed new live-work residence that is located within our AO (2’ depth) zone of our downtown. The dwelling and integral accessory dwelling have ground level garages, access, and limited storage below the BFE. Their living areas are all located on the upper floors and above the BFE. The live- work unit is proposing dedicated office spaces and a toilet room to serve them at the lower floor. We will be recording a non-conversion agreement for all uses/functions located at the lower level. A couple of questions: 1) In this case of a defined live-work unit, is the expansion of the floor area beyond parking, access, and limited storage for office purposes acceptable. 2) If supported, should we consider the office areas as expanded and recognized non-residential uses such as storage or just consider them as commercial like uses. 3) The are proposing dry floodproofing and flood barriers to protect the office areas and access at the lower floor. Although prudent, it seems like they would really need to construct all improvements at the lower office level with flood-resistant construction rather than relying on flood protection at the exterior envelope. Thanks for any assistance. Feel free to send this to others as necessary to answer our options in managing this request that is not otherwise clearly covered in our adopted Floodplain Management ordinance. Regards, Hal Hal Hannula Supervising Civil Engineer Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhannula@slocity.org T 805.781.7201 C 805.431.0083 slocity.org 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Friday, March 27, 2020 3:58 PM To:vickey@rossi-ent.com; Keith Hall Subject:1321 Garden - New residence - Completeness Review v2 Attachments:ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) Incomplete Letter 2.pdf Good Afternoon, A letter finding the application to be incomplete is attached. I have taken over the review of this project from Kyle Bell. I believe he informed you of this, but wanted to make sure and that there was not any confusion between the Kyles. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org March 27, 2020 Sent via Email Once Upon a Time, LP PO Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: Completeness Review #2: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street): Development review of a new four-story single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit, include a roof top deck. Dear Once Upon a Time, LP: Thank you for the February 28, 2020 submittal for the Garden Green Building 3 project. We have reviewed your application and found it to be incomplete. We will be unable to process your application until additional information and/or revisions have been submitted, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Preliminary review is necessary to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a list of items that need to be addressed prior to taking action on your project. Preliminary review indicates that your application will remain in an incomplete status until the following information and/or revisions are submitted: Note: Upon resubmittal please provide a narrative indicating where responses to these items can be found on plans. Department comments/completeness items: Planning Division - Community Development Department 1. Please be prepared to provide a color and materials board identifying the physical examples per the application checklist. 2. Property lines on elevation drawings show that the portions of the structure, especially the southwest corner of the structure, are not in compliance with setback standards. Please address or include as exception requested (support for such an exception has not been evaluated. 3. Please label the proposed “studio” as either “art studio” or “studio/bedroom” or some additional labeling to avoid any confusion that this is proposed as a studio unit. 4. Site plan shows the footprint of an existing structure near the west property line. This structure is not visible on mapping programs. Please verify the existence of this structure. Additional Note: The upper story windows and proposed roof deck will need to be found consistent with Land Use Policy 2.3.9 G., which states: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #2 March 27, 2020 Page 2 New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. Past projects with concerns for privacy from upper story windows were conditioned to have those windows be “frosted” or modified so that light may be provided but view is obscured. Past projects which include roof decks have provide at least a ten-foot setback from property lines and/or solid walls at those deck edges close to neighboring properties where privacy is a concern in order to be found consistent with this policy. These measures are recommended for this project. If you have any questions on the above planning comments, or any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 805-781-7091, or by e-mail at: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department 5. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) flood zone. Show and note compliance with the City Floodplain Management Regulations and FEMA requirements. Clarify how the office and residential functions will co-exist within this building located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Commercial buildings/spaces may be “dry” floodproofed. Residential structures and uses shall be elevated to at least 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Portions of a residence allowed to be located below the BFE are limited to 2-car garages, building access, and limited storage. The portions located below the BFE shall be constructed with flood resistant materials and can’t rely on “dry” floodproofing techniques. If unrelated offices are proposed on the 1st floor, they would need to be floodproofed and provided with a separate access so that the deployment of floodgates would not preclude the access and/or emergency egress from the residential occupancies. Contact this office to discuss strategies and options. The comprehensive response to this item has been received. The City will take the lead on confirming our compliance strategy directly with FEMA. Please contact this office before resubmitting if this confirmation has not been communicated by the time of your resubmittal. If you have questions on the above items, please contact Supervising Civil Engineer, Hal Hannula, 805-781- 7201, or by e-mail: hhannula@slocity.org Building and Safety Division - Community Development Department 6. Verify construction type, number of stories and type of fire sprinkler system meets the requi rements of California Building Code Chapter 5. 7. Provide 1-hour fire resistance rating between dwelling units. The exception for ½ -hour rating between dwelling units requires a full NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system (not a NFPA 13D or NFPA 13R system). Dwelling units in 2-family dwellings shall be separated by wall and floor assemblies having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating where tested in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263 or section 703.3 of the California Building Code. R302.3. Common interior walls, partitions and floor/ceiling assemblies between dwelling units or sleeping units, shall have a sound transmission class of not less than 50. 8. Provide ¾ hour rated doors with STC rating of 50 minimum in 1-hour resistance rated walls in accordance with CBC Table 716.1(2). ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #2 March 27, 2020 Page 3 9. The ADU mezzanine is limited to 1/3 of the floor or space where it is located (second floor) unless a full NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system is provided 10. Restroom for the non-residential portion of the work/live unit shall be accessible in accordance with Chapter 11A. 11. Photovoltaic requirements shall be provided in accordance with California Energy Code 150.1. If you have questions on the above items, please contact Plans Examiner, Tina Slusher, 805-781-7157, or by e- mail: tslusher@slocity.org Utilities Department 12. Please provide water and sewer access easements as shown on plans. Comment Remains. 13. Provide updated utility plans approved for the project parcel based on the new proposed building layout. Comment Remains. 14. Sewer lateral cannot go underneath the proposed building, please revise and update plans. Comment Remains. 15. Label all water and sewer services based on existing and proposed infrastructure. Comment Remains. 16. Please provide garbage letter. Comment Remains, please include with the plan submittal. If you have questions on the above items, please contact Interim Utilities Engineer, Cori Burnett, 805-781-7208, or by e-mail: cburnett@slocity.org Fire Department 17. Please correct project description. This appears to be a commercial/residential mixed-use building. Provide the proper California Building Code occupancy classifications on plans. 18. Setbacks from property lines for most commercial buildings is a minimum of 10 feet, unless the exterior wall is fire rated and allowable openings are limited to less than 25%. 19. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus (ladder truck) access roads shall be provided. The access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. 20. Mixed-use buildings shall have an NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system, not a 13D. Show location of double backflow device within 20 feet of the right of way, the fire department connection, the location and size of the fire lateral, and the location of the indoor fire sprinkler riser room with exterior door access. If you have questions on the above items, please contact Fire Marshal, Rodger Maggio, 805-781-7386, or by e- mail: rmaggio@slocity.org ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #2 March 27, 2020 Page 4 The above list includes all of the items initially identified as necessary for us to certify your application as complete. The City may ask for additional information upon more detailed review of your project. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the specific items necessary to submit for a complete applicati on, please contact me at (805) 781-7091. Sincerely, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner 1 From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2020 12:03 PM To:Hannula, Hal; Avila, Richard Subject:ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) - Completeness due Hello Hal and Richard Completeness comments for this project are needed by end of day on Thursday. Incomplete letter needs to be sent out on Friday. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Friday, March 6, 2020 5:03 PM To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:FW: Original LLA - EXECUTED RECORDED.pdf Attachments:Original LLA - EXECUTED RECORDED.pdf; ATT00001.htm Here is another email regarding 1321 Garden Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 2:29 PM To: Keith & Tracy Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Cc: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Steve Rossi <steve@rossi-ent.com>; Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Original LLA - EXECUTED RECORDED.pdf Regarding the new building at 1323 Garden, the new design replaces the formerly approved building on this site The lot with easements we’re RE subdivided in 2009/10 in conjunction with the separate but adjoining project All easements for access and utilizes are recorded for the benefit of this parcel. Some utilities are already installed Let me know if anything else is needed. We hope to get final ARC approval soon 1 From:Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 26, 2020 2:29 PM To:Keith & Tracy Hall Cc:Bell, Kyle; Hannula, Hal; Steve Rossi; Vickey Farley Subject:Original LLA - EXECUTED RECORDED.pdf Attachments:Original LLA - EXECUTED RECORDED.pdf; ATT00001.htm Regarding the new building at 1323 Garden, the new design replaces the formerly approved building on this site The lot with easements we’re RE subdivided in 2009/10 in conjunction with the separate but adjoining project All easements for access and utilizes are recorded for the benefit of this parcel. Some utilities are already installed Let me know if anything else is needed. We hope to get final ARC approval soon 1 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Thursday, September 26, 2019 8:49 AM To:Bell, Kyle Subject:Planning Schedule Hi Kyle, I’ve moved ARCH 0543-2019 (1321 Garden) to pending. Shawna Scott Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Wednesday, September 11, 2019 7:45 AM To:Keith Hall; 'Rob Rossi' Cc:'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (1 of 3) Attachments:ARCH-0543-2019 - Completeness Letter V1.pdf Good morning, As previously mentioned, the various City departments have finished the initial review of the application for 1321 Garden (addressing still to be determined) and have identified some concerns that will need some clarification before we are able to schedule an action date. I have attached the completeness letter with this email, please review the comments and revise the plans as necessary. It would seem that we may have some significant conflicts with Fire Safety Code combined with limitations on the flood zone for the property. I have a few ideas for solutions, but take a look first and we can discuss in more detail next week. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 1:42 PM To: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (1 of 3) NOTE: Attachments are being sent in multiple emails, this has attachment 1 of 3 included with this message… Kyle, Thanks for letting us know the project status. To provide you with digital pdf files of the plans that were submitted to the City I am sending attachments to this email and two additional messages that will follow. The files are transmitted as described below… 1. of 3 (this message) Attachment : Architectural drawing set of currently proposed project 2. of 3 (following separately) Attachment : Civil sheets C-2, C-3, & C-6 from the previously approved project 3. of 3 (following separately) Attachment : Landscape drawing set from the previously approved project. The full construction document set of the previously approved plans was sent to you for your reference by me on 2019-08-05 via a Dropbox link which is provided here again… With respect to the address issue that Rob has mentioned below here is a recap of my understanding based on discussions that I have had with both you & Rob, what I was able to pull up on the County GIS, and what I observed on site… a. the front existing buildings are using three addresses ( 1325 1327 1329 ) these numbers are affixed to the Garden Street front elevation wall. b. The City GIS labels this project site property with 1321 as an address 2 c. As you mentioned at the intake meeting, we have two units and need two addresses. It seems logical that both 1321 & 1323 could be assigned to this project property. d. The actual address assignment for the property is part of the permitting process. e. I do not know if there are any ownership issues that are affected by the specific address number assignment, Rob will be able to let us know about that. If you have any question or comments, please let me know. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:38 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com>; Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: Re: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck Thanks Kyle A couple of items; If you need the prior approved plans we can provide. The site, drainage and utilities remain the same. The address of this site is 1323, the 1321 is the neighboring Garden Green Let us know if any questions Thanks Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:18 PM, Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Good afternoon, I have been assigned as the Planner for the project located at 1321 Garden. At this time the project has been routed to our several City departments to determine whether enough information has been provided to be reviewed at a hearing. I will send you another email with an attached letter if more information will be required for the review. If no additional information is necessary we will continue with scheduling a hearing. This process can take up to 30 days from the date of submittal to determine if an application is complete; your application was received on August 12, 2019. Please provide a digital submittal of the project plans and related information for the project review, at your earliest convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions. The project may be reassigned after the completeness review but I will make sure to let you know of any changes. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner 3 <image003.jpg> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org September 11, 2019 Sent via Email Once Upon a Time, LP PO Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: Completeness Review #1: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street): Development review of a new four-story single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit, include a roof top deck. Dear Once Upon a Time, LP: Thank you for the August 12, 2019 submittal for the Garden Green Building 3 project. We have reviewed your application and found it to be incomplete. We will be unable to process your application until additional information and/or revisions have been submitted, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Preliminary review is necessary to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a list of items that need to be addressed prior to taking action on your project. Preliminary review indicates that your application will remain in an incomplete status until the following information and/or revisions are submitted: Note: Upon resubmittal please provide a narrative indicating where responses to these items can be found on plans. Department comments/completeness items: Planning Division - Community Development Department 1. Please provide a color and materials board identifying the physical examples per the application checklist. 2. Please show property lines on all elevation drawings that include building height to setback requirements. Please include neighboring structures in elevations. All proposed buildings shall meet setback requirements. 3. Please re-label the downstairs offices as bedrooms or clarify intent of use of space. If the space is intended to be used for non-residential uses clarify project as mixed use or live/work under building code. Preliminary calculations indicate parking is similar whether mixed-use or residential. 4. Please revise the parking calculation, 2 spaces for the first 4 bedrooms, .75 spaces for each additional bedroom (include the office rooms as bedrooms as intended). 5. Please revise the lot coverage calculation, the ADU exemption does not apply as a credit. The ADU exemption would only be applicable if the ADU was separate from the main structure in terms of calculating building area for lot coverage. ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #1 September 10, 2019 Page 2 6. The proposed restroom attached to stair tower on the roof deck is not acceptable above the max height, please revise. 7. The loft of the accessory dwelling unit qualifies as a second floor and is subject to maximum area requirements, please update the ADU square footage and verify that the area is less than 50% of the floor area of the primary residence. 8. Please remove the projecting shower from the ‘4th floor’ along the east elevation, this projection seems to be in conflict with setback requirements and projecting over an easement. Please remove or provide clarification. If you have any questions on the above planning comments, or any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 805-781-7524, or by e-mail at: kbell@slocity.org Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department 9. Show and label all existing public and private easements per Parcel Map SLO 08-0039. A copy of the map is available upon request. Show all existing improvements within the respective easements for reference. 10. Provide a site/drainage summary and checklist showing compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. Clarify on the architectural site plan the limits of pervious surfaces proposed if needed to reduce the compliance requirement from Performance Requirement No. 2 to No. 1. 11. Provide a preliminary site utility plan and clarify the limits of existing and proposed utilities. Clarify the limits of utilities installed with Phase 1 that are intended and available to serve this amended Phase 2. 12. The plan shows an existing water well. Clarify whether the well will be retained or abandoned. If retained, show and note all clearances from the existing well to the proposed sewer and storm drain piping systems. Clearances from a passive pervious pavement system may not require the standard separation requirements. If retained, clarify whether the well is proposed for use. If retained, show the existing or proposed RP device for each of the domestic water meters serving this site to provide protection against a possible cross-connection in accordance with City and State regulations. 13. This project is located within an AO (2’ depth) flood zone. Show and note compliance with the City Floodplain Management Regulations and FEMA requirements. Clarify how the offic e and residential functions will co-exist within this building located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Commercial buildings/spaces may be “dry” floodproofed. Residential structures and uses shall be elevated to at least 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Portions of a residence allowed to be located below the BFE are limited to 2-car garages, building access, and limited storage. The portions located below the BFE shall be constructed with flood resistant materials and can’t rely on “dry” floodproofing techniques. If unrelated offices are proposed on the 1st floor, they would need to be floodproofed and provided with a separate access so that the deployment of floodgates would not preclude the access and/or emergency egress from t he residential occupancies. Contact this office to discuss strategies and options. If you have questions on the above items, please contact Supervising Civil Engineer, Hal Hannula, 805-781- 7201, or by e-mail: hhannula@slocity.org ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #1 September 10, 2019 Page 3 Building and Safety Division - Community Development Department 14. Verify occupancy of the building, looks like mixed use. 15. First floor offices meet the definition of a bedroom. Indicate mixed use building or revise offices to bedrooms. 16. Verify construction type, number of stories and type of fire sprinkler system meets the requirements of California Building Code Chapter 5. 17. Provide 1-hour fire resistance rating between dwelling units, no openings. If you have questions on the above items, please contact Plans Examiner, Tina Slusher, 805-781-7157, or by e- mail: tslusher@slocity.org Utilities Department 18. Please provide water and sewer access easements as shown on plans. 19. Provide updated utility plans approved for the project parcel based on the new proposed building layout. 20. Sewer lateral cannot go underneath the proposed building, please revise and update plans. 21. Label all water and sewer services based on existing and proposed infrastructure. 22. Please provide garbage letter. 23. A1.1 – Add a grease interceptor for the proposed shop to meet City’s Environmental Compliance. 24. A1.1 – Please confirm that room 104 is an office, not a bedroom – it appears to have a closet. 25. The proposed ADU exceeds the allowable 800 sq.ft., please coordinate with Planner for appropriate approvals. If you have questions on the above items, please contact Interim Utilities Engineer, Cori Burnett, 805-781-7208, or by e-mail: cburnett@slocity.org Fire Department 26. Please correct project description. This appears to be a commercial/residential mixed-use building. Provide the proper California Building Code occupancy classifications on plans. 27. Setbacks from property lines for most commercial buildings is a minimum of 10 feet, unless the exterior wall is fire rated and allowable openings are limited to less than 25%. 28. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus (ladder truck) access roads shall be provided. The access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden Street) – Completeness Review #1 September 10, 2019 Page 4 29. Mixed-use buildings shall have an NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system, not a 13D. Show location of double backflow device within 20 feet of the right of way, the fire department connection, the location and size of the fire lateral, and the location of the indoor fire sprinkler riser room with exte rior door access. If you have questions on the above items, please contact Fire Marshal, Rodger Maggio, 805-781-7386, or by e- mail: rmaggio@slocity.org The above list includes all of the items initially identified as necessary for us to certify your application as complete. The City may ask for additional information upon more detailed review of your project. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the specific items necessary to submit for a complete application, please contact me at (805) 781-7524. Sincerely, Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:53 PM To:Keith Hall; 'Rob Rossi' Cc:'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (1 of 3) Good afternoon, Thank you for the digital sets of plans. I will address the addressing error prior to any action or noticing. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 1:42 PM To: 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (1 of 3) NOTE: Attachments are being sent in multiple emails, this has attachment 1 of 3 included with this message… Kyle, Thanks for letting us know the project status. To provide you with digital pdf files of the plans that were submitted to the City I am sending attachments to this email and two additional messages that will follow. The files are transmitted as described below… 1. of 3 (this message) Attachment : Architectural drawing set of currently proposed project 2. of 3 (following separately) Attachment : Civil sheets C-2, C-3, & C-6 from the previously approved project 3. of 3 (following separately) Attachment : Landscape drawing set from the previously approved project. The full construction document set of the previously approved plans was sent to you for your reference by me on 2019-08-05 via a Dropbox link which is provided here again… With respect to the address issue that Rob has mentioned below here is a recap of my understanding based on discussions that I have had with both you & Rob, what I was able to pull up on the County GIS, and what I observed on site… a. the front existing buildings are using three addresses ( 1325 1327 1329 ) these numbers are affixed to the Garden Street front elevation wall. b. The City GIS labels this project site property with 1321 as an address c. As you mentioned at the intake meeting, we have two units and need two addresses. It seems logical that both 1321 & 1323 could be assigned to this project property. d. The actual address assignment for the property is part of the permitting process. e. I do not know if there are any ownership issues that are affected by the specific address number assignment, Rob will be able to let us know about that. If you have any question or comments, please let me know. Thanks, Keith 2 khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:38 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com>; Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: Re: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck Thanks Kyle A couple of items; If you need the prior approved plans we can provide. The site, drainage and utilities remain the same. The address of this site is 1323, the 1321 is the neighboring Garden Green Let us know if any questions Thanks Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:18 PM, Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Good afternoon, I have been assigned as the Planner for the project located at 1321 Garden. At this time the project has been routed to our several City departments to determine whether enough information has been provided to be reviewed at a hearing. I will send you another email with an attached letter if more information will be required for the review. If no additional information is necessary we will continue with scheduling a hearing. This process can take up to 30 days from the date of submittal to determine if an application is complete; your application was received on August 12, 2019. Please provide a digital submittal of the project plans and related information for the project review, at your earliest convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions. The project may be reassigned after the completeness review but I will make sure to let you know of any changes. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner <image003.jpg> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Friday, August 30, 2019 1:49 PM To:'Rob Rossi'; Bell, Kyle Cc:'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (3 of 3) Attachments:Garden Green Parcel 2 Final Building Plans Design Approved 2010-12-01_Landscaping_OPT.pdf NOTE: Attachments are being sent in multiple emails, this has attachment 3 of 3 included with this message… Kyle, Thanks for letting us know the project status. To provide you with digital pdf files of the plans that were submitted to the City I am sending attachments to this email and two additional messages that will follow. The files are transmitted as described below… 1. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Architectural drawing set of currently proposed project 2. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Civil sheets C-2, C-3, & C-6 from the previously approved project 3. of 3 (this message) Attachment : Landscape drawing set from the previously approved project. Regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent:Friday, August 30, 2019 3:38 AM To:Bell, Kyle Cc:Vickey Farley; Keith Hall Subject:Re: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck Thanks Kyle A couple of items; If you need the prior approved plans we can provide. The site, drainage and utilities remain the same. The address of this site is 1323, the 1321 is the neighboring Garden Green Let us know if any questions Thanks Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:18 PM, Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Good afternoon, I have been assigned as the Planner for the project located at 1321 Garden. At this time the project has been routed to our several City departments to determine whether enough information has been provided to be reviewed at a hearing. I will send you another email with an attached letter if more information will be required for the review. If no additional information is necessary we will continue with scheduling a hearing. This process can take up to 30 days from the date of submittal to determine if an application is complete; your application was received on August 12, 2019. Please provide a digital submittal of the project plans and related information for the project review, at your earliest convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions. The project may be reassigned after the completeness review but I will make sure to let you know of any changes. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner <image003.jpg> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Friday, August 30, 2019 1:45 PM To:Bell, Kyle; 'Vickey Farley' Cc:'Rob Rossi' Subject:RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (2 of 3) Attachments:Garden Green Parcel 2 Final Building Plans Design Approved 2010-12-01-2_Civil.pdf NOTE: Attachments are being sent in multiple emails, this has attachment 2 of 3 included with this message… 1. of 3 (sent separately) Attachment : Architectural drawing set of currently proposed project 2. of 3 (this message) Attachment : Civil sheets C-2, C-3, & C-6 from the previously approved project 3. of 3 (following separately) Attachment : Landscape drawing set from the previously approved project. Regards, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Friday, August 30, 2019 1:42 PM To:'Rob Rossi'; Bell, Kyle Cc:'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck (1 of 3) Attachments:1323 Garden St_Planning Submittal Set_2019-08-09.pdf Flag Status:Completed NOTE: Attachments are being sent in multiple emails, this has attachment 1 of 3 included with this message… Kyle, Thanks for letting us know the project status. To provide you with digital pdf files of the plans that were submitted to the City I am sending attachments to this email and two additional messages that will follow. The files are transmitted as described below… 1. of 3 (this message) Attachment : Architectural drawing set of currently proposed project 2. of 3 (following separately) Attachment : Civil sheets C-2, C-3, & C-6 from the previously approved project 3. of 3 (following separately) Attachment : Landscape drawing set from the previously approved project. The full construction document set of the previously approved plans was sent to you for your reference by me on 2019-08-05 via a Dropbox link which is provided here again… With respect to the address issue that Rob has mentioned below here is a recap of my understanding based on discussions that I have had with both you & Rob, what I was able to pull up on the County GIS, and what I observed on site… a. the front existing buildings are using three addresses ( 1325 1327 1329 ) these numbers are affixed to the Garden Street front elevation wall. b. The City GIS labels this project site property with 1321 as an address c. As you mentioned at the intake meeting, we have two units and need two addresses. It seems logical that both 1321 & 1323 could be assigned to this project property. d. The actual address assignment for the property is part of the permitting process. e. I do not know if there are any ownership issues that are affected by the specific address number assignment, Rob will be able to let us know about that. If you have any question or comments, please let me know. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:38 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> 2 Cc: Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com>; Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Subject: Re: ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden) SFR with Rooftop Deck Thanks Kyle A couple of items; If you need the prior approved plans we can provide. The site, drainage and utilities remain the same. The address of this site is 1323, the 1321 is the neighboring Garden Green Let us know if any questions Thanks Rob Rossi This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. On Aug 29, 2019, at 5:18 PM, Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Good afternoon, I have been assigned as the Planner for the project located at 1321 Garden. At this time the project has been routed to our several City departments to determine whether enough information has been provided to be reviewed at a hearing. I will send you another email with an attached letter if more information will be required for the review. If no additional information is necessary we will continue with scheduling a hearing. This process can take up to 30 days from the date of submittal to determine if an application is complete; your application was received on August 12, 2019. Please provide a digital submittal of the project plans and related information for the project review, at your earliest convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions. The project may be reassigned after the completeness review but I will make sure to let you know of any changes. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner <image003.jpg> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org T-1ATitle Sheet10128t-1a title sheet.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401--------------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 2021Vicinity MapSiteProject DescriptionSheet List TableSheet NumberSheet TitleCB.01Color Board (8.5 x 11 attachment)T-1ATitle Sheet - General Information, Statistics & Character ImagesA-0.1Site PlanA-1.1First Floor PlanA-1.2Second Floor PlanA-1.3Third Floor PlanA-1.4Roof DeckA-2.1East ElevationA-2.2North ElevationA-2.3West ElevationA-2.4South ElevationA-2.1aPartial East Elevation2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng ReviewProject InformationOwnerOnce Upon a Time LPAddress750 Pismo St.San Luis Obispo, Ca.Apn003-524-017ZONE:OCURRENT USE:VacantSETBACKS :RequiredProposedFrontE=10' (No Build Easement)12'SideN=5'20'BackW= 5'Varies, 5' min.SideS=5'Varies, 6'11" min.HEIGHT:See also, Height Calculation Table on this sheetAllowedProposedBasic Req. =35'35'Exception17.70.080.C.210' Projection8'-6"Projections: Solar, Chimney, Elevator, Screen, Vent, Antenna, SteeplePARKING :RequiredProposedSingle Unit Dwelling up to 4 BR 22 covered + 2 open = 4Accessory Dwelling Unit NA1 covered .TOTAL 23 covered + 2 open = 5Note: Covered spaces are in GaragesSITE AREAS:See also, Site Areas Table on this sheetLot Size=5,826 sfAllowedProposed%SF%SFLot Coverage :60%3,495.639%2,296 sfBUILDING AREAS: See also, Permitted & Propsed Areas Table on this sheetFloor Area Ratio:AllowedProposed% SF% SF1.5%8,7390.74 4,300FLOOD ZONE=FEMA 100 yr Flood Zone "AOA"BFE=depth 2' 200.79Req. FLOOD PROTECTION Ht.=BFE+1' min. = 2'+1' = 3' abv. adj grThis proposed project is an update of Building 3 of the previously approvedresidential project under ARC 59-08. It consists of a new 3 story residentialbuilding including a Single-Unit dwelling with and exempt attachedAccessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Offices & garages are located on the groundfloor, living & bedrooms on the 2nd & 3rd floors, & an open roof top terrace.Stairs & an elevator provide access to all floors & the roof. The 2nd unit is anAccessory Dwelling Unit exempt from the density calculation.The property is a flag lot set back from the street behind two existing 3 storymulti-unit residential buildings (Buildings 1 & 2 of the ARC 59-08 approval). Theold fire station (now converted to offices) is to the south of the property whilemixed office and residential structures are present to the west & north of theproject property.The property is relatively flat and requires minimal grading to provide thedrainage and stormwater management features required. The civil andlandscape designs will remain substantially the same as the previouslyapproved designs (drawings attached for reference).Density CalculationSite Areas & Coverage CalculationHeight CalculationPermitted & Proposed Areas1NTSNeighborhood Context : Birds Eye from NW3NTSCharacter Rendering : Entry from NE Corner Driveway Eye Level4NTSMassing : NW Bird's Eye View5NTSMassing : SW Bird's Eye View6NTSMassing : NW Corner Eye Level View7NTSMassing : North Eye Level View2from Fire Station Court Eye levelCharacter Rendering : SE CornerMaterials1) PLASTER :smooth troweledtexutre & beigecolor to matchadjacent (E)Townhomes2) BRICK :Red Clay to matchadjacent (E)Townhomes, blackgrout3) ROOF & ACCENTWALL :Standing seammetal, pre-finishedzinc colored4) PAVERS :Random size,pattern & color tomatch adjacent(E) Townhomesdriveway.5) GUARDRAIL :Black rectangulartube posts & toprail with horizontalcables for guard6) STEEL ACCENTS :Steel structural shapes with black finish7) DOORS &WINDOWS :Steel, darkbronzefactoryfinishProposed ProjectExisiting Bldg.Proposed ProjectExisiting Bldg.(E) BUILDINGSPROPOSED PROJECT(E) OFFICE ( Past Fire Station)GARDEN ST .PISMO ST.(E) Bldg.Proposed Project(E) Bldg. 20'-0"12'-0"5'-0"8'-638"5'-0"6'-11"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"02 21 E102 21 S102 21 E302 21 W15'-0"02 21 S102 21 E4Garden Street02 21 E232 31 A102 21 P120'-0"02 21 E402 21 D102 21 D21 ( Existing StructureExisting StructureExisting StructureExisting StructureProposed StructureFF @ 198.8'Existing StructureExistingStructure Existing Structure33 81 S133 70 E133 70 E1 138' to Fire Hydrant33 40 D133 44 C19'-11"31 13 A131 12 A210'-6"2'-8"9'-0"18'-4" 3'-6" 16'-4" 22'-6" 22'-6"66.68'100.00'16'-10"32 92 A102 21 P1Lowest Point of (E)Grade = 197.88'Highestest Point of(E) Grade = 200.00'10'-9"27'-0"A-0.1Site Plan10128a-0.1 site plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHT----San Luis ObispoCa.93401--------------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/8" = 1'-0"Site Plan SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4'8'016'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff MtgREFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 D1 -(E) DRIVEWAY02 21 D2 -(E) SIDEWALK02 21 E1 -(E) 5' DRAINAGE EASMENT02 21 E2 -(E) 10' NO BUILD EASMENT02 21 E3 -(E) 10' PUBLIC UTILITIES EASMENT02 21 E4 -(E) ACCESS EASMENT02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 S1 -SETBACK02 21 W1 -(E) WATER WELLDIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK31 12 A2 -(E) TREES TO REMAIN31 13 A1 -(E) TREE OF HEAVEN TO BE PRUNEDDIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS32 31 A1 -ELECTRIC GATE, COORDINATE MATERIAL & APPEARANCE W/OWNER32 92 A1 -BIO SWALE LAWNDIVISION 33 - UTILITIES33 40 D1 -DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION33 44 C1 -CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE33 70 E1 -(E) POWER POLE33 81 S1 -SIREN POLE2019-08-09 / Plng Review -0"6'-0" 56'-0" 5'-0"1'-0" 2'-0"1'-0"5'-0" 1'-0" 5'-3"4'-9"6'-6"11'-0"6'-6"2'-10"11'-0"10'-2"6'-6"11'-0"6'-6"5'-0"01 11 F1 typ01 11 F1 typ6"A-1.1First Floor Plan10128a-1.1 first floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"1st Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review -0"1'-0" 2'-0"01 11 F101 11 F101 11 F23'-0"Loft+17'-6"9'-0"23'-0"2'-0"14'-0"5'-0"4'-0"6'-0" 31'-0"6'-0"3'-0" 3'-0" 4'-51 2"13'-0"1'-0"Loft+17'-6"15t @ 11" = 13'-9"4'-101 2"01 11 F24'-41 2"A-1.2Second FloorPlan10128a-1.2 second floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202121/4" = 1'-0"2nd Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'11/4" = 1'-0"2nd Floor LoftSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review Roof)UP(to Studio)DN(to 2nd)7'-0"5'-6"15'-0" 29'-0" 2'-0"3'-5"1'-2"3'-5"5'-0"3'-6"4'-2"8'-0"01 11 F101 11 F21'-0"8'-101 2" 1'-0"1'-0" 3"3'-0"2'-9"A-1.3Third Floor Plan10128a-1.3 third floor plan.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"3rd Floor PlanSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS01 11 F1 -LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE01 11 F2 -LINE OF FLOOR BELOW2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review 32'-0"15'-0"8'-0"6'-0"18'-0"6'-0"4'-0"2'-0"5'-0"A-1.4Roof Deck10128a-1.4 roof deck.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:Reference Notesdate/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"Roof DeckSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review BA9'-6" +219.3'3rd FF+233.8'+208.3'2rd FF+198.8'1st FF07 32 M109 30 B109 23 A108 50 A1 34"+238.3'Roof+242.3'RoofA-2.1East Elevation10128a-2.1 west elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401----------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"East ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 50 A1 -WINDOW AS SCHEDULED.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -EL DORADO STONE TUNDRA BRICK VENEER2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review A-2.1aPartial EastElevation10128partial east elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"Partial East ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFDIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A2 -SMOOTH TROWELED MISSION FINISH 7/8" PLASTER, ON EXPANDEDMETAL LATH OVER TYVEC STUCCO WRAP, OVER PLYWD ASREQ'RD BY STRUCTURAL COLOR BROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONTBUILDING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY09 30 B1 -EL DORADO STONE TUNDRA BRICK VENEERDIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 31 C1 -CHIMNEY2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review 123459'-6"+ Loft FF+224.3'Studio FF11'-0"11'-0"+219.3'3rd FF+233.8'9'-6"+208.3'2rd FF09 30 B107 71 A305 52 R105 52 R109 23 A109 23 A107 42 S102 21 P102 21 S210'-0"Allowed Ht. Exception for Projectionsper 17.70.080.C.2Elevator, Solar, Steeples, etc. 34"+238.3'Roof+242.3'RoofA-2.2North Elevation10128a-2.2 north elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401----------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"North Elevation2019-08-06 / Plng Staff MtgSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 S2 -(E) STRUCTURE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYDIVISION 05 - METALS05 52 R1 -METAL RAILINGDIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 42 S1 -METAL SIDING07 71 A3 -DOWNSPOUT.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENTPROPERTY09 30 B1 -EL DORADO STONE TUNDRA BRICK VENEER2019-08-09 / Plng Review B107 71 A305 52 R105 52 R110 31 C109 23 A108 50 A1+219.3'3rd FF+233.8'+208.3'2rd FF+198.8'1st FF+238.3'Roof+242.3'Roof12'-0" 8'-0" A-2.3West Elevation10128a-2.3 east elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401----------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"West ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 05 - METALS05 52 R1 -METAL RAILINGDIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION07 32 M1 -STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF07 71 A3 -DOWNSPOUT.DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 50 A1 -WINDOW AS SCHEDULED.DIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A2 -SMOOTH TROWELED MISSION FINISH 7/8" PLASTER, ON EXPANDEDMETAL LATH OVER TYVEC STUCCO WRAP, OVER PLYWD ASREQ'RD BY STRUCTURAL COLOR BROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONTBUILDING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY09 30 B1 -EL DORADO STONE TUNDRA BRICK VENEERDIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES10 31 C1 -CHIMNEY2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review +208.3'2rd FF+216.3'Loft FF+224.3'Studio FF39'-6"11'-0"11'-0"+219.3'3rd FF9'-6"+208.3'2nd FF8'-0"+198.8'1st FF02 21 P102 21 S209 23 A109 30 B108 62 A110'-0"Allowed Ht. Exception for Projectionsper 17.70.080.C.2Elevator, Solar, Steeples, etc.A-2.4South Elevation10128a-2.4 south elevation.dwg----Garden Green,Building 3750 Pismo St.Once Upon a Time LPconsultants:client:sheet name:sheet number:date/purpose:file:job no:application no:COPYRIGHTSan Luis ObispoCa.93401----------------1321 Garden StreetSan Luis ObispoCa93401May 31 202111/4" = 1'-0"South ElevationSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2'4'08'REFERENCE KEYNOTESDIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS02 21 P1 -PROPERTY LINE02 21 S2 -(E) STRUCTURE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYDIVISION 08 - OPENINGS08 62 A1 -SKYLIGHTDIVISION 09 - FINISHES09 23 A1 -7/8" STUCCO, SMOOTH TROWLED FINISH ON SELF FURRING METALLATH OVER TYVEK STUCCO WRAP OVER PLYWOOD WHEREINDICATED. WHERE INSTALLED OVER WOOD BASE SHEATHINGPROVIDE A SECOND "INTERVENING LAYER" OF TYVEKWATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER OR GRADE D BUILDING PAPER. COLORBROWN TO MATCH (E) FRONT BUILDING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY09 30 B1 -EL DORADO STONE TUNDRA BRICK VENEER2019-08-06 / Plng Staff Mtg2019-08-09 / Plng Review 1 From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:25 AM To:Hannula, Hal; Avila, Richard; Barcenas, Miguel; Burnett, Cori; Maggio, Rodger; Brown, Molly Cc:Scott, Shawna Subject:Kyle Bell's Project Management - Deadlines Good morning, This email has been provided as a reminder about some upcoming deadlines for some projects. Let me know if you have any questions. ARCH-0543-2019 (1321 Garden): Completeness V1 Past Due 8/26/19 (Hal & Miguel)  Review of a new project in the remainder portion of an old project known as Garden Green. The project includes a single family residence with an attached ADU. The downstairs offices will be relabeled as bedrooms. Some conditions may carry over from the previous Garden Green project, the old plans are in the energov folder. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org 1 From:Little, Joe Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:32 PM To:Burnett, Cori Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street There is a three meter manifold. Cityworks is incorrect and they are on one manifold. I don’t see anything else. If they stubbed it out, it is possibly buried. Joe Little Chief Water Distribution Operator Utilities Department 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E jlittle@slocity.org T 805.781.7417 slocity.org Like Our Facebook Page! 2 From: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:23 AM To: Little, Joe <jlittle@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks! From: Little, Joe <jlittle@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:17 AM To: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street I’ll look today. Joe Little Chief Water Distribution Operator Public Utilities 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E jlittle@slocity.org T 805.781.7417 slocity.org Like us on Facebook! From: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:42 PM To: Little, Joe <jlittle@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Hi Joe – can you please check in on something for me? There’s a new project on Garden Street and the plans show that they stubbed out water service to the back lot when they built 1323 Garden. They show a 4-meter manifold going to (3) 1” service laterals…City works is showing (2) 1” laterals. Which one is correct? I did a site walk but didn’t open the lids… Thanks! Cori Burnett, P.E. Interim Utilities Engineer Public Utilities 879 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710 E CBurnett@slocity.org T 805.431.0108 C 805.431.0108 slocity.org 1 From:Little, Joe Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:17 AM To:Burnett, Cori Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street I’ll look today. Joe Little Chief Water Distribution Operator Public Utilities 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E jlittle@slocity.org T 805.781.7417 slocity.org Like us on Facebook! From: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:42 PM To: Little, Joe <jlittle@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Hi Joe – can you please check in on something for me? There’s a new project on Garden Street and the plans show that they stubbed out water service to the back lot when they built 1323 Garden. They show a 4-meter manifold going to (3) 1” service laterals…City works is showing (2) 1” laterals. Which one is correct? I did a site walk but didn’t open the lids… Thanks! Cori Burnett, P.E. Interim Utilities Engineer Public Utilities 879 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710 E CBurnett@slocity.org T 805.431.0108 C 805.431.0108 slocity.org 1 From:Burnett, Cori Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:50 PM To:Bell, Kyle Subject:1321 Garden Hi Kyle, I came over to talk to you about the project on Garden Street…I’ll be out all next week so I’m trying to get ahead of Utilities plan review. Let me know if you’re available sometime this afternoon. Thanks! Cori Burnett, P.E. Interim Utilities Engineer Public Utilities 879 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710 E CBurnett@slocity.org T 805.431.0108 C 805.431.0108 slocity.org From:Burnett, Cori Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:52 PM To:Little, Joe Subject:RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks a bunch!! From: Little, Joe <jlittle@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:32 PM To: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street There is a three meter manifold. Cityworks is incorrect and they are on one manifold. I don’t see anything else. If they stubbed it out, it is possibly buried. Joe Little Chief Water Distribution Operator Utilities Department 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 2 E jlittle@slocity.org T 805.781.7417 slocity.org Like Our Facebook Page! From: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:23 AM To: Little, Joe <jlittle@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street Thanks! From: Little, Joe <jlittle@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:17 AM To: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1321 Garden Street I’ll look today. Joe Little Chief Water Distribution Operator Public Utilities 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E jlittle@slocity.org T 805.781.7417 slocity.org Like us on Facebook! From: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:42 PM To: Little, Joe <jlittle@slocity.org> Subject: 1321 Garden Street Hi Joe – can you please check in on something for me? There’s a new project on Garden Street and the plans show that they stubbed out water service to the back lot when they built 1323 Garden. They show a 4-meter manifold going to (3) 1” service laterals…City works is showing (2) 1” laterals. Which one is correct? I did a site walk but didn’t open the lids… Thanks! Cori Burnett, P.E. Interim Utilities Engineer 3 Public Utilities 879 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710 E CBurnett@slocity.org T 805.431.0108 C 805.431.0108 slocity.org 1 From:Burnett, Cori Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:42 PM To:Little, Joe Subject:1321 Garden Street Hi Joe – can you please check in on something for me? There’s a new project on Garden Street and the plans show that they stubbed out water service to the back lot when they built 1323 Garden. They show a 4-meter manifold going to (3) 1” service laterals…City works is showing (2) 1” laterals. Which one is correct? I did a site walk but didn’t open the lids… Thanks! Cori Burnett, P.E. Interim Utilities Engineer Public Utilities 879 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710 E CBurnett@slocity.org T 805.431.0108 C 805.431.0108 slocity.org 1 From:Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent:Monday, August 5, 2019 3:19 PM To:Bell, Kyle Cc:'Rob Rossi'; 'Steve Rossi'; 'Vickey Farley' Subject:RE: Garden Street Loft Kyle, The digital file for the previously approved plans was too big to email. Here is a link to download them from Dropbox… Let me know if you have any problems Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421 From: Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 3:33 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Cc: Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com>; Steve Rossi <steve@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: Garden Street Loft Thank you, Kyle. Vickey Farley Rossi Enterprises vickey@rossi-ent.com 805.545.7788 (property management line) 805.540.3223 (direct line) 805.543.4220 (fax) This communication (and any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact my office at (805) 543-4333 and delete this communication from your computer/phone. From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 3:23 PM To: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Cc: Vickey Farley <vickey@rossi-ent.com>; Rob Rossi <rob@rossi-ent.com>; Steve Rossi <steve@rossi-ent.com> Subject: RE: Garden Street Loft Good afternoon, I am available for a meeting next Tuesday at 2 pm, August 6th. 2 Please send me a digital set of the previous project plans prior to the meeting. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Keith Hall <khall@paralleldesignstudios.com> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 3:09 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: 'Vickey Farley' <vickey@rossi-ent.com>; 'Rob Rossi' <rob@rossi-ent.com>; 'Steve Rossi' <steve@rossi-ent.com> Subject: Garden Street Loft Kyle, Regarding our discussion earlier today about scheduling a meeting on Tuesday Aug 6th, Rob is open from 8-10am and 2- 4pm. Please let us know what time works for you. Thanks, Keith khA keith hall Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S k h a l l @ p a r a l l e l D e s i g n S t u d i o s . c o m T 805.541.9160 C 805.296.5421