HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5b. Review of 18-unit residential development and site improvements such as parking, access, and landscaping. A Density Bonus and exception to locate mechanical equipment within public view are requested
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF 18-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS PARKING, ACCESS, AND LANDSCAPING. A DENSITY
BONUS AND EXCEPTION TO LOCATE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN PUBLIC
VIEW ARE REQUESTED. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW.
BY: Hannah Hanh, Associate Planner FROM: Rachel Cohen, Principal Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7432 Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
Email: hhanh@slocity.org Email: rcohen@slocity.org
APPLICATION NUMBER: ARCH-0320-2024
PROJECT ADDRESSES: 380 and 382 Pismo Street
APPLICANT: Kyle Billingsley
REPRESENTATIVES: Jennifer Korge and Joel Snyder, Ten Over Studio
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the
proposed project’s consistency with applicable goals, policies, and guidelines in the
Community Design Guidelines. This action may include recommended conditions to
address project consistency with the preceding goals, policies, and guidelines.
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Kyle Billingsley (Applicant) has applied for a Moderate Development Review (ARCH-
0320-2024) application to construct a proposed residential development consisting of 18
units and supporting site improvements such as parking, access, and landscaping at 380
and 382 Pismo Street (Attachment A – Project Plans; Figure 1). The proposed residences
range from one- to three-bedroom units, and site amenities include private patios and
balconies as well as common recreation rooms on the first floor. As part of the project, an
exception is requested to locate a transformer adjacent to the street frontage, where
mechanical and electrical equipment are typically required to be fully screened from public
view. Existing development, including the warehouse and duplex, would be removed to
accommodate the project.
Meeting Date: 8/3/2026
Item Number: 5b
Time Estimate: 45 minutes
Page 83 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
Figure 1 – Project Site
Accompanying Project Requests
State Density Bonus Law
To construct the development at its desired density, the project includes a density bonus,
which provides specific protections for housing developments and allows flexibility to
deviate from development standards – in the form of incentives/concessions and
waivers/reductions. In accordance with State Density Bonus Law (SDBL, Government
Code Sections 65915 – 65918), the project includes stacked 50% density bonuses, in
exchange for dedicating a minimum 24% of the base density to low income and 15% to
moderate income households (Attachment B – Density Bonus Summary). To qualify for
the density bonus, a total of six (6) deed-restricted units (i.e., four [4] low income and two
[2] moderate income units) would be provided.
As part of the density bonus, the project utilizes parking requirements for residential units
as allowed under SDBL (i.e., 1 space per one-bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces per two- and
three-bedroom units, inclusive of parking for persons with disabilities and guests). In
addition, Chapter 4.3 of Government Code Sections 65915-65918 states that projects
qualifying for a density bonus may receive other forms of assistance such as waivers or
reductions of development standards that physically preclude construction of the project
at its permitted density. A waiver is requested to provide parking spaces within the
minimum 20-foot front setback, closer to the street frontage. This deviation would allow
construction of 26 parking spaces to meet the minimum parking requirements for 18 units.
Incentives and/or concessions are not requested as part of the project. The stacked 50%
density bonuses and waiver are intended to facilitate construction of the project with 18
units, as proposed.
Page 84 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
To provide clarification and inform the Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC) review,
the project description includes a request to waive compliance with all applicable
guidelines in the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). While SDBL can provide relief for
development projects through the use of waivers and reductions, supporting information
must be provided as part of the project application. Waivers and reductions may be
granted if the applicant provides adequate information demonstrating that application of
the guidelines would have the effect of physically precluding construction of the project.
However, the Applicant did not include evidence as part of the project application to
demonstrate that compliance with applicable guidelines would make the project infeasible
at the proposed density. Furthermore, a single waiver cannot be utilized to grant
deviations from multiple guidelines. As such, discussion items related to project
consistency with applicable design guidelines have been identified in the proceeding
section of this report, and the ARC may comment and provide direction related to the
project and CDG.
Mechanical Equipment Located Within Public View
To satisfy service requirements of the utility provider, the transformer must be located in
a visible and accessible location on the property. Therefore, an exception is requested to
locate the transfer adjacent to the street frontage, near the driveway entrance, within
public view. As proposed, a 3-foot-high wood fence and small plantings would provide a
partial visual buffer of the transformer while maintaining adequate clearance and access
for the utility provider and complying with driveway visibility and fence height (i.e., 3-foot-
height limits) requirements in the front setback.
2.0 PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION
Per SLOMC Section 17.106.040(A)(1), the ARC’s role for Moderate Development Review
applications is to (a) evaluate the project for consistency with applicable goals, policies,
and guidelines in the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and (b) provide a
recommendation to the Director regarding consistency of the project with these preceding
goals, policies, and guidelines.
Following the ARC’s review, the project will be scheduled for a final review and decision
by the Director. As part of this final review and decision, the Director will review the ARC’s
recommendation and all accompanying project requests.
Page 85 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
3.0 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION
Site Data
Location 380 and 382 Pismo Street (APN 002-507-012)
Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR)
Zone Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)
Project Site Approximately 0.55 acres
Surrounding Uses
North – Offices, single-family residences
South – Single- and multi-family residences
East – Single-family residences
West – Multi-family residences
4.0 PROJECT DESIGN
Architectural Style: Contemporary three-story apartment building (Figures 2-4)
Design Details and Materials: Metal siding, fiber cement siding, stucco, and
metal canopies and railings (Figure 5)
Exterior Colors: Muted purple, light gray, gray green, and black
Figure 2 – Rendering of Apartment Building Along Pismo Street
(Near Driveway Entrance)
Page 86 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
Figure 3 – Rendering of Apartment Building Along Pismo Street
(Near East Property Line)
Figure 4 – Rendering of Apartment Building from Parking Lot
Page 87 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
Figure 5 – Colors and Materials Board
5.0 EVALUATION
Staff has evaluated the project against relevant guidelines in CDG Chapter 2 (General
Design Principles), Chapter 5 (Residential Project Design), and Chapter 6 (Site Planning
and Other Design Details), and identified the following discussion items related to project
consistency in Table 1 below.
Table 1 – Project Consistency with Community Design Guidelines
Section Discussion Item
2.1(D)
(Provide
Pleasing
Transitions)
Attention should be given to the transition between the street and
the project through definition of the building entry, walkways , and
landscaping.
As proposed, the project includes two building entries – (1) the main
entry that faces Pismo Street and leads to the lobby and (2) the
secondary entry that faces the parking lot and leads to a set of stairs.
The ARC should discuss whether these entries incorporate
sufficient details that would distinguish and signify these doors
as building entries. While the entries are positioned at appropriate
locations, staff finds that they do not incorporate designs that would
be clear indicators of building entry points (e.g., visually prominent
or distinguished doors, trim, and/or awnings).
Page 88 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
2.2 (Building
Design) & 5.3
(F) (Infill
Development –
Exterior colors)
The City encourages well-articulated, but not cluttered, building
elevations. Large roofs and wall planes unrelieved by shadow or
texture interest are generally not acceptable. Attention to detailing
and emphasis on vertical and horizontal articulation are also
encouraged as tools to visually reduce the apparent mass of a
building. In addition, color schemes for infill residential structures
should consider the colors of existing houses in the neighborhood,
to maintain compatibility.
The ARC should discuss whether the project incorporates a
complementary palette of colors, textures, and materials to
produce architectural interest and diversity on all elevations.
While the project incorporates exterior finishes and colors commonly
found throughout the City (i.e., metal siding, fiber cement siding, and
stucco in muted colors) along with minor variations in the exterior
wall planes, staff finds that these finishes and colors produce limited
visual interest due to the minimal color difference between the light
gray fiber cement siding and gray green stucco and are not
consistent with colors in the surrounding neighborhood. The ARC
should discuss whether there is a more visually compatible
palette of base and accent colors that can provide contrast in
the materials while remaining compatible and consistent with
the neighborhood. Alteration of colors can produce visual diversity,
enhance variations in the wall planes, and integrate infill
developments into the existing neighborhood.
5.4(C)(1)
(Façade and
Roof
Articulation)
Changes in wall planes and roof heights and the inclusion of
elements such as balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross
gables can avoid the barracks-like quality of long flat walls and roofs.
As proposed, the project includes minor changes in building heights
along the northeast and southeast elevations through increased
heights of the metal siding. While taking the maximum building
height of 35 feet and screening of mechanical equipment on the
rooftop into consideration, the ARC should discuss whether
variations to wall heights should be employed along the
southwest elevation as well for overall design consistency.
Page 89 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
5.4(C)(3)
(Balconies,
Porches, and
Patios)
Use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi-family
structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value.
These elements should be used to break up large wall masses,
offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures.
The project includes balconies and patios as private amenity areas
for the residences. However, staff finds that the balcony design is
not consistent throughout all building elevations. The ARC should
discuss whether black metal awnings should be provided
above all third-story balconies, including those located on the
northeast, southwest, and northeast elevations, for design
consistency. In addition, the ARC should discuss whether the
railings should be a more opaque design to screen personal
items stored on the balconies.
6.1(F) (Trash
Enclosures and
Service Areas)
Trash storage should be located out of view from the general public,
and trash containers should be located away from public streets and
primary building entrances and be completely screened with
materials that are consistent with those on adjacent building
exteriors.
As proposed, the trash enclosure is located in the pa rking lot, near
the driveway entrance. The ARC should discuss whether the
trash enclosure should be relocated and further recessed on
the property, instead of adjacent to the street frontage near the
driveway and building entrances. Unless the Applicant
demonstrates that relocation of the trash enclosure would make it
infeasible for the project to receive services from the garbage
company, staff finds the trash enclosure should be relocated
towards the rear of the property, to limit its visibility from public view
and be consistent with the CDG.
6.1(G) (Utilities)
When transformers are unavoidable in the front setback and located
at grade, they should be completely screened by walls and/or thick
landscaping and located to not obstruct views of tenant spaces,
monument signs, windows, and/or driveways.
As proposed, a 3-foot-high wood fence and small plantings would
partially surround the transformer to provide a visual buffer from
public view while maintaining access for the utility provider and
complying with driveway visibility and fence height (i.e., 3 -foot-
height limits) requirements in the front setback. The ARC should
discuss and confirm whether the fence and plantings would
provide sufficient visual buffer of the transformer from public
view.
Page 90 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
Figure 6 – Exterior Side Elevation (top) and Front Elevation (bottom)
Figure 7 – Interior Side Elevation (top) and Rear Elevation (bottom)
Page 91 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Table 2 – Summary of Development Standards
Project Details Proposed Allowed / Required
Maximum Residential Density 40 units / net acre1 20 units / net acre
Minimum Front Setback (Building) 12 feet, 6 inches 10 feet
Minimum Front Setback (Parking) 10 feet2 20 feet
Minimum Side Setback 11 feet, 9 inches 5 – 10 feet3
Minimum Rear Setback 10 feet, 6 inches 5 – 10 feet3
Maximum Building Height 33 feet 35 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 33.8% 60%
Total Number of Car Spaces4 26 spaces 26 spaces
Total Number of Bicycle Spaces 42 spaces 40 spaces
Environmental Review
Statutory exemption from environmental review
under California Public Resources Code (PRC)
Section 21080.66 (AB 130 [2025])
1 The project includes stacked 50% density bonuses in accordance with SDBL.
2 To construct the minimum number of parking spaces required for these 18 units, a waiver is
requested to provide parking within the front setback.
3 Minimum required side and rear setbacks are dependent on the proposed building height as
detailed in Table 2-9.
4 The project utilizes parking requirements for residential units under SDBL.
Page 92 of 126
Item 5b
380 and 382 Pismo Street (ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission Report – August 3, 2026
7.0 POSSIBLE ACTIONS
1. Recommend the Community Development Director find the project consistent with
applicable goals, policies, and guidelines in the Community Design Guidelines.
This action may include recommended conditions to address consistency of the
project with these preceding goals, policies, and guidelines.
2. Continue the review. To ensure compliance with State Law with the processing of
housing projects, an action continuing the review should include clear d irection to
the applicant and staff regarding the additional information required to make a
recommendation and all pertinent issues related to project consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines.
3. Recommend the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent
with applicable policies, guidelines, and requirements in the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and/or other policy document(s). This
action should include findings that cite the basis for the recommendatio n and
reference inconsistency(ies) with goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements in
the preceding documents.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
A. ARCH-0320-2024 Project Plans
B. ARCH-0320-2024 Density Bonus Summary
Page 93 of 126
Page 94 of 126
382 PISMO ST.
APARTMENTS
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PACKAGE, 06/30/26
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
ATTACHMENT A
Page 95 of 126
CLIENT
KYLE BILLINGSLEY
kylecarterb@gmail.com
805.459.4195
ARCHITECT
TEN OVER STUDIO
539 MARSH ST.,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
93401
805.541.1010
CONTACT: JOEL SNYDER
joels@tenoverstudio.com
PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS E1.0
PRELIMINARY DEMOLITION PLAN C0.0
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C1.0
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C2.0
LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0
LANDSCAPE PLANT PALETTE L1.1
LANDSCAPE DETAIL & MWELO CALCULATION L1.2
SITE PLAN A1.0
FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.0
SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.1
THIRD FLOOR PLAN A2.2
BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.0-A3.1
MATERIAL BOARD A4.0
DETAILS A5.0
PROJECT IMAGES A6.0-A6.2
CONTACTS index
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
7+,6352-(&7352326(6'(02/,7,212)$1$3352;,0$7(/<6)%8,/',1*$1'&216758&7,21
2)$1(:81,708/7,)$0,/<5(17$/+286,1*'(9(/230(17,1$0(',80'(16,7<5(6,'(17,$/
=21(1($5'2:172:16$1/8,62%,632&$7+(352-(&7:,//&217$,1 %'$3$570(176
%'$3$570(176$1' %'$3$570(1767+('(9(/230(17:,//6((.$'(16,7<%2186%<
3529,',1*/2:,1&20($))25'$%/(81,767+('(9(/230(17:,//$/626((.$1$'',7,21$/
'(16,7<%2186%<3529,',1*02'(5$7(,1&20($))25'$%/(81,76$6$//2:('%<$%
3(567$7('(16,7<%2186/$:7+(352-(&7,6352326,1*86,1*3$5.,1*)$&7256/,67(',167$7(
'(16,7<%2186/$:6(&7,21 7+($))25'$%/(81,76$/6248$/,)<7+(352-(&7)2583
72 ,1&(17,9(67+(352-(&7,6+2:(9(5127&855(17/<6((.,1*$1<,1&(17,9(672$&+,(9(7+(
'(16,7<7+(352-(&7,66((.,1*7:2:$,9(56)520'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6:$,9(5,672
3/$&($&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*:,7+,17+(&,7<2)6$1/8,62%,632
)52176(7%$&.5(48,5(0(17
:$,9(5,6(;(037,21)520&,7<2)6/2&200081,7<'(6,*1*8,'(/,1(6:+,/(127:$,9(56
7+(352-(&7,6$/626((.,1*',5(&725$33529$/)25/2&$7,1*7+(75$16)250(5:,7+,17+()5217
6(7%$&.:,7+/$1'6&$3(6&5((1,1*
ATTACHMENT A
Page 96 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26 T1.0
'(16,7<%2186 '8[ '8V
'(16,7<%2186$'' '8[ '8V
727$/'(16,7< 'XV
$))25'$%/(+286,1*/2:,1&20($))25'$%/( '(16,7<%2186
$% 2)'8V '8V$))25'$%/(
5281'672'8V2)5(4
'/2:$))25'$%/(+286,1*
$))25'$%/(+286,1*%2186 02'(5$7($))25'$%/( $'',7,21$/'(16,7<%2186
$% 2)'8V '8V$))25'$%/(
5281'672'82)5(4
'02'(5$7($))25'$%/(+286,1*
'(16,7<&$/& 81,77<3(
678',2
%' VI
%' VI
%('5220
%('5220
727$/352326('
$))25'$%/(81,76 %'/2:,1&20(81,76 '8
V 8QLW
%'/2:,1&20(81,76 '8 8QLW
%'02'(5$7(,1&20(81,76 '8 8QLW
%'02'(5$7(,1&20(81,76 '8 8QLW
727$/ '8
VDVUHTXLUHG
%$6('(16,7<
81,7&2817 '8)$&725 '(16,7<
/276,=(
'(16,7<&$/&8/$7,216
727$/'(16,7<$//2:('
'(16,7<$//2:(' $&5(
PARKING REQUIRED USE UNIT COUNT (OR SF) PARKING FACTOR SPACES REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL
1 BEDROOM 3 1/ BED*3
2 BEDROOM 4 1.5/ UNIT*6
3 BEDROOM 11 1.5/ UNIT*16.5
REQUIRED TOTAL 26
PROVIDED TOTAL 26
ADA SPACES USE # OF SPACES ADA FACTOR ADA REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL 26 2 FOR 26-50
SPACES
2
REQ'D TOTAL 2
PROVIDED TOTAL 1 VAN, 1 STD
EV REQUIRED USE # OF SPACES EV FACTOR EV REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL 26 25% EV READY +
10% EV CAPABLE
7 EV READY + 3 EV
CAPABLE
REQ'D TOTAL 10
PROVIDED TOTAL 1 VAN ADA EV
READY , 6 EV
READY, 3 EV
CAPABLE
NOTE: EV
MOTORCYCLE USE # OF SPACES PARKING FACTOR MOTORCYCLE REQ'D
RESIDENTIAL 26 1 / 20 @ 10+SPCS 1
REQ'D TOTAL 1
PROVIDED TOTAL 2
* PARKING FACTORS TAKEN FROM CA STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW (SECTION 65915-65918),
INCLUDES NO REQUIREMENT FOR GUEST PARKING.
NOTE : PROJECT PROOISES 2 COMPACT PARKING SPACES WHICH ACCOUNT FOR 8% OF ALL
PROVIDED PARKING SPACES
PARKING CALCULATIONS
%,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(4
'
81,7&2817
5(6,'(17,$/
5(6,'(17,$/ 81,76 81,7
5(48,5('727$/
3529,'('727$/
%,&<&/(3$5.,1*&$/&8/$7,216
/21*7(506+2577(50
2&&83$1&<56%
&216758&7,217<3(9%
635,1./(56<67(0 1)3$
6725,(6352326('
+(,*+7352326('
$%29($9(5$*(1$785$/*5$'(2)
%8,/',1*$5($6)
%8,/',1*,1)2
3,602676$1/8,62%,632&$
$31
&855(1786(&200(5&,$/,1'8675,$/
6) $&5(
0$;6,7(&29(5$*($//2:$%/(352326(' 6)
%$6('(16,7<$//2:$%/('8V 352326(' 6(('(16,7<
&$/&7$%/(
$))25'$%/(81,76352326('<HV
,1&(17,9(638568('<HV
'(16,7<%2186 '(16,7<%2186)25$))25'$%/(+286,1*
3/86$'',7,21$/'(16,7<%2186)25$))25'$%/(+286,1*
727$/'(16,7<$//2:(''XV
+(,*+7/,0,7 $//2:$%/(
352326('
$'-$&(17=21(6 1257+&6
($67 5
6287+5
:(67 5
6(7%$&.6 )5217
6,'( 5($5
0,1 6(7%$&.3/$1( 3(5&+$37(5%7$%/(
3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*',0(16,21 67$//3(5&,7<2)6/2 $,6/(3(5&,7<2)6/2
/$1'86(5(48,5(0(176
=21,1*
29(5/$<=21(6
63(&,),&$5($'(6,*1*8,'(/,1(6
/276,=(
5
121(
121(
$''5(66
352326('86(08/7,)$0,/<+286,1*
$//2:('86(,1=21(<(6
(17,7/(0(17686(3(50,75(48,5('<(6
ATTACHMENT A
Page 97 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
existing conditions
SCALE: AS SHOWN
N
E1.0
PISMO STREET
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
ATTACHMENT A
Page 98 of 126
PISMO STREET
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
DEMOLITION KEY NOTES
DEMOLITION LEGEND
GENERAL NOTES
CITY OF SLO DEMOLITION NOTES
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
KY
L
E
B
I
L
L
I
N
G
S
L
E
Y
38
2
P
I
S
M
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
90
%
C
D
PL
A
N
S
C0.0
PRELIMINARY
DEMOLITION
PLAN
00 10'20'
10'SCALE: 1" =
ATTACHMENT A
Page 99 of 126
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FF 180.25
182
180
1
7
9
178
PISMO STREET
17
8
17
9
179
178
GRADING LEGEND
GENERAL LEGEND
STORM DRAIN LEGEND:
99
100
GRADING KEY NOTES:
GRADING GENERAL NOTES:
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
KY
L
E
B
I
L
L
I
N
G
S
L
E
Y
38
2
P
I
S
M
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
C1.0
PRELIMINARY
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PLAN
0010'20'
10'SCALE: 1" =
ATTACHMENT A
Page 100 of 126
FF 180.25
PISMO STREET
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
B
FL
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
GENERAL LEGENDSANITARY SEWER KEY NOTES
STORM DRAIN KEY NOTES
WATER KEY NOTES
CAUTIONARY KEY NOTES
UTILITY GENERAL NOTES
STORM DRAIN LEGEND:
WATER LEGEND:
SANITARY SEWER LEGEND:
DRY UTILITY LEGEND:
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
KY
L
E
B
I
L
L
I
N
G
S
L
E
Y
38
2
P
I
S
M
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
C2.0
PRELIMINARY
UTILITY PLAN
0010'20'
10'SCALE: 1" =
ATTACHMENT A
Page 101 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
N
L1.0
LANDSCAPE NOTES
LANDSCAPE TABULATIONS
1. ALL PLANTS TO BE MWELO WATER USE
LOW OR MEDIUM CATEGORY. REFER TO
MWELO CALCULATION ON SHEET L1.2
2. ALL IRRIGATION TO BE DRIP OR
BUBBLERS, NO SPRAY IRRIGATION WILL
BE USED
3. ALL STREET TREES MIN SIZE 24” BOX
4. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE 3”
DEPTH LAYER OF DARK BROWN MULCH
5. ANY UNPLANTED LANDSCAPE AREA
SHALL RECEIVE A 3” THICK LAYER OF
MULCH
6. REFER TO SHEET L1.1 FOR PLANT
SCHEDULE AND PLANTING IMAGES
TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA: 7,914 SF
REQUIRED PARKING LOT
LANDSCAPE AREA (5%): 396 SF
PROVIDED PARKING LOT
LANDSCAPE AREA (6.3%): 499 SF
KEYNOTES
1. TRASH ENCLOSURE
2. TRANSFORMER
3. RELOCATED DRIVEWAY
4. BIKE RACKS
5. PRIVATE PATIO
6. 8” W. CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
7. UNDERGROUND STORMWATER
CHAMBERS
8. 6’ HT. FENCE ON CIPC RETAINING
WALL, REFER TO DETAIL 6/A5.1
9. 3’ HT. HORIZONTAL WOOD FENCE,
REFER TO DETAIL 5/A5.1
AeccDbGeneralLabel (AeccLand130)
AeccDbGeneralLabel (AeccLand130)
AeccDbGeneralLabel (AeccLand130)
AeccDbGeneralLabel (AeccLand130)
N
O
PA
R
K
I
N
G
M
D YH
M
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
E
V
S
E
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
CO
M
P
A
C
T
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
E
V
S
E
V
A
N
A
D
A
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
VA
N
A
D
A
10'-0"
SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
SIDE SETBACK
10
'
-
0
"
FR
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
-
0
"
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
-
0
"
RE
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
E
V
R
E
A
D
Y
EV
R
E
A
D
Y
PISMO STREET
(N) 18-UNIT
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
SETSSESEESTEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDEEEDEEDSIDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSIDDDIDDIDIDDDIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSISIISIISISI
CKKK
T
KK
ETTTT
KKKKKKKKKK
TTBTB
A
TB
ABBABBABABAAAAAAACKCKCCCCCCCKKCKKKCKCCCKCCKKKKKK
BBAAAAACCCCKCKCKKKKK
BBB
KKKKKKK
0'00'00'0'
-
0'
-
0'SE -0-0-0000ETETEETETTTTTT00000000000000000000TBTTTBTBTTBTTTBTB
0"000000"0""""""00000000000000"""""""BBBABABBBBABABAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCC
BBBAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCC
ETETTTTTT 0000
0000000000111000010001100010001000110000000000100111100000000000000000000000000000
AR
S
E
T
E
T
A
KKKKKKK
TBBAAAAACCCCCCCKK
AAACAAC
00'-
0
"
0'-
0
"
0'-
0
"
0'-
0
0'-
0
"
00""
''
20
'
-
0
200-
0
000
2
0"000"
20
'020
'00'''
22202020200000022222002200-0-
0
0000-
0--0000--00000
00"000000000000"""""""""""""""0""""""""""000"00""0""00000000000000000000000000
'
MMMMMMMMMMMMMM
COCOCCCCOCOCOCOCOCOCOOOO
M
OOOOOOO
M
OOOOOOOOCOCO
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
AeccDbGGeenerraallLabel (AeccLaannd130)
Ae
2
1
34
5
5
5
556
6
8
7
8
9
8
ATTACHMENT A
Page 102 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
LANDSCAPE
PLANT PALETTE
L1.1
SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS
TREES
4 Lagerstroemia indica x fauriei `JD900` / Early Bird™ White Crape Myrtle 15 gal
Size: up to 20' Tall & Wide
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
5 Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' / Swan Hill Fruitless Olive 15 gal
Size: to 25' Tall & Wide
WUCOLS PF: < .1
4 Quercus ilex / Holly Oak 15 gal
Size: 40-50' Tall x 30-40' Wide
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
SHRUBS
23 Artemisia californica / California Sagebrush 1 gal Size: 3-4' Tall & Wide
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
33 Chondropetalum tectorum 'El Campo' / El Campo Cape Rush 1 gal Size: 2-3' Tall x 3-4' Wide
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
111 Pennisetum spathiolatum / Slender Veldt Grass 1 gal Size: 2-3' Tall & Wide
WUCOLS PF: .4-.6
22 Salvia leucantha `Santa Barbara` / Santa Barbara Mexican Bush Sage 1 gal
Size: 2-3' Tall x 4-6' Wide
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
31 Verbena lilacina 'De la Mina' / De la Mina Lilac Verbena 1 gal Size: 1-2' Tall x 3-4' Wide
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
PLANT SCHEDULE
EARLY BIRD CREPE MYRTLE
CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE
SWAN HII FRUITLESS OLIVE
EL CAMPO CAPE RUSH
DE LA MINA LILAC VERBENA
HOLLY OAK
SLENDER SVELT GRASS
ATTACHMENT A
Page 103 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
LANDSCAPE
MWELO CALCULATIONS
L1.2
1RQ5HVLGHQWLDO 3RWDEOH:DWHU
(7R LQFKHV\HDU
2YHUKHDG/DQGVFDSH$UHD IW
'ULS/DQGVFDSH$UHD IW
6/$ IW
IW
+\GUR]RQH
3ODQW:DWHU8VH
7\SH ORZ
PRGHUDWHKLJK
=RQH /RZ
=RQH /RZ
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
=RQH
0$:$
(7:8
(7:8FRPSOLHVZLWK0$:$
+&) +XQGUHG&XELF)HHW SHU\HDU
$FUHIHHWSHU\HDU
*DOORQV
+$
7RWDO/$
6DQ/XLV2ELVSR
0D[LPXP$SSOLHG:DWHU$OORZDQFH(VWLPDWHG7RWDO:DWHU8VH
3)[+$ IW ,(
(QWHU,UULJDWLRQ
7\SH
'ULS,UULJDWLRQ
'ULS,UULJDWLRQ
3ODQW)DFWRU 3)
+\GUR]RQH$UHD
+$ IW
ATTACHMENT A
Page 104 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE:06/30/2026
1
2
3$
5.,
1
*
6 ,'(6(7 %$&.
)5
2
1
7
%
/
'
*
6(
7
%
$
&
.
3
$
5
.
,
1
*
6(
7
%
$
&
.
1 81,7
08/7,)$0,/<
%8,/',1*
3$5.,1*
63$&(6
3,60267
6,'(:$/. 6
:
0
6
(
0
;
1
:
0
6 ,'(6 (7 %$&.
3 (5 6 /2 (1 *,1 ((5 ,1 *6 7 $1 '$5 '
7 <3
7 <3
5($56
(7%$&.
6
:
0
7 5 $6 +(1 &
6 (7 %$&.
&
2
0
3
$
&
7
&
2
0
3
$
&
7
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7
$1
'
$5'
6
7$
1
'
$5'
6
7$
1
'
$
5'
6
7
$
1
'
$
5'
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7$
1
'
$5'
(
9
5
(
$
'
<
(
9
5
($
'
<
(
9
5
(
$'
<
9
$
1
9
$
1
6
7$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7
$1
'
$5
'
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7
$
1'
$
5
'
6
7$
1
'
$5'
6
7$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7
$1
'
$5
'
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7$
1
'
$
5
'
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
0
0
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
N
A1.0
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
FENCE LINE
SETBACK
SCALE:
0201040
1" = 20'-0"
KEYNOTES
1. TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH ROOF, SEE A5.0 FOR DETAILS
2. TRANSFORMER, PAD, AND BOLLARDS
3. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES AND CURB RAMP, TYP. OF (2)
SPACES, REFER TO PARKING CALCULATIONS ON T1.0
4. EV READY PARKING SPACES TYP. OF (2) STANDARD AND (1)
VAN ADA, REFER TO PARKING CALCULATIONS ON T1.0
5. MOTORCYCLE PARKING, REFER TO PARKING CALCULATIONS
ON T1.0
6. “PEAK STYLE” SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING, TYP. OF (3)
RACKS WITH (2) SPACES PER RACK FOR A TOTAL OF (6)
SPACES
7. LONG TERM BIKE STORAGE ROOM WITH A TOTAL OF (36)
SPACES, HORIZONTAL SLIDING, REFER TO BIKE PARKING
CALCULATIONS ON T1.0
8. DRIVEWAY APRON
9. (N) ONSITE COMBINATION RETAINING WALL AND NEW FENCE
PER DETAIL 6/A5.0, REFER TO C1.0 FOR GRADES AND WALL
HEIGHT.
10. (E) ADJACENT PROPERTY SITE WALL TO REMAIN
11. (E) FENCE TO REMAIN, TYP.
12. UNIT PATIO, TYP.
13. DRAIN INLET, TYP. REFER TO C1.0
14. 6’ TALL WOOD PRIVACY FENCE AT UNIT PATIOS, TYP.
15. DDCV, REFER TO C1.0
16. FIRE HYDRANT, REFER TO C1.0
17. EGRESS WALKWAY
18. 3’ TALL WOOD PRIVACY FENCE ALONG PL AT TRANSFORMER.
* SETBACK VARIES, REFER TO SETBACKS LISTED IN
THE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS ON T1.0
ATTACHMENT A
Page 105 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
1ST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
N
A2.0
SCALE:1" = 10'-0"
010520
67$,5
$
(/(&
%,.(
&255,'25
%,.(
63$&(6
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
6)
$0(1,7<
6)
$0(1,7<
6)
),5(5,6(5
67$,5
%
/2%%<
$
$
)52176(7%$&./,1(
6+2:1)255()(5(1&(
%
$ A3.2
A3.2
ATTACHMENT A
Page 106 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
2ND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
N
A2.1
SCALE:1" = 10'-0"
010520
67$,5
$
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
6)
81,7
67$,5
%
%$/&21<%$/&21<
%$/&21<
%$
/
&
2
1
<
%$
/
&
2
1
<
%$
/
&
2
1
<
%$
/
&
2
1
<
&255,'25
$
$
)52176(7%$&./,1(
6+2:1)255()(5(1&(
%
$ A3.2
A3.2
ATTACHMENT A
Page 107 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
3RD FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
N
A2.2
SCALE:1" = 10'-0"
010520
67$,5
$
%$/&21<%$/&21<
%$/&21<
%$
/
&
2
1
<
%$
/
&
2
1
<
%$
/
&
2
1
<
%$
/
&
2
1
<
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
67$,5
%
81,7
81,7
&255,'25
$
$
)52176(7%$&./,1(
6+2:1)255()(5(1&(
%
$ A3.2
A3.2
ATTACHMENT A
Page 108 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
SOUTH EAST ELEVATION
NORTH EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
A3.0
1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
2ND FLOOR
10'-0"
3RD FLOOR
20'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
30'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
31'-6"
5'-0"
SETBACK
1012"
1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
2ND FLOOR
10'-0"
3RD FLOOR
20'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
30'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
33'-0"
5'-0"
SETBACK
1'-3"
ATTACHMENT A
Page 109 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26 A3.1
SOUTH WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
NORTH EAST ELEVATION
1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
2ND FLOOR
10'-0"
3RD FLOOR
20'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
30'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
33'-0"
5'-0"
SETBACK
1'-4"
1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
2ND FLOOR
10'-0"
3RD FLOOR
20'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
30'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
33'-0"
10'-0"
SETBACK
ATTACHMENT A
Page 110 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
7232)522)
7232)3$5$3(7
/,1(2)6,*+7
72522)723
0(&+$1,&$/(48,30(17
352326('522)7230(&+$1,&$/
(48,30(17/2&$7,21
$0(1,7<
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
/2%%<
A3.2
b. PISMO STREET SECTION
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
NOTE: MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DESIGN & SEPECIFICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
ROOFTOP SCREENS TO BE PROVIDED DURING BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL IF
SPECIFIED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS NOT ADEQUATELY SCREENED FROM VIEW.
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
7232)522)
7232)3$5$3(7
&255,'25
&255,'25
&255,'25
81,7
81,7
$0(1,7<
81,7
81,7
81,7
352326('522)7230(&+$1,&$/
(48,30(17/2&$7,21
/,1(2)6,*+7
72522)723
0(&+$1,&$/(48,30(17
3$5.,1*/27
a. PARKING LOT SECTION
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
ATTACHMENT A
Page 111 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26 A4.0
MATERIAL BOARD
MFR: TBD
MFR : JELDWEN OR APPROVEL EQUAL
MFR : JAMES HARDIE MFR : LA HABRA
MULLED SLIDER WINDOW
BLACK VYNYL OR ALUMINUM
VERTIAL METAL SIDING
PURPLE COLOR FINISH
STUCCO EXTERIOR WALL FINISH
SANTA BARBARA STYLE - GRAY GREEN COLOR
FIBER CEMENT SIDING
SMOOTH - LIGHT GRAY PAINTED FINISH
MFR : TBD
BLACK METAL RAILING
MFR : TBD
MFR : TBD
BLACK METAL CANOPY
BLACK EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE
ATTACHMENT A
Page 112 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26 A5.0
DETAILS
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
TRASH ENCLOSURE1FRONT ELEVATION
8" CMU WALL
WITH STUCCO
FINISH PAINTED
TO MATCH MAIN
BUILDING COLOR
MOUNT GATE TO GALV. STEEL
POSTS PER 2/A5.1
WELD 1"X14" STEEL STRAP
DIAGONALLY TO BACK OF
GATE FRAME-GALV.
PROVIDE CANE BOLT AT INACTIVE
LEAF PER DETAIL 3/A5.1
HORIZONTAL 2X4 NATURAL CEDAR IN
NATURAL WOOD COLOR AND TEXTURE
(CUT FOR CLARITY); MIN. 1/4" AND MAX.
1/2" GAP BETWEEN MEMBERS
2"X4"X316" GALVANIZED STEEL TUBE
GATE FRAME. WELD CORNERS,
PROVIDE WEEP HOLES AT BOTTOM;
POWDERED SW 6991 'BLACK MAGIC'
PROVIDE LATCH AND LEVER HARDWARE
AT ACTIVE LEAF; MAX. 5 LBS PRESSURE
OPERATION COMPLIANT WITH REACH
RANGES, SEE DETAIL 4/A5.1
6'
-
0
"
3'
-
2
"
11
'
-
1
"
3'-0" WIDE SWING DOOR
WITH ADA COMPLIANT
LEVER HARDWARE.
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF ON 4X6 BEAMS.
POWDER COAT STRUCTURE
SW 6991 "BLACK MAGIC"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
TRASH ENCLOSURE2SIDE ELEVATION
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF ON 4X6 BEAMS.
POWDER COAT STRUCTURE
SW 6991 "BLACK MAGIC"
8" CMU WALL
WITH STUCCO
FINISH PAINTED
TO MATCH MAIN
BUILDING COLOR
6'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
C
L
R
.
11
'
-
1
"
4X4 GALV. STEEL POST,
POWDER COAT
STRUCTURE SW 6991
"BLACK MAGIC"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
TRASH ENCLOSURE3REAR ELEVATION
6'
-
0
"
11
'
-
1
"
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF ON 4X6 BEAMS.
POWDER COAT STRUCTURE
SW 6991 "BLACK MAGIC"
8" CMU WALL
WITH STUCCO
FINISH PAINTED
TO MATCH MAIN
BUILDING COLOR
4X4 GALV. STEEL POST,
POWDER COAT
STRUCTURE SW 6991
"BLACK MAGIC"
ATTACHMENT A
Page 113 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26 A5.1
DETAILS
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"6 6' HT. FENCE ON CIPC RETAINING WALL
TOP MOUNTED INSTALLATION
CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, REFER
STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR FOOTINGS
AND REINFORCEMENT
MASONRY BOLT
PRE-DRILL HOLE, CLEAR DEBRIS
PRIOR TO BOLTING POST
POST MOUNT BRACKET
BOARDFORM FINISH ON FACE OF
WALL, TYP.
SMOOTH TROWEL TOP
SURFACE
1/2" R. ALL EXPOSED EDGES
NOTES:
1. BOARDFORM FINISH TO BE MADE WITH 2 X 6 CLEAN,
CEDAR BOARDS, ROUGH SIDE OUT.
2. CONCRETE TO BE NATURAL GRAY COLOR.
3. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR WALL HEIGHTS AND
LOCATIONS.
9'
-
0
"
M
A
X
6'
-
0
"
M
A
X
PROPERTY LINE
FG PER CIVIL
EG OF NEIGHBORING
PROPERTY PER PLAN
4 X 4 WOOD FENCE POST, INSTALL
CENTERED ON WALL
WOOD POST CAP
6"
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 CMU WALL SECTION
TRASH ENCLOSURE
2" CAP
CONCRETE PAVING,
REFER TO CIVIL SHEETS
10" HIGH CONCRETE
CURB (WHERE OCCURS)
8" SOLID GROUT SMOTTH
FACE MASONRY WALL
#5 @ 16" AT CENTER
LINE OF WALL
EQ.
#4 @ 24" (HORIZONTAL), TYP.
(3) #6 OR (4) #5 CONTINUOUS
7/8" STUCCO WALL FINISH
#6 @ 12" O.C. OR #5 @ 9" O.C.1'
-
6
"
M
I
N
.
3'-0"
3"
C
L
R
.
5" CONCRETE
SLAB W/ #4 @
18" O.C. EA WAY
O/ BASE/SUB.
BASE PER SOILS
REPORT.
6'
-
0
"
M
A
X
.
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" 2 TRASH ENCLOSURE GATE CONNECTION
CMU WALL, REFER TO CIVIL AND
STRUCTURAL SHEETS
CUT OFF EXCESS BOLT LENGTH
4" TUBE GALV. STEEL POST POWDER
COATED SW 6991 'BLACK MAGIC',
REFER TO STRUCTURAL SHEETS FOR
MOUNTING TO CONCRETE WALL
2"X4"X3 16" GALVANIZED STEEL
TUBE GATE FRAME. WELD
CORNERS, PROVIDE WEEP HOLES
AT BOTTOM; POWDER COATED SW
6991 'BLACK MAGIC'
6" SCREW HOOK / STRAP HINGE,
STANLEY 290BC OR EQUAL;TYP.
OF (2), ONE AT EACH HORIZONTAL
FRAME. ANCHOR TO TUBE STEEL
FRAME WITH EXPANSION BOLTS
HORIZONTAL 2X4 NATURAL CEDAR
SLIDE BOLT GUIDES
6"3"3"
LOCK HASP
3/4" SOLID SLID BOLT
SCALE:1-1/2" = 1'-0"4 LATCH BOLT
TRASH ENCLOSURE
SCALE:1-1/2" = 1'-0"3 CANE BOLT
TRASH ENCLOSURE
3/16" CANE BOLD SUPPORT METAL
PLATE MOUNTED TO GATE TUBE
STEEL
1" I.D. PIPE SECTION WELDED TO
SUPPORT PLATE
STOP PIN REST
3/4" STEEL CANE BOLT WITH
WELDED STOP PIN
1-1/4" I.D. STEEL PIPE IN CONCRETE
SLAB
CONCRETE SLAB, REFER TO
STRUCTURAL SHEETS
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"5 3' HT. HORIZONTAL WOOD FENCE
NOTES:
1. WOOD SPECIES TO BE CONFIRMED BY OWNER. ASSUME 2X6 KILN DRIED CEDAR DECKING BOARDS FOR PRICING.
2. ALL WOOD SHALL BE STAINED AND SEALED. ALL CROSS CUTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH CLEAR PARAFFIN WAX BASED SEALER.
3. ALL POSTS TO BE 2.5"X2.5" HSS STL, PAINTED BLACK W/ WELDED CAP.
4. ALL FASTENERS AND HARDWARE TO BE STAINLESS STEEL.
5. POSTS SHALL BE LOCATED ON INSIDE OF FENCE.
6'-0" O.C. SPACING MAX
2X6 SLATS
2.5"X2.5" SQ.
HSS STL. POST
2'
-
0
"
M
I
N
.
C
O
N
F
I
R
M
W/
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
E
N
G
3"
12" Ø SONOTUBE
CONCRETE FOOTING
2X6 CEDAR SLATS, STAIN
AND SEAL, ALTERNATE
SEAMS
COUNTERSINK ST. STL.
TEK SCREWS
ADJACENT 6' HT. WOOD
FENCE ON RETAINING WALL
212"
BOTTOM BOARD TO
BE 2 X 4, APPROX
2-1/2" CLR FROM FG
FG PER CIVIL DWGS
SECTIONELEVATION
3'
-
0
"
WELDED CAP
WELDED CAP
2.5"X2.5" SQ.
HSS STL. POST
NTSNTS
ATTACHMENT A
Page 114 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
street VIEW FROM south
A6.0
ATTACHMENT A
Page 115 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
STREET VIEW FROM EAST
A6.1
ATTACHMENT A
Page 116 of 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
382 PISMO ST APARTMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/30/26
VIEW FROM parking lot
A6.2
ATTACHMENT A
Page 117 of 126
ATTACHMENT A
Page 118 of 126
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 1 of 3
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY
382 PISMO ST.
PLANNING APPLICATION RESUBMITTAL #3
09/04/2025
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project proposes a new 18-unit multifamily rental housing development in a medium-density residential
zone near downtown San Luis Obispo, CA. The project will contain (3) 1-BD apartments, (4) 2-BD apartments,
and (11) 3-BD apartments. The development will seek up to a 50% density bonus by providing 24% low
income affordable units. The development will also see an additional 50% density bonus by providing 15%
moderate Income affordable units as allowed by ab1287. The affordable units also qualify the project for (3)
incentives which result in identifiable cost reductions and/or are necessary to make the project feasible at
the permitted density. The project is however not currently seeking any incentives but is seeking (2)
waivers to achieve the density as described further below in this letter.
PROJECT DATA
382 Pismo St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
APN 002-507-012
Gross Lot Area: 0.55 acres (23,850 SF)
Zoning: R-3 (Medium Density Residential)
BASE DENSITY
R-3 has an allowable base density of 20 units/net acre.
BONUS DENSITY
The project is proposing 18 overall residential units as part of the project. The project will provide a
minimum 24% of the units as low income, which entitles the project to a 50% density bonus per the City’s
Density Bonus chart and the Statutes in Govt. Code 65915 through 65918.
Per the Density Bonus chart, the project allowed density will be calculated as 16.5 DU’s:
In addition, the project will provide an additional 15% of the units as moderate income, which entitles the
project to an additional 50% density bonus per AB 1287..
11 Base DUs X 50% = 11 + 5.5 = 16.5 DU’s
11 Base DUs X 50% = 16.5 + 5.5 = 22 DU’s
ATTACHMENT B
Page 119 of 126
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 2 of 3
AB1287 BONUS CHART
INCENTIVES
Project is allowed up to 3 qualifying incentives based on providing 24% low income units, and is currently
requesting no qualifying incentives.
WAIVERS
While the project is not requesting any incentives, the project is requesting 2 Waivers.
WAIVER 1: FRONT SETBACK (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) EXCEPTION
The project proposes an exception to Section 17.22.170 and proposes an ADA parking spot within the 20’
parking setback at the front of the property. We are requesting the waiver to provide ADA accessible
ATTACHMENT B
Page 120 of 126
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 3 of 3
parking in close proximity to the front entry of the building where the site slope is also preferrable. The ADA
parking spot also does not encroach in the 10’ front setback requirements.
WAIVER 2: CITY OF SLO COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES EXEMPTION
Please see attached letter in regards to the waiver from the Community Design Guidelines.
Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions regarding the project’s design intentions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Korge, jenniferk@tenoverstudio.com
ATTACHMENT B
Page 121 of 126
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF SLO COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES WAIVER
382 PISMO ST.
PLANNING APPLICATION RESUBMITTAL #1
09/20/2024
Dear Callie,
We appreciate the value of the Community Design Guidelines but believe they
need reconsideration in light of current realities. Originally crafted in 2002, these
guidelines aimed to foster a small community feel, which was appropriate at the
time. However, they have always hindered meeting underlying density which is
now problematic due to the housing crisis and inflated construction costs.
The guidelines always favored small, cluster-style buildings that prevent reaching
the parcel’s underlying density. While this design approach can enhance
aesthetics, it has always conflicted with the need for new units in high density
zones and ultimately diminishes aesthetic quality for high-density projects. Given
today's financial constraints, we must utilize density bonus laws to fit more units
within a property. These laws allow deviations from zoning ordinances, and they do
help a little, yet the design guidelines still push for less density through outdated
requirements and make achieving project density unnecessarily difficult.
Infill projects on high-density sites cannot meet these guidelines without
compromising design quality. For example, the guidelines impose low-density
aesthetics on high-density zones. This is particularly problematic when comparing
R-2 zones (12 units per acre) to R-4 zones (24 units per acre). In R-4 zones, we have
double the building volume and double the parking as the same lot in the R-2 zone.
This requires we design two completely different building typologies on each site.
An R-2 property may be able to have two-story townhomes while an R-4 property
must be a single entrance corridor loaded multi story building that needs every
square inch of the allowable building envelope. Applying the same standards
across these two zones is impractical if not impossible and ultimately results in
mediocre design quality.
Context is another challenge. Our projects always align with neighborhood
context, yet we struggle with the concept of ‘scale.’ We need clear guidance on
whether to match the existing neighborhood scale or the scale set by zoning for
high-density zones. Which project is appropriate? The adjacent single-story single-
family house that is grossly under density in the R-3 zone, or our project that
achieves full density and is actually in-scale with the underlying zoning. Are we
looking back or are we looking to the future? I would say if we’re a pro-housing
designated city, we all know the answer to this question.
We have outlined responses to the design guidelines that were suggested we do
not align with. Most do not apply to higher-density infill sites. In fact, only two sub
ATTACHMENT B
Page 122 of 126
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 2 of 5
points of the Community Design Guidelines relating to neighborhood compatibility
appear appropriate for this project. Given the general misalignment of the design
guidelines with this project type, we request that you either remove the design
guidelines as a requirement for this project in the form of a waiver or refer us to
the ARC to discuss these items as presented. In either case, please do not return
the design guideline comments for us to address or clarify any further.
While some design guidelines are beneficial, many hinder design quality and
increase costs without corresponding value. We are open to discussing ways and
offer help in aligning the guidelines with current development practices to enhance
design quality and community aesthetics.
To achieve better design, the guidelines must be updated to align with zoning
regulations and density bonus laws, ensuring they reflect current building
practices and avoid costly, unconventional designs. Once this has been
accomplished, it will allow the city to more appropriately and more expeditiously
review projects for design quality and ensure fewer points of conflict between the
applicant and city staff. In addition, it will result in an increase in project quality
and design aesthetics.
Thank you,
--Joel Snyder
Founder/Co-owner
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
5.3.A. General principles. Infill residential development should:
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. This scale comment is appropriate
when comparing a single-family home to another single-family home in an R-1 zone.
This comment is inappropriate when trying to establish a new multi-family building in
an R-3 zone next to a small single-family building in an R-3 zone.
2. Continue existing neighborhood patterns. For example, patterns such as front porches
and entries facing the street, finished floor height, and garages located at the rear of lots.
The neighborhood pattern is scattered. Most adjacent multi-family projects are set back
from the street with parking at the street edge. Our project has a clear street-oriented
door with pedestrian access and does not make parking the main street presence.
5.3.B. Building design. An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional
architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including window
and door spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation and other
details. Please see context page. The neighborhood is very eclectic and there is no
consistent building typology, style or material palette. We compliment the adjacent flat
ATTACHMENT B
Page 123 of 126
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 3 of 5
roofed structures on 3 sides with our flat roof and have employed a variety of materials
and colors that are present throughout the neighborhood.
5.3.C. Visual impacts from building height. The height of infill projects should be
consistent with of surrounding residential structures. Where greater height is desired, an
infill structure should set back upper floors from the edge of the first story to reduce
impacts on adjacent smaller homes, and to protect solar access. This requirement in
particular is troublesome in a variety of ways. 1st, requiring buildings to step back adds
significant cost and chips away at the allowable building envelope which chips away at
density. Second, this is really about context. Are we to be scale and size of existing
under-built structures or are we to build out to the potential of the R-3 zone. In any case,
we have exceeded side setbacks to allow for solar access, but we did not step the
building significantly as to avoid added costs.
5.3.E. Exterior finish materials. The thoughtful selection of building materials can
enhance desired neighborhood qualities such as compatibility, continuity, and harmony.
The design of infill residential structures should incorporate an appropriate mixture of
the predominant materials found in the neighborhood. Common materials in San Luis
Obispo are smooth, troweled, or sand-finished stucco, wood, horizontal clapboard
siding, shingles, brick, and stone. We employed a variety of materials and colors that are
present throughout the neighborhood.
5.3.F. Exterior colors. Color schemes for infill residential structures should consider the
colors of existing houses in the neighborhood, to maintain compatibility. We employed
a variety of materials and colors that are present throughout the neighborhood.
Show compliance with CDG Section 5.4 for Multi-family housing design:
5.4.A.1. The placement of new units should consider the existing character of the
surrounding residential area. New development should respect the privacy of adjacent
residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that
windows do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of
adjacent units. We have provided this to the extent possible while reaching density. We
have exceeded required setbacks with this building in order to provide relief from
adjacent units.
5.4.A.4. Higher density projects should be designed either with ground floor units
having individual sidewalk entrances, or as courtyard projects with at least one
significant pedestrian entrance from the street sidewalk. Where individual units have
access to the street sidewalk, private "front yard" outdoor space may be differentiated
from the public right-of-way by a porch, or small yard enclosed by a low fence. See
Figures 5-1 and 5-2. This is completely inappropriate for higher density projects. It is
possible to provide walk-up entrances on small-scale single-family R-1 lots and maybe
even R-2 lots. It is nearly impossible to achieve this requirement in higher density
projects where a single entry and corridor loaded units are the only way to meet density.
This requirement should be eliminated or specifically applied to R-1 and R-2 properties.
5.4.B. Parking and Driveways.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 124 of 126
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 4 of 5
1. Long, monotonous parking drives and large, undivided parking lots are discouraged. Separating parking
lots, like creating multiple buildings, chips away at the ability for a project to meet density. In this project,
the only way to meet density and parking is to provide the most efficient layout which is what has been
provided.
2. The main vehicle access into a multi-family site should be through an attractive entry drive. Colored and
textured paving treatment is encouraged outside of the public street right-of-way, and within the project.
This is a nice requirement but it is cost additive and likely cannot be requested under density bonus law.
3. Parking areas should be visible from the residential units to the extent possible. It is not possible to
orient half of the units towards the parking lot. I would question why this is a requirement.
4. Safe and protected bicycle parking should be located convenient to each dwelling unit. This is covered by
your zoning ordinance and seems redundant in 2024.
5. Parking courts, with or without carports, should not consist of more than two double-loaded parking
aisles (bays) adjacent to each other. The length of a parking court should not exceed the width of eight
adjoining stalls. This is an appropriate comment for large scale multi-acre developments and not an infill
project such as this. This comments should not arise for an applicant to consider on a project of this scale.
6. Parking courts should be separated from each other by buildings within the project or by landscape or
natural open space areas at least 30 feet wide. This is an appropriate comment for large scale multi-acre
developments and not an infill project such as this. This comments should not arise for an applicant to
consider on a project of this scale.
7. Large scale multi-family projects (i.e., more than 20 units) with internal streets should have the streets
designed as if they were pleasant public streets, with comprehensive streetscapes including sidewalks,
and planting strips between curb and sidewalk with canopy trees. A small multifamily project is 20 units
and is likely to be an infill project on a quarter or half acre site. Large scale multifamily projects probably
range in the 100 units or more on multi-acre site for which this comment seems appropriate. This
comments should not arise for an applicant to consider on a project of this scale.
C. Multi-family project architecture. The exterior design of multi-family projects should be derived from
architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood. Often, these types of projects are adjacent to single
family neighborhoods, and care in design should ensure that the height and bulk of the higher density
projects do not impact adjacent lower density residential areas.
1. Facade and roof articulation. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate significant
wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the
inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the
barracks like quality of long flat walls and roofs. Significant wall plane change has been provided.
Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or
segments of pitched roof applied at the structure's edge. Structures (including garages and carports)
exceeding 150 feet in length are discouraged. See Figures 5-2 and 5-4. Including significant roof plane
changes while achieving density would mean exceeding the height limit. In this zone, if we want to meet
density and have gabled and pitched roofs, we need to increase the height limit. Otherwise, we must be
content with long flat roofs. If we increase the roof height we are larger in scale. If we have long flat roofs,
we are directly in conflict with this requirement. The concept of scale vs height vs context really needs to
be re-examined and clearly defined in the design guidelines.
2. Scale. Because multi-family projects are usually taller than one story, their bulk can impose on
surrounding uses. The larger scale of these projects should be considered within the context of their
surroundings. Structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level
and/or upper levels (stepped-down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent properties or
visually dominate the neighborhood. Which context are we responding to? The one single-story neighbor in
the R-3 zone or an appropriate scale set forth by the zoning code in the R-3 zone. One could argue that the
existing adjacent single-family residence is inappropriate in scale for the R-3 zone and that it is an existing
ATTACHMENT B
Page 125 of 126
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 5 of 5
non-conformity. As such, when it and if it is re-developed, it should seek to provide appropriate scale and
density for the R-3 zone. All that said, we are providing a 3-story building and it is slightly larger in scale
than the two story buildings that border the property on 3 of 4 sides. Large projects should be broken up
into groups of structures, and large single structures should be avoided. See Figure 5-4. We cannot reach
density and break buildings up into multiple buildings/structures. This might be appropriate for large multi-
family projects, but then again “large” must be defined. I’d say 100 units/2 acres or more is a large project,
but not this in-fill project.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 126 of 126
1
380-382 Pismo Street
(ARCH-0320-2024)
Architectural Review Commission –August 3, 2026
Project Representative – Joel Snyder, Ten Over Studio
2
Project
Location
380-382 Pismo
Street
R-3 Zone
Approximately
0.55 acre in size
Existing
warehouse and
duplex to be
removed
3
Project Summary
Three-story apartment building:
18 residential units
One- to three-bedrooms
Private patios and balconies
Common recreational rooms
Site improvements: parking, access, and landscaping
Stacked density bonuses and associated waiver to locate parking
within the 20’ setback
Request to locate transformer adjacent to the street frontage
(mechanical and electrical equipment are typically screened)
4
ARC’s Purview
Evaluate project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
provide a recommendation to the Director
Final review and decision by the Director, including:
Request for density bonus and associated waiver to provide parking
within the 20’ setback
Request to locate the transformer adjacent to the street frontage (visible
from public view)
ARC’s recommendations
Public correspondence
5
Project
Site Plan
6
Project Building
Elevations
7
Project
Building
Colors and
Materials
8
Discussion Items
9
Discussion Item #1 – Building Entries
Project includes two building entries
Main entry that faces Pismo Street and leads to the lobby
Secondary entry that faces the parking lot and leads to a set of stairs
These entries do not incorporate designs that are clear indicators of building
entry points (e.g., visually prominent or distinguished doors, trim, and/or
awnings)
Discuss whether the entries incorporate sufficient details that would
distinguish and signify these doors as building entries
10
Discussion Item #1 – Building Entries
11
Discussion Item #2 – Building Colors
Project includes exterior finishes and colors commonly found throughout the City
(i.e., metal siding, fiber cement siding, and stucco in muted colors) along with
minor variations in the exterior wall planes
These finishes and colors produce limited visual interest due to the minimal color
difference between the light gray fiber cement siding and gray green stucco, and
are not consistent with colors in the surrounding neighborhood
Discuss whether there is a more visually compatible palette of base and
accent colors that can provide contrast in the materials while remaining
compatible and consistent with the neighborhood
12
Discussion Item #2 – Building Colors
13
Discussion Item #3 – Roofline Variations
Project includes minor variations in building height along the northeast and
southeast elevations – through increased heights of the metal siding
These roofline variations are not incorporated along the southeast elevation
Discuss whether roofline variations should also be employed along the
southwest elevation for overall consistency, while considering:
Maximum building height of 35 feet
Screening of rooftop mechanical equipment
14
Discussion Item #3 – Roofline Variations
15
Discussion Item #4 – Balcony Awnings and Railings
Project includes balconies as private amenity areas for the residences
The balcony design is not consistent throughout the elevations
Discuss whether black metal awnings should be provided above all third-
story balconies, including elevations not directly facing the street, for
overall consistency.
In addition, discuss whether the railings should be a more opaque design
to screen personal items stored on the balconies
16
Discussion Item #4 – Balcony Awnings and Railings
17
Discussion Item #5 – Trash Enclosure Location
Trash enclosure located in the parking lot, near the driveway entrance
Trash storage should be located out of public view, unless it is demonstrated that
relocation would make it infeasible to receive services from the garbage
company
Discuss whether the enclosure should be relocated, and be further
recessed on the property, instead of adjacent to the street near driveway
and building entrances
18
Discussion Item #5 – Trash Enclosure Location
19
Discussion Item #6 – Transformer Screening
Transformer located adjacent to the street frontage, near the driveway entrance
A 3 -foot-high wood fence and small plantings would partially surround the
transformer to provide a visual buffer from public view while maintaining
access for the utility provider and complying with driveway visibility and fence
height requirements in the front setback (i.e., limit of 3-foot height)
Confirm whether the fence and plantings would provide sufficient visual
buffer of the transformer from public view
20
Discussion Item #6 – Transformer Screening
21
Staff Recommendation
Evaluate project for consistency with applicable goals, policies,
guidelines in the Community Design Guidelines
Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director
Recommendation may include conditions to address consistency with
Community Design Guidelines