HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-2016 ARC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Agenda
Architectural Review Commission
Monday, February 1, 2016
5:00 pm
REGULAR MEETING
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Wynn
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meetings of November 16, 2015 and the joint
Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of December 7, 2015
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: At this time, the general public is invited to speak before the
Commission 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 any item
presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a
future agenda for formal discussion.
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. If
you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record.
1. 175 Venture Drive. ARCH-2634-2016 (PR-0090-2015); Preliminary review of the Draft
Design Guidelines for a development project (“Avila Ranch”) on a 150-acre site along
Buckley Road. Project includes 720 Residential units, 15,000-square feet of retail space, 16
acres of park space, and 55 acres of open space; BP-SP, M-SP, and C/OS-SP zones; Avila
Ranch LLC, applicant. (Marcus Carloni)
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of February 1, 2016 Page 2
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
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 in the Community Development
Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an
appeal is $279 and 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)781-7107.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Preliminary review of the Draft Design Guidelines for the Avila Ranch Specific
Plan project, requesting conceptual direction on key questions related to the project design.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 175 Venture Drive BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
173 Buckley Road Phone Number: 805-610-1109
Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com
VIA: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
Phone Number: 805-781-7176
Email: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2634-2016 FROM: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
Project-0090-2015
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation regarding the Avila Ranch project and provide
input and direction to questions posed by the applicant. No specific formal action is requested at
this time.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Representative
Proposed General
Plan and Zoning
Site Area
Environmental
Status
Avila Ranch, LLC
Stephen Peck, AICP
Low, Medium, Medium-High, &
High Density Residential (R-1,
R-2, R-3, & R-4); Neighborhood
Commercial (C-N); Public Facility
(PF); & Conservation/Open
Space (C/OS)
150 acres
A Draft EIR is under preparation.
SUMMARY
Avila Ranch, LLC has submitted a development plan proposal for a new, primarily residential
development with up to 720 units on a 150-acre site north of Buckley Road in the Airport Area
Specific Plan (AASP). The project would also include a “Town Center” with 15,000 square feet
of neighborhood-serving retail and office uses next to a neighborhood park, as well as the
preservation of some of the existing onsite agricultural uses and open space. The project as
proposed is envisioned to implement the policies and development parameters as articulated in
the recent Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update, other elements of the General
Plan, AASP, and the City’s Community Development Guidelines.
The applicant has prepared the Avila Ranch Development Plan (“Development Plan”) that
Meeting Date: February 1, 2016
Item Number: 1
Avila Ranch
Buckley Road
Figure 1. Project Location
ARC1 - 1
ARCH-2634-2016; 175 Venture Drive (Avila Ranch Project)
ARC Report – February 1, 2016
Page 2
contains the specific development proposal for the site, including land use guidelines and
proposals, design guidelines and concepts, and infrastructure plans. The purpose of this initial
review by the ARC is to provide feedback on a number of design questions posed by the
applicant. These are described in detail in the body of the staff report.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s purview is to review the portions of the proposed Development Plan that
relate to building design, architecture, building massing and layout. In general, these are
embodied in the Land Use Framework (Pages 20-30 of the Development Plan), and the Design
Framework (Pages 31-60 of the Development Plan). These sections are contained in Attachment
1.
Over a series of meetings, different aspects of these design guidelines will be presented to the
ARC for conceptual review, and ultimately, potential concurrence. At this time, however, the
intent is to present a broad overview of the project, including site constraints, land use layout,
and design guidelines, and ask the Commission for input on key questions that will assist the
applicant team as they refine the document. The ARC will provide additional direction and input
at future meetings, which will be coordinated with the Environmental Review process,
culminating in public hearings to consider project entitlements.
It should be noted that as part of the EIR (or subsequent staff work effort), there will be a
General Plan consistency analysis. This will address a variety of neighborhood issues, including
neighborhood quality, integration of new neighborhoods with existing ones, and development
adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line, among other topics. Therefore, the ARC does not need to
address the project’s consistency with the General Plan at this time.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The site is composed of approximately 150 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of Buckley
Road and Vachell Lane, and is comprised of three separate parcels: APN: 053-259-006, APN:
053-259-004 and APN: 053-259-005. The site generally slopes from the northeast to
southwest, although there are localized undulations. It is diagonally bisected by a drainage
channel that is referred to as “Tank Farm Creek” which conveys on and offsite storm water to
San Luis Creek and comprises approximately 10 acres of the 150-acre site. Unlike some other
properties within the AASP, the site is free of problematic encumbrances such as agricultural
processing facilities, hazardous substances, extreme changes in topography, or major public
facilities.
ARC1 - 2
ARCH-2634-2016; 175 Venture Drive (Avila Ranch Project)
ARC Report – February 1, 2016
Page 3
Table 1: Site Information
Site Size ~150 acres
Present Use & Development Agriculture (Zoned Business Park and CO/S-SP)
Topography Slopes from northeast to south-west, with localized undulations.
Access Buckley Road, Vachell Lane, Earthwood and Horizon Lane
Surrounding Use/Zoning West: M (Manufacturing) Lockheed Martin; C-S (Service
Commercial) further west across Vachell Lane
North: M (Manufacturing); warehousing & industrial uses
East: County jurisdiction; Agriculture zoning
South: County jurisdiction; Agriculture zoning
2.2 Project Description
The Avila Ranch Project is a proposed new neighborhood that would include up to 720 dwelling
units with a diverse range of housing needs; a centrally located “Town Center” with 15,000
square feet of local-serving retail and office uses; 16 acres of pocket parks, mini-parks and
neighborhood parks; and 55 acres of open space including riparian corridors and farmed
agricultural land. Among the project’s amenities are community gardens, a bicycle and
pedestrian pathway along the Tank Farm Creek riparian corridor, and bike connections to the
Chevron Project to the north and the Octagon Barn bike facilities to the southwest. Another key
feature is the extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street.
The project area would be organized into seven neighborhoods, with primary and secondary
architectural styles for development in each area, intended to provide a smooth transition from
neighboring land uses outside the plan area. The architectural styles used within Avila Ranch will
include:
Agrarian;
California Bungalow;
Mid-Century Modern/Contemporary;
Craftsman; and
Mission
Additional project information, including land uses, neighborhoods, architectural styles, and other
relevant characteristics are described in more detail in Section 2.2.2 of this staff report.
2.2.1 General Plan Guidance and Goals
The project is intended to be consistent with policy direction included in the General Plan
(Attachment 2), specifically Land Use Element Policy 8.1.6, which identifies the Avila Ranch
area as a Special Focus Area (SP-4), subject to certain broad development parameters and
principles. As described in Policy 8.1.6:
“This area will be developed as primarily a residential neighborhood development with
supporting neighborhood commercial, park, recreation facilities, and open
ARC1 - 3
ARCH-2634-2016; 175 Venture Drive (Avila Ranch Project)
ARC Report – February 1, 2016
Page 4
space/resource protection. Within the project, emphasis should be on providing a
complete range of housing types and affordabilities.”
Policy 8.1.6 then notes that the specific plan for this area should consider and address a variety
of issues, including the following issues related to architecture and design (including open space
design):
a. Provision of a variety of housing types and affordability levels.
c. Provision of buffers along Buckley Road and along eastern edge of property from
adjacent agricultural uses.
d. Provision of open space buffers along northern and western boundaries to separate this
development from adjacent service and manufacturing uses.
e. Provision of open space buffers and protections for creek and wildlife corridor that runs
through property.
l. Architectural design that relates to the pastoral character of the area and preserves view
of agrarian landscapes.
Table 2 (from Section 8.1.6 of the LUCE) summarizes the performance standards that the
proposed project must meet relative to land use and development potential:
Table 2: Performance Standards for the Avila Ranch Special Focus Site (Policy 8.1.6)
Type Designations
Allowed
% of Site Minimum 1 Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
500 units 700 units
Commercial NC 15,000 SF 25,000 SF
Open Space/ Agriculture OS
AG
50% 2
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints
2 Up to 1/3 of the open space may be provided off-site through in lieu fees consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan.
2.2.2 Proposed Project Characteristics
Proposed Development and Product Types. The proposed project includes up to 105 R-1
units, 305 R-2 units, 185 R-3 units and 125 R-4 units. The R-1 units are proposed to be more
typical single-family homes with front-loaded garages. The R-2 portions of the development
obtain access from alleys and common driveways limiting direct vehicular access points to
residential streets. This circulation design allows many of these R-2 units to front on open space
areas or the internal Residential Collector streets, resulting in attractive landscaped setbacks
ARC1 - 4
ARCH-2634-2016; 175 Venture Drive (Avila Ranch Project)
ARC Report – February 1, 2016
Page 5
rather than a series of driveways. These project circulation features along with attention to
enhancing streetscapes and corridors with landscaping, utilizing interesting architectural features
such as front porches, and maintaining tree covered sidewalks, inviting front porches, and
unobstructed views of surrounding open spaces provide the underlying framework for creating a
walkable and interconnected neighborhood. R-3 and R-4 units are included at locations that take
advantage of adjacent open spaces, and/or proximity to jobs, transit, and shopping.
Figure 1 shows the proposed land use map for the project, while Table 3 summarizes the
proposed land uses and residential product types.
Figure 1. Proposed Avila Ranch Land Use Map
ARC1 - 5
ARCH-2634-2016; 175 Venture Drive (Avila Ranch Project)
ARC Report – February 1, 2016
Page 6
Table 3: Summary of Proposed Development and Residential Product Types
Land Use
Acres Units
Residential Product Type Maximum
Density
Typical
Lot Size
Residential
R-1; Low-Density 17.45 105 Detached single-family 6 du/acre 5,000 SF
R-2; Medium Density 35.03 305 4 to 6 pack clusters; small
lot detached single-family
12 du/acre 3,575 SF
R-3; Medium-High Density 11.04 185 Stacked flat apartments;
townhomes; condos
20 du/acre 1,000 SF
R-4; High Density 4.71 125 Stacked flat apartments 24 du/acre
Neighborhood Commercial
(15,000 SF)
3.34
Parks
Neighborhood Parks 9.80
Mini Parks 6.00
Pocket Parks 0.20
Major Roadways 7.03
On-site Open Space 55.30
TOTAL 149.90 720
Neighborhoods and Architectural Styles. The Avila Ranch project area is located at the
transition between urban and rural land uses at the southern edge of the City, flanked by
industrial and other urban development to the north, and rural development to the south within
the County. To provide an appropriate strategy to transition the architectural character of
development, the project is organized into seven neighborhoods (Figure 2), and five architectural
styles that can be applied in different proportions within these neighborhoods, as shown within
Table 4:
Figure 2. Proposed Avila Ranch Neighborhoods
ARC1 - 6
ARCH-2634-2016; 175 Venture Drive (Avila Ranch Project)
ARC Report – February 1, 2016
Page 7
Table 4: Architectural Styles and Neighborhoods
Neighborhood
Land Use
Architectural Styles *
Primary
(60% of the homes)
Secondary
(40% of the homes)
1 R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Agrarian Each of the 4 non-primary styles
in a given neighborhood will be
applied to 10% of the homes 2 R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Bungalow; Craftsman
3 R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Mid-Century Modern
4 R-4 (High Density Residential) Developed uniformly in one of the 5 styles
5 R-1 (Low Density Residential) Proportional mix of three of the 5 styles
6 Neighborhood Commercial Agrarian or
Contemporary Agrarian
none
7 R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential) Developed uniformly in one of the 5 styles
* The five styles are Agrarian; California Bungalow; Craftsman; Mid-Century Modern/Contemporary; and Mission
The goal with this strategy is to foster variety, but also to include design connectivity between
the neighborhoods despite the variety in architectural styles. Please refer to pages 43 to 48 of
Draft Design Guidelines (Attachment 1) for additional details on each style, and where such
styles would be applied within the planning area.
Massing Characteristics. In general, the project is intended to be consistent with existing
guidelines related to massing found in the Airport Area Specific Plan. Details regarding the
proposed massing characteristics may be found on page 48 of the Draft Design Guidelines
(Attachment 1).
Building Heights. In general, the project is intended to be consistent with existing
guidelines related to building heights found in the Airport Area Specific Plan and Chapter 17.38
of the City’s Zoning Regulations. Details regarding the proposed building heights may be found
on page 49 of the Draft Design Guidelines (Attachment 1). The Design Guidelines include the
following key standards related to building height:
A minimum of 25% of R-1 zone units shall be single story. Single story units shall be
concentrated along the landscaped berm, parallel to Buckley, unless it can be
demonstrated that a two-story R-1 can conform to the city noise regulations.
Town Center buildings abutting the two plazas at the corner of Jespersen Drive and the
R-1 Residential Road should be two stories of at least 20 feet in height, but may be up to
three stories.
Sign and Lighting. The Draft Development Plan provides signage and lighting standards
and is included on pages 57 and 58 of the Draft Development Plan (Attachment 1). In general,
the Development Plan defers to existing City standards contained in either the overlying Airport
Area Specific Plan or within the City’s Sign Regulations.
ARC1 - 7
ARCH-2634-2016; 175 Venture Drive (Avila Ranch Project)
ARC Report – February 1, 2016
Page 8
Landscape Palette. The Draft Development Plan provides details on landscaping,
including a plant palette for use within different portions of the site. Please refer to pages 51
through 56 of the Draft Development Plan (Attachment 1). In general, the plan calls for
maximizing the use of drought-tolerant and/or native landscaping wherever appropriate.
Fencing. The Draft Development Plan provides details on fencing for use adjacent to
public opens space areas. Please refer to page 59 of the Draft Development Plan (Attachment 1).
In general, the plan calls for the use of wrought iron or split rail fencing adjacent to parks,
creeks, and walking pathways where residential development abuts such areas.
3.0 APPLICANT QUESTIONS
The applicant has proposed the following questions for ARC discussion:
1. Relative to the Design Framework:
a. Does the proposed architectural diversity reflect an adequate range of
architectural styles?
b. Is there Commission support for the proposed architectural design continuum
from Agrarian to traditional to Mid-Century Modern for the three R-2
neighborhoods (Neighborhoods 1-3)?
c. Does the Commission agree with the 60%/40% distribution of architectural styles
in Neighborhoods 1-3?
d. Does the Commission agree that a uniform architectural style works best for the
two multi-family neighborhoods (Neighborhoods 4 & 7)?
e. Does the Commission support a pure Agrarian theme or an
agrarian/contemporary theme for the Town Center (Neighborhood 6)?
f. Can the Commission provide general guidance on the format and content of the
guidelines? Is there anything missing in the design guidelines or framework?
3.0 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Commission:
1. Receive a presentation regarding the Avila Ranch project and provide general input and
direction specifically relating to the questions posed in Section 3.0.
2. Provide the following acknowledgement and note to the applicant:
The ARC’s broad conceptual review of the subject project is based on conceptual
information and plans provided by the applicant. Upon full application submittal
for project entitlements and detailed review of final plans, the ARC may require
additional changes and or modifications to the project that were not previously
known, specifically addressed, or provided as directional items.
ARC1 - 8
ARCH-2634-2016; 175 Venture Drive (Avila Ranch Project)
ARC Report – February 1, 2016
Page 9
4.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Design Framework (part of the Development Plan)
ARC1 - 9
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 20
Revised: December 18, 2015
Land Use Plan and Framework
Land Use
The proposed Project includes a land use plan which designates 68.2 acres of residential land
uses, 71.3 acres of open space and parks, and 3.34 acres of neighborhood commercial development (see
Table 1 and Figure 6). This would allow for the development of approximately 720 residential units and
15,000 square feet (sf) of commercial buildings. Low, medium, medium-high, and high density residen-
tial developments would be constructed along proposed collector and residential roadways. One neigh-
borhood park, five mini-parks and one pocket park would be established as part of the 16.01 acres of
park space planned for the Project site. The Land Plan for the project is shown in Figure 6.
Low Density Residential (R-1) designation for the Avila Ranch area is for new single family resi-
dential development. It is expected that there will be 100-110 Low Density Residential dwelling units on
17.5 acres including a range of lot sizes from 5,000 SF to 10,000 SF units with front garages and drive
approaches. Maximum density would be up to seven units per net acre.
The Medium Density Residential (R-2) designation in the Avila Ranch area will be primarily 4-
pack, 6-pack and cluster units that will create small lot detached single family units. Total R-2 develop-
ment in the Avila Ranch area is projected to be approximately 300 to 310 dwelling units on 35 acres,
with maximum potential development of 12 units per net acre. The R-2 units may be in several different
configurations, and development shall comply with the design standards in the Avila Ranch Develop-
ment Plan. The R-2 portions of the project will be oriented to provide small-lot “work force” housing
with housing sizes and corresponding initial sales prices aimed at those families with incomes equal to
120 percent to 160 percent of City Median Family income, as described in Policy 4.2.12 of the AASP.
Medium High Density Residential (R-3) the Medium-High Density Residential land use designa-
tion is for a combination of stacked flats apartments, townhomes and condominiums arranged around a
central amenity or open space. The Avila Ranch R-3 area is located in airport safety zone S-2, with a
small “sliver” in airport safety zone S-1B. Up to seven of the R-3 dwelling units may be provided in the S-
1B Safety Zone (with clustering in the R-3 development). To address potential noise or safety issues or
associated with the proximity of these units to airport noise, the sleeping and living portions of the
dwelling units are to be oriented away from the S-1B and S-1C airport safety areas. The R-3 portion of
the Avila Ranch project is expected to yield 180-190 dwelling units on eleven acres, but may include up
to 20 density units per acre in accordance with Chapters 17.16.010 and 17.28 of the City’s Zoning regula-
tions. A portion of the R-3 development will be used for the required onsite inclusionary housing re-
quirement for 70 moderate income housing units.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 10
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 21
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 6 Avila Ranch Land Use Plan
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 11
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 22
Revised: December 18, 2015
High Density Residential (R-4) residential land uses will include stacked flat apartments, ar-
ranged around or associated with a central amenity or open space. The Avila Ranch R-4 land use area is
in the northwest corner of the project, adjacent to existing and future Business Park and Service Com-
mercial developments. While dwelling units in the R-4 land use area are not considered to be subject
to excessive stationary noise impacts (based on the noise study prepared for the project), the sleeping
and living portions of the dwelling units are to be oriented away from the eastern and northern project
boundaries and carports, garages, and drives are to be located along these boundaries to act as buffers
to adjacent non-residential land uses. The R-4 portion of the Avila Ranch project is expected to yield
between 120-130 dwelling units on the 4.7 acres, but may include up to 24 density units per acre in ac-
cordance with Chapters 17.16.010 and 17.30 of the City’s Zoning regulations.
The Conservation/Open Space designation is intended to preserve undeveloped or minimally
developed land for preservation of natural resources, production agriculture and public safety. The
LUCE provides that fifty percent of the site area shall be provided in open space, with up to one-third of
that provided offsite. For this project site of 150 acres, there would be a minimum of requirement of
50 acres of onsite open space be provided on the Project site. The total amount of proposed onsite
open space (not including recreational park areas), is 55.3 acres. The balance of the required open
space, 39.3 acres, will be provided offsite through open space or agricultural conservation easements,
or through a fee as established in the AASP. The Avila Ranch Development Plan designates the follow-
ing specific areas for open space:
A. Planning area creeks: to protect and enhance habitat and recreational values;
B. Agricultural buffer areas outside of the URL along the Buckley Road frontage and the easterly
project boundary. Within the agricultural buffer area along
Buckley Road and outside of the URL, furrows and planted
rows should run parallel to the extended Runway 7-25 cen-
terline, where feasible to enhance aircraft safety.
C. The ACOS Reservation Space in conformance with the ALUP.
D. The Tank Farm Creek corridor as a linear park, bikeway and
passive recreation areas.
The Neighborhood Commercial area will serve as a focal
point and activity center for the project, and will provide shared use
parking for nearby open space and parks uses, bicycle parking and
storage facilities, public plazas for gatherings and special events, and
transit connections. Because of the nearby retail shopping center
on South Higuera, this neighborhood center will focus on small-scale
convenience items, and possibly provide some office space. Devel-
opment will be for 15,000 SF or building area.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 12
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 23
Revised: December 18, 2015
Table 1
Land Plan Statistics
Parks and Recreation
“Annexation Areas” are required to provide park and recreation facilities at a high rate per 1,000
residents. The Park and Recreation Element requires that a total of 10 acres per 1,000 residents be pro-
vided in a mix of neighborhood parks, mini-parks, and pocket parks and community gardens. Neighbor-
hood parks are to be provided at a rate of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents as a base and are to be located
within one-half to one mile of the serviced population. Other facilities make up the balance of the re-
quirement, with the allowance for cash contributions or improvement to community- wide facilities.
According to Table 2, the projected residential population on the project site is 1,649 persons. This will
create a park requirement of 16.5 acres. The neighborhood, mini-park and pocket park facilities on the
project site will total 16 acres (not including pedestrian trails and passive open space. A contribution to
community-wide facilities of 1.5 acres in equivalent improvements will also be made.
A 9.8-acre neighborhood park will serve the project. It
is centrally located next to the Town Center so that most resi-
dents will be within one-quarter mile to it. This neighborhood
park will be linked to surrounding neighborhoods, the Tank
Farm Creek riparian corridor and to the regional bikeway sys-
tem by separated Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes. Typ-
ical facilities in these neighborhood parks will include group
Land Use N
e AcresUnits PPH Population Comment
Residential
R-1 Single Family 17.45 105 2.29 240
R-2 Single Family 35.03 305 2.29 698
R-3 Single Family Attached 11.04 185 2.29 424
R-4 Multifamily 4.71 125 2.29 286
Neigbhood Commercial 3.34
Parks
Neighborhood Parks 9.80 Includes 1.3 acre Community Garden
Mini Parks 6.00
Pocket Parks 0.20
Major Roadways 7.03
Onsite Open Space (Not Including Parks)55.30
Total149.90 720 2.29 1,649
Offsite Open Space/Ag Mitigation
Ag mitigation (Res, Com, Parks, Roadway)39.30 Mitigation in Excess of Onsite Ag
Other Offite Open Space -
Total Offiste Open Space/Ag39.30
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 13
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 24
Revised: December 18, 2015
BBQs, basketball courts, tot lots, baseball diamonds, creekside passive play areas and volleyball courts.
Seven mini-parks and a pocket park will also serve the
neighborhoods. Each will be one-half to one acre in size and
provide expanded pocket park facilities such as community
gardens, tot lots, passive play areas, BBQ and picnic areas and
landscaping. These will serve residents within a one-eighth-
mile radius and fill the few “gaps” in the coverage for the
neighborhood park facilities. The mini-parks will be phased
with adjacent residential development to provide park facili-
ties for future residents in close proximity to their homes.
Figure 7 shows the location of parks in the project.
Residential Uses and Affordability
There is an intentional mix of residential densities in the Avila Ranch project that includes a
range of R-1 lot sizes, R-2 “four-packs”, “six-packs” and cluster units, and R-3 and R-4 multifamily dwell-
ings, with an emphasis on smaller lot, higher density units. R-2 units comprise approximately forty per-
cent of the residential units. These R-2 units can provide a substantial contribution towards the need
for “workforce” housing and housing for moderate income (80-160 percent of local median family in-
come) families. The R-2 single family units are located where there are streetscape benefits (functionally
and aesthetically) from few driveway cuts and orientation to
open space. For example, houses will have front doors fac-
ing Venture Road, an important Residential Collector, but
access points will be limited to intersecting public streets, or
through rear or side common driveways. This will achieve
some of the density objectives while still presenting a single
family detached streetscape and appearance. R-2 units will
also be used along portions of the Tank Farm Creek open-
space corridor.
Single-family units in the project comprise about 15 percent of the residential units. Lot sizes
for the R-1 single-family units are planned to range from a low of 4,000 SF to a high of 8,500 square feet.
These units are intended to address the upper end of the workforce housing and other above- moder-
ate housing needs.
Finally, the project includes 185 R-3 multifamily units on 11 acres and 125 R-4 units. One-third
(70 units) of the R-3 units are programmed to meet moderate income affordable housing requirements,
and thirty percent (35 units) of the R-4 units are intended to meet the moderate and lower-income af-
fordable housing requirements.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 14
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 25
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 4 Parks Locations
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 15
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 26
Revised: December 18, 2015
The Avila Ranch project will encourage long term housing affordability by including design and
development strategies that serve to provide lower cost housing. The cost of housing over time is most
closely related to the size of the dwelling unit, the size of the lot, and costs of maintenance. Within each
of the residential zones there will be a broad range of dwelling unit sizes R-2 units will range in size from
approximately 1,350 square feet to 2,000 square feet, with an average size of approximately 1,675
square feet. R-3 units will range in size from 1,100 square feet to 1,750 square feet with an average of
approximately 1,500 square feet, and R-4 units will range in size from 650-square foot studios to 1,150
square foot two-bedroom , two-bathroom units. Maintenance expenses, to the extent feasible, will
also be included in a Community Facilities District to reduce the necessity for Homeowners Associations,
and the additional costs associated with that maintenance and governance structure. Landscaping will
also be designed to be low-maintenance and water efficient to reduce monthly water expense and land-
scape maintenance. Passive and active solar energy strategies will also be included to reduce monthly
energy costs.
Revitalizing Tank Farm Creek
One of the key project components is the revitalization of Tank Farm Creek, which is used as the
principal organizing element for the overall project design. The original course of the creek’s channel
will be re-established to its historic route and connected to the Chevron property. Aesthetically and
topographically, the site feature defines the neighborhoods, creates a unifying open-space element,
provides the principal connecting feature through and to the project and provides the potential to pro-
vide pedestrian and bicycle access to the project’s parks and open space. The north-south utilitarian
drainage channel extension of Tank Farm Creek will be eliminated and the storm runoff flows that rely
on that portion of the channel will be collected at the north property line and conveyed underground to
a controlled discharge point. Figure 8 shows how the various land uses will relate to and interact with
the Tank Farm Creek Corridor open space. Figure 9 shows the sections of Tank Farm Creek and its in-
tended usage to accommodate peak flows, and an area for a multi-use Class I bike path through the site.
Project Phasing
Figure 10 shows the phasing of the land uses. This phasing is primarily determined by the re-
quired location of sewer and circulation facilities, existing road improvements, and site topography.
Phase descriptions are as follows:
Phase 1 includes up to 185 R-2 units, completion of the Buckley Road frontage improvements
along the phase boundary, completion of the sewer pump station and force main, extension of Venture
Road along the phase frontage, extension of the potable and recycled water facilities, and extension of
dry utilities to the phase, and extension of Earthwood to Suburban. This phase would also include the
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 16
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 27
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 8 Land Plan and Tank Farm Creek
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 17
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 28
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 9 Tank Farm Creek Sections
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 18
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 29
Revised: December 18, 2015
Class I Bike Path from Class II Diversion to Vachell, as described in the Circulation section, a pedestri-
an/bike bridge Tank Farm Creek Bridge for Class I Bike Path, a Class II Bike Lane Bridge on South Side of
Buckley and the Buckley/Tank Farm Creek Bridge, the extension of the Earthwood Collector (w/Class II)
to Suburban, and a transit stop along the Venture Extension. This phase, if possible, will also include a
permanent or interim Class I bike path from Vachell to the Octagon Barn parking lot, subject to right of
way availability and governmental approvals. This phase will be designed as two principal neighborhood
clusters, with each having its own architectural and design identity.
Phase 2 will include the development of 29 R-2 units and the extension of the wet and dry utili-
ties along the phase frontage. This phase will also include the extension of Buckley Road from Vachell
to Higuera, including Class II bike lanes and a Class I bike path.
Phase 3 includes 91 R-2 units, and 125 R-4 units, as well as the completion of intracts, and the
completion of the connection to Horizon Lane (but not the offsite connection itself). This phase would
also include the development of the mini-parks in that phase. The R-4 portion of the project would in-
clude the development of 35 inclusionary housing units for lower income households.
Phase 4 includes the development of 185 R-3 units, and development of the neighborhood park.
This phase would include the construction of the vehicle and pedestrian bridge from Venture to Jesper-
son, and the completion of Jesperson to the Buckley. Seventy of these units are intended to fulfill the
inclusionary housing requirement for moderate income households. This phase also includes the devel-
opment of the neighborhood park.
Phase 5 includes 105 R-1 units. This also includes the development of the west mini
park/community gardens and the portion of the open space/buffer area within the phase.
Phase 6 includes the development of the Town Center neighborhood commercial sites and re-
maining project frontages.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 19
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 30
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 10 Phasing Plan
Pha
s
e
4
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 20
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 21
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 31
Revised: December 18, 2015
Design Framework
This section includes design standards and guidelines for the Avila Ranch project. They are in-
tended to be specific to the Avila Ranch project, and are to work in conjunction with the adopted goals,
policies, standards, and guidelines found in the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Design Guidelines (CDG), the City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the City of San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code), and other related documents. They are intended to create a customized
design character reflective of the overall vision for Avila Ranch while at the same time avoiding unneces-
sary replication of existing City development code documents. Owners, builders, architects, and design-
ers should refer to this Appendix, in addition to the AASP, CDG, and City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17),
as a guide when considering the design or construction of property within Avila Ranch. Where specific
design standards and guidelines are set forth within this Appendix and the AASP, they shall be used;
where there are design requirements and regulations in the CDG and Zoning Ordinance that are not in
this document or the AASP, the CDG and Zoning Ordinance provisions shall apply.
As outlined within Chapter 5 of the AASP, Standards define actions or requirements that must
be fulfilled by new development. Alternatively, Guidelines refer to methods or approaches that may be
used to achieve a stated goal but to provide some flexibility and allow for interpretation depending up-
on specific conditions as to how they are satisfied. Collectively, the standards and guidelines incorpo-
rated herein are meant to guide implementation of the vision intended for the project.
SITE PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION
1.0 Building Orientation and Setbacks
Pedestrian interaction for Avila Ranch is encouraged through the thoughtful placement and ori-
entation of residential and commercial structures. Porches will be incorporated on street-facing residen-
tial units to provide opportunities for everyday neighborhood interaction while neighborhood commer-
cial uses include local services and outdoor dining opportunities looking onto the adjacent Neighbor-
hood Park. Residential units fronting onto Residential streets such as Venture Drive, Earthwood Lane,
and Jespersen Drive will have limited or no vehicle access points in order to preserve the residential
streetscape without having the interruption of driveways and vehicle maneuvering. (See Figure 21.)
These features of the Residential Collector streets will enhance the safety and convenience of
these streets as principal bikeways.
Standards
1.1 Goals 5.1 and 5.2 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP
shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Building Orientation and
Setbacks section.
1.2 Residential building setbacks shall conform to the development standards set forth in
Figures 11 through 18.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 22
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 32
Revised: December 18, 2015
1.3 Buildings located within the Neighborhood Commercial zone shall have street yard set-
backs of zero feet.
1.4 Neighborhood Commercial buildings shall be sited to address adjacent streets with the
main building facades oriented towards Jespersen Drive, according to the proportions
shown in Figure 14.
1.5 Neighborhood Commercial buildings facing streets shall incorporate horizontal and ver-
tical wall articulation through the use of wall plane offsets and other features which ar-
ticulate walls such as recessed windows and entries, second floor setbacks, and awnings
and canopies. See Figure 14.
1.6 Residential buildings along Venture Drive, Jespersen Drive/Horizon Lane and Earthwood
Lane shall be oriented to the residential street with front doors and porches fronting on
the street. Dwellings along Jespersen Drive/Horizon Lane and Venture Drive shall only
have access from the side or rear and there shall be no direct individual driveway access
to these roadways. Individual driveways are not permitted along Earthwood Lane, with
the exception of common driveways, intersecting public streets, and access points for
common parking lots for multifamily units.
1.7 Residential buildings on lots adjacent
to greenbelt areas, e.g. Tank Farm
Creek, Open Space, neighborhood
parks, and linear parks, shall be ori-
ented with front doors and porches,
or secondary patios and yards front-
ing on the greenbelt area. Such units
shall have vehicular access from the
side or rear and there shall be no di-
rect individual driveway access to
and from the open space.
1.8 Within R-3 and R-4 residential zones,
parking shall be utilized as a buffer
between open space, and other de-
velopments as set forth in Figures 13
and 17.
1.9 Buildings adjacent to Tank Farm
Creek shall have a minimum of 20
feet setback, as defined by the ripari-
an setback in Zoning Regulation 17.16.026 c.
1.10 Buildings adjacent to wetlands shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the wet-
lands.
Figure 11 R-1 Setbacks
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 23
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 33
Revised: December 18, 2015
Guidelines
A. In order to improve the visual quality of the
streetscape in the R-1 and R-2 zones, every
third house should include a variation to the
front yard setback.
B. Front yard setback variations for houses in
the R-1 and R-2 zones should not be less than
two to five feet, with a minimum street yard
of ten [10].
C. Residential buildings should be sited and roof-
lines designed to take advantage of solar ac-
cess for each unit to the greatest extent pos-
sible.
D. Residential units should be oriented to front
or side onto parks and open spaces to provide
safety and maximize visibility of the park,
where appropriate. Fencing types and land-
scaping palettes shall be used to reinforce the
connectivity of the dwelling units to the open
space and park areas.
E. Attached residential units should be designed and detailed to correlate to neighboring single -
family detached and/or at-
tached homes. The architec-
ture should incorporate the
best features of the neigh-
boring units.
F. Pedestrian linkages to near-
by neighborhoods and other
commercial projects should
be provided within all zones.
G. Designs for all residential
zone units should be orient-
ed to incorporate a relation-
ship between indoor and
outdoor spaces.
Figure 12 R-2 Setbacks
Figure 13 R-3 Setbacks
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 24
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 34
Revised: December 18, 2015
H. Buildings should be oriented within R-3 and R-4 zones to take advantage of natural amenities
such as views, mature trees, creeks, riparian corridors, and similar features unique to Avila
Ranch.
I. Within the R-4 zone, buildings should be the predominant view from adjacent streets. Parking
should be concentrated in areas behind buildings and away from the street.
2.0 Pedestrian Activity Areas
Neighborhood parks, open space trails, plazas, and amenities in the Town Center comprise the
primary pedestrian activity areas within Avila Ranch. These areas are envisioned to encourage healthy,
active lifestyles within individual neighborhoods while also providing a medium for ongoing neighbor-
hood social events.
Standards
2.1 Goal 5.3 (and associated
standards and guidelines) out-
lined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated
as part of this Avila Ranch Pe-
destrian Activity Areas section.
2.2 The northwestern and south-
western corners of Jespersen
Drive/Horizon Lane at the R-1
Residential Road intersection
(Town Center) shall include
plazas of a minimum 1,200
square feet that are oriented
towards the Neighborhood
Park and Town Center Plaza as
illustrated on Figure B-13.
Neighborhood Commercial uses should have windows and entries that open up onto
these plazas to ensure that there is interaction between these public spaces, retail, and
services uses. These plaza areas shall also have a transit stop integrated into the final
design in conjunction with input from SLO Transit or other transit provider.
2.3 Mini Parks and Pocket Parks shall be provided within or adjacent to each individual
neighborhood of Avila Ranch as delineated in Figure 19. These parks shall be provided
at a rate such that the total amount of Mini- Parks and Pocket Parks shall not be less
than 5 acres per thousand population. Total Park areas, e.g. including the Neighborhood
park, shall not be less than 10 acres per thousand population.
Figure 14 Town Center
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 25
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 35
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 15 R-1 Design Standards
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 26
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 36
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 16 R-2 Design Standards
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 27
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 37
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 17 R-3/R-4 Design Standards
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 28
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 38
Revised: December 18, 2015
2.4 A plaza shall be located within the Neighborhood Park directly across from the Town
Center along Jespersen Drive/Horizon Lane of a minimum 2,500 square feet. This plaza
is intended to be used for community gathering functions such as farmer’s markets and
shall include a transit stop.
Guidelines
A. Each neighborhood area should provide convenient access to the Tank Farm Creek pedestrian
trail through the incorporation of multiple pathway entry points. See Figure 8.
B. The character of Jespersen Drive/Horizon Lane and the R-1 Residential Road abutting the Town
Center should provide a pedestrian-friendly environment with accessible sidewalks, bulbouts,
parkway landscaping, street trees, limited driveway access points, and reduced front building
setbacks.
C. Roundabout, bulbouts, and decorative paving should be incorporated at primary intersections
locations such as Venture Drive/Earthwood Lane or Jespersen Drive/R-1 Residential Road, where
appropriate. Roundabouts shall provide decorative landscaping, including trees that provide for
monumentation and reference points within the project. The Town Center roundabout shall also
include agricultural implements such as water towers and windmills to accentuate the agricul-
tural design character of the Town Center.
D. The Neighborhood Park should be designed to provide neighborhood recreation needs including
a mix of passive and active areas that foster social interaction and healthy lifestyles.
E. Neighborhood Park facilities may include informal turf areas, bocce ball courts, children’s play
areas, group barbeque areas, group picnic facilities and shade structures, clubhouse, pool, pe-
destrian and bicycle trails, and community gardens.
F. Programming of the Neighborhood Park may include shared facilities or related uses with on-
site agricultural production such as outdoor learning areas, picnic, farming and cooking demon-
strations, and a farm stand.
G. The plaza located within the Neighborhood Park directly across from the Town Center should
incorporate ample seating, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, a central organizing feature, unique
landscaping, and pervious hardscape
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 29
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 39
Revised: December 18, 2015
3.0 Parking
Parking is an essential component of all proposed land uses within the Avila Ranch project. En-
suring adequate buffering between abutting land uses, public streets, and commercial parking areas will
ensure the promotion of the high-quality environment envisioned for the development. Parking re-
quirements for specific land uses within Avila Ranch are found within Chapter 17.16.060 of the City of
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Parking for the R-2 zone shall be provided with two covered spaces per
unit, on street parking, and at least two on-site guest parking spaces per 6-pack or 4-pack cluster. Park-
ing stalls to be designed per Engineering Standards 2220.
Standards
3.1 Goal 5.4 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be re-
ferred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Parking section.
3.2 Parking for the Neighborhood Park shall be provided through both on-site parking and
shared parking with the Town Center commercial area. Any on-site parking associated
with the Neighborhood Park shall be located within a parking lot or other parking space
configurations on the north side of the park. These parking lots shall provide for bicycle
storage, staging areas, and special event parking.
3.3 Driveway access points for the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center shall be located
along the R-1 Residential Road ad-
jacent to the R-1 Residential zone
as shown in Figure 18.
3.4 Parking shall be designed and sited
to minimize and buffer commercial
noise from adjacent residential
land uses.
3.5 A ten foot minimum landscape
buffer shall be provided on the
Neighborhood Commercial proper-
ties adjacent to the R-1 Residential
zone and the Neighborhood Com-
mercial Town Center. In addition
there shall be a minimum forty-five
(45) foot rear yard for any R-1 units
that back onto the Neighborhood
Commercial properties due to
ALUP Safety Area requirements.
3.6 Parking for the R-4 units shall be carports for added noise mitigation and visual screening.
Figure 18 Town Center Parking, Screening and Access
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 30
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 40
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 19 Park Locations
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 31
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 41
Revised: December 18, 2015
4.0 Outdoor Use Areas
While outdoor use areas, as defined by the AASP, are unlikely to occur within the project area,
any outdoor use areas proposed in conjunction with Avila Ranch land uses will meet the standards and
guidelines outlined within the AASP.
Standard
4.1 Goal 5.5 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be re-
ferred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Outdoor Use Areas section.
5.0 Screening
Service, storage areas, trash and recycling collection areas, and utilities associated with pro-
posed Avila Ranch land uses will be properly screened to minimize visual impact and promote the natu-
ral, unobstructed open space views.
Standard
5.1 Goal 5.6 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be re-
ferred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Screening section.
Guideline
A. Equipment related to on-site agricultural production should be properly stored and screened
from public view.
6.0 Preservation of Views and Scenic Resources
6.1 Views from the Road
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan identifies Buckley Road as a scenic corridor that should
be maintained in order to protect views of surrounding open space resources. A minimum 300-foot wide
buffer has been incorporated into the Avila Ranch Development Plan along Buckley Road to maintain
the scenic nature and the rural/agricultural character of this corridor. Uses within this buffer provide a
wide range of amenities for the area including accessible multi-use trails, naturalized open spaces, and
agriculture production. Views of structures visible from Buckley Road are minimized through the incor-
poration of landscaping and natural screening techniques.
Standards
6.1.1 Goal 5.7 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be re-
ferred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Views from the Road section.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 32
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 42
Revised: December 18, 2015
6.1.2 Views along Buckley Road towards the Irish Hills to the west and towards the Santa Lu-
cia range and foothills to the east shall be maintained through the incorporation of an
open space and park buffer of a minimum 300 feet wide along Buckley Road as shown in
Figure 20.
6.1.3 Views along Jespersen Drive at the crossing of Tank Farm Creek shall be maintained to
maximize views of surrounding open spaces.
Guidelines
A. Visible building facades from Buckley Road should be minimized to maintain the scenic nature of
the corridor through landscaping and/or other natural screening techniques.
B. Cul-de-sacs should be open ended and/or dead-end onto open space or park areas.
6.2 Gateways
The AASP does not identify areas within the Avila Ranch development as possible locations of a
gateway for the City of San Luis Obispo. If a gateway is identified and proposed on the Avila
Ranch site within the future, goals, standards, and guidelines found within the AASP will take
precedent.
Standard
6.2.1 Goal 5.8 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be re-
ferred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Gateways section.
6.2.2 An entry that shall be development on Buckley Road that is complimentary to the pro-
ject.
Figure 20 Buckley Road Buffering and Screening
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 33
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 43
Revised: December 18, 2015
7.0 Architecture
7.1 Architectural Character
The architectural character of Avila Ranch is to be representative of the agricultural heritage as-
sociated with southern San Luis Obispo as well as architectural styles typically found within the city. A
contextual appropriate selection of architectural styles aides in defining the context of the site from the
rural character along the southern property line to the industrial character found along the northern
property edge. A list of permitted architectural styles appropriate for each land use within Avila Ranch
has been provided to ensure consistency with the overall project vision.
Standards
7.1.1 Goal 5.9 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be re-
ferred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Architectural Character section.
7.1.2 The architectural styles for residential land uses within Avila Ranch shall be Agrarian,
California Bungalow, Contemporary, Craftsman, or Mission as illustrated in Figures B-19
through B-23.
Figure 21 Residential Street Scene
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 34
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 44
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 22 Agrarian Architectural Style
Figure 23 Bungalow Architectural Style
Figure 24 Contemporary/Mid Century Modern Architectural Style
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 35
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 45
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 25 Craftsmen Architectural Style
Figure 26 Mission Architectural Style
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 36
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 46
Revised: December 18, 2015
7.1.3 In order to create some individualism to each neighborhood or enclave, there shall be a
dominant style for each neighborhood (see Figure 27), with supporting architectural
styles to avoid monotony. The percentage proportions of architectural styles within the
R-2 zones of Avila Ranch shall be integrated as follows in order to create the desired res-
idential character and transitioning of the site from south to north:
• Neighborhood Area 1: 60% of units shall be designed with Agrarian style archi-
tecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% increments between the
other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a number over a half shall be
rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining balance placed in an archi-
tecture style of choice.
• Neighborhood Area 2: 60% of all units shall be designed with California Bunga-
low/Craftsman style architecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% in-
crements between the other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a
number over a half shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining
balance placed in an architecture style of choice.
• Neighborhood Area 3: 60% of all units shall be designed with Contemporary
style architecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% increments be-
tween the other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a number over a
half shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining balance placed
in an architecture style of choice.
7.1.4 R-4 zone shall be designed uniformly with one of the allowed residential architectural
styles. (Neighborhood Area 4).
7.1.5 R-1 zone shall be designed with a proportional yet mixed use of at least three of the al-
lowed residential architectural styles. (Neighborhood Area 5).
7.1.6 The Neighborhood Commercial Town Center buildings and any buildings located within
the Conservation/ Open Space zoned areas shall be designed uniformly with an Agrarian
or Contemporary style architecture. (Neighborhood Area 6).
7.1.7 R-3 zone shall be designed uniformly with one of the allowed residential architectural
styles. (Neighborhood Area 7).
7.1.8 Porches shall have a minimum depth of six (6) feet.
7.1.9 Residences shall have entries that front onto the street with the exception of residences
configured in a parking court within R-2 zones. Where possible, these interior R-2 units
shall have frontage treatments onto adjacent parks or open spaces. Units that are adja-
cent to the parkway commons in Neighborhood Area 2 shall have frontage treatments
along that parkway and the interior motor court/common driveway.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 37
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 47
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 27 Avila Ranch Neighborhoods
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 38
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 48
Revised: December 18, 2015
7.1.10 Buildings within R-3 and R-4 zones shall have covered porches, entries, or walkways that
front onto the street.
Guidelines
A. Residential elevations within the R-1 and R-2 zones should not be repeated more frequently
than every fourth house. This variation may be achieved by not repeating both a color scheme
and an elevation style.
B. The Neighborhood Commercial Town Center architectural character should reflect Agrarian style
architecture that may be represented through modern barn, rustic barn, or other contemporary
barn elements.
C. The Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and any other approving body may
allow an exception to the height requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center
focal point provided that architectural features meet the desired Agrarian architectural charac-
ter.
D. Residences within the R-1 zone should incorporate a covered front porch.
E. Residences within the R-2 zone that front collector or local residential roads should include a
porch.
7.2 Scale and Massing
The pedestrian and agricultural character of Avila Ranch will be reflected through appropriately
scaled buildings and landscaping. It is anticipated that building forms will be modest in size with individ-
ual components of buildings expressively articulated through playful use of massing.
Standards
7.2.1 Goal 5.10 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Scale and Massing section.
7.2.2 To avoid garage dominated streets, a portion of the house or porch within the R-1 Resi-
dential Zone shall be at least five (5) feet in front of the garage.
Guidelines
A. Variation in front yard setbacks, lot widths, and one and two story homes should be used to
create a diversity of architectural massing.
B. Massing design should include variation in the wall plane (projection and recess), variation in
wall height, and rooflines at different levels.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 39
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 49
Revised: December 18, 2015
C. Portions of the upper story of a two-story home should be stepped back in order to reduce the
scale of the façade that faces the street and to break up the overall massing. This could be
achieved with a porch covering a min of 60% of the front facade.
D. Architectural elements that add visual interest, scale, and character to the neighborhood, such
as recessed or projecting balconies, verandas, or porches should be included within building de-
signs.
E. A variety of roof planes and pitches, porches, overhangs, and accent details should be incorpo-
rated into residential designs to increase the visual quality and character of a building, while re-
ducing the bulk and size of the structure.
F. Garages should be recessed behind the home’s main façade to minimize the visual impact of the
garage door and parking apron from the street.
G. Garages located in parking court configurations should be recessed in order to increase the
prominence of the main entry.
7.3 Building Heights
Building heights for residential structures are expected to range from one to three stories in or-
der to accommodate both single- family and multi-family developments. Commercial structures located
within the Town Center are two stories in height but buildings adjacent to corner plazas across from the
park may be up to three stories.
Standards
7.3.1 Goal 5.11 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Building Heights section.
7.3.2 Residential building heights shall abide by the development standards set forth in the
Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment.
7.3.3 Buildings located within the Neighborhood Commercial zone shall abide by the building
height requirements set forth within Chapter 17.38 of the City’s development code.
7.3.4 A minimum of 25% of R-1 zone units shall be single story. Single story units shall be con-
centrated along the landscaped berm, parallel to Buckley, unless it can be demonstrated
that a two-story R-1 can conform to the city noise regulations.
Guidelines
A. Town Center buildings abutting the two plazas at the corner of Jespersen Drive and the R-1
Residential Road should be two stories of at least 20 feet in height, but may be up to three sto-
ries.
7.4 Architectural Façade and Treatment
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 40
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 50
Revised: December 18, 2015
Facades and architectural treatments of buildings within Avila Ranch are designed as a collection
of high quality, individual neighborhoods comprised of individually articulated and highly detailed struc-
tures. To meet this high standard of quality, full articulation of building facades and use of architectural-
ly compatible treatments will be utilized consistently throughout the development.
Standard
7.4.1 Goal 5.12 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Architectural Façade and Treat-
ment section.
Guidelines
A. Entries should be enhanced to reflect the architectural style and details of the building.
B. Windows should be articulated with accent trim, sills, shutters, window flower boxes, awnings,
or trellises authentic to the architectural style of the building.
C. Windows, garage windows, and doors should complement the architectural style of the building.
D. Garage doors should incorporate architectural detailing that is consistent with the overall archi-
tectural style of the building.
7.5 Materials and Colors
Materials considered appropriate for Avila Ranch are those that have generally stood the test of
time such as stone, brick, wood, glass, plaster, and metal. Each development may choose to express its
unique identity through material and color selection, as long as they are compatible with the overall
character of the area.
Standard
7.5.1 Goal 5.13 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Materials and Colors section.
Guidelines
A. Roof tiles and colors consistent with the architectural style of the house should be incorporated.
Roofing colors should be soft earth tones.
B. Roof penetrations for vents should be consolidated and located on the rear side of roof ridges.
Vents should be painted to match the roof color.
C. As part of the last development phase, the building materials, colors, entries, and windows of
the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center should reflect adjacent residential
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 41
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 51
Revised: December 18, 2015
8.0 Landscape
8.1 Planting Concept
Landscaping for the Avila Ranch development is envisioned to reflect both the natural and agri-
cultural landscapes of San Luis Obispo. Natural landscape patterns have been integrated within the Tank
Farm Creek riparian corridor (Figure B-25) and within Conservation/Open Space areas. Agricultural land-
scape patterns have been incorporated along Jespersen Drive and adjacent to the on-site agriculturally
related facilities.
Standards
8.1.1 Goal 5.14 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Planting Concept section.
8.1.2 Trees planted within Avila Ranch outside of residential zones shall be chosen from the
City’s approved Street Tree Master List and shall be in conformance with the master
plan in Figures 29 and 30.
8.1.3 Shrubs, perennials, and ground cover planted outside of residential zones within Avila
Ranch shall be in conformance with the master plan in Figures 29.
8.1.4 Trees, shrubs, perennials, and ground cover planted within the residential portions of
Avila Ranch shall be located as shown in Figure 31 32, shall be chosen from the City’s
approved Street Tree Master List, and shall be in conformance with the Residential Plant
Palette listed in Figure 30.
8.1.5 Street trees shall be provided in tree wells along streets abutting the Neighborhood
Commercial Town Center with the intent of developing a continuous canopy over the
sidewalk.
8.1.6 Trees, shrubs, and plants chosen to be planted along the Tank Farm Creek riparian cor-
ridor shall utilize native, locally procured varietals.
8.1.7 Plants and shrubs planted on properties adjacent to Tank Farm Creek shall be properly
situated and maintained in order to avoid spreading into the adjacent riparian corridor.
8.1.8 Plants and shrubs shall be low water using.
8.1.9 Turf shall not be located within front yards of residential zones.
Guidelines
A. Street trees unique to each neighborhood should be utilized to provide a layer of consistency
and individuality for that neighborhood.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 42
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 52
Revised: December 18, 2015
B. Native trees, plants, and other low water using plant varieties are encouraged within Avila
Ranch and should be integrated into the project to the greatest extent possible.
C. Community gardens that are easily accessible to residents should be incorporated within Avila
Ranch in mini parks, pocket parks, and the Neighborhood Park.
D. Open space areas adjacent to Buckley Road should incorporate productive and viable agricultur-
al areas.
E. A windrow should be provided along Jespersen Drive from Buckley Road to the Neighborhood
Commercial Town Center.
F. Agriculture production related facilities should integrate a grove or farm compound styled tree
plantings to unify and add visual interest to the site.
Figure 28 Tank Farm Creek Bike Path
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 43
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 53
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 29 Overall Landscape Plan
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 44
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 54
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 30 Landscape Palette and Key
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 45
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 55
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 31 R-1 Landscaping Plan
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 46
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 56
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 32 R-2 Landscaping Plan
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 47
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 57
Revised: December 18, 2015
9.0 Buildings, Signs and Lighting
9.1 Buildings
Buildings placed throughout Avila Ranch will be rooted in the surrounding landscape and natural
open spaces through the incorporation of contextual landscaping. Landscaping will soften building edges
at the ground plane and provide attractive plantings to support the planned environment of the project.
Standard
9.1.1 Goal 5.15 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Buildings section.
9.1.2 Public art shall be incorporated within Avila Ranch in conformance with the City’s Public
Art for Private Development ordinance.
9.1.3 Public art shall reflect the agrarian history and context of the site.
Guideline
A. The location of Public Art is encouraged to be within the Town Center plazas or Neighborhood
Park as these are prominent, public locations within Avila Ranch.
9.2 Signs
Standards
9.2.1 Goal 5.17 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Signs section.
9.2.2 All signage within Avila Ranch shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Sign Regu-
lations for applicable Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Conservation/Open
Space land uses.
Guideline
A. Landscaping should be incorporated within parking courts to minimize paving and views of garages.
9.3 Lighting
Lighting for residential, commercial, and open space uses within Avila Ranch is envisioned to provide
adequate illumination levels to aide in the transitioning of urban to rural uses while also providing an
appropriate illumination level to address public safety concerns. Proposed lighting is intended to main-
tain the current low lighting levels that distinctly differentiate between existing urban and rural land us-
es within the area.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 48
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 58
Revised: December 18, 2015
Standards
9.3.1 Goal 5.18 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Lighting section.
9.3.2 Exterior lighting within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the City of San Luis
Obispo’s Community Design Standards, Airport Area Specific Plan, and Night- Sky
Preservation site requirements.
9.3.3 All exterior lighting within Avila Ranch shall be compatible with and complement the ar-
chitectural styles and landscape designs proposed.
9.3.4 Exterior lighting fixtures shall be properly shielded to minimize light overflow and glare
onto adjacent properties.
9.3.5 Trail and walking pathway lighting shall be appropriately scaled to the pedestrian. Addi-
tional overhead park lighting may be utilized in areas where pedestrian safety is a con-
cern.
9.3.6 Lighting fixtures shall be energy efficient in accordance with the latest industry and/or
technology standards.
10.0 Public Art
In order to weave and integrate Avila Ranch with the existing cultural and aesthetic fabric of San
Luis Obispo, public art is intended to be incorporated as a central organizing element within or adjacent
to the Town Center plazas or Neighborhood Park. Installations will reflect the agrarian history and con-
text of the area and that of the project site, and may include antique agricultural implements, Aeromo-
tor windmills, and other features. Signage designs for land uses within Avila Ranch comply with applica-
ble City Sign Regulations while playfully integrating and playing off of the dominant architectural charac-
ter of the area. Individual residential neighborhoods are imagined as having unique identification sign-
age to inform and direct residents and visitors. Commercial uses display functional yet simple signage
designs that effectively alerts potential patrons to their location within the Avila Ranch development.
Standards
10.1 Goal 5.16 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Public Art section.
11.0 Drainage
Drainage requirements related to Avila Ranch are intended to meet the Regional Water Control
Board’s Post Construction Requirements. The performance of designed detention basins and permeable
surfaces integrated throughout the project ensure on-site retention of the project’s share of stormwater
runoff while ensuring the safety of adjacent property.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 49
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 59
Revised: December 18, 2015
Special Fence Treat-
ment Locations (Typ)
Standard
11.1 Goal 5.19 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be
referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Drainage section.
11.2 A landscaped drainage swale shall be included along northern property line of Avila
Ranch within the R-2 and R-4 Residential Zones as shown in Figures B-31 and B-32, to fa-
cilitate drainage from adjacent property, and to provide screening to the light industrial
properties to the north.
12.0 Fencing
Fencing proposed for Avila Ranch will add to visual quality and character of the overall devel-
opment. In addition to the existing City fencing requirements, the following standards and guidelines
apply to all residential lots within Avila Ranch in order to maintain and emphasis views of Tank Farm
Creek.
Standard
12.1 Residential lots adjacent to Tank Farm Creek, parks, open spaces, or walking pathways
shall use open fencing types, as shown in Figure 33.
Guideline
A. Fencing adjacent to Tank Farm Creek, parks,
open spaces, or walking pathways should use
wrought iron or split
rail fencing types (See
Figure 34 for exam-
ples).
Figure 33 Special Fence Treatment Locations
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 50
Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 60
Revised: December 18, 2015
Figure 34 Open Space Fencing
Solid four-foot fence with open lattice above.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 51
Chapter 1
Page1-90
8.1.6. SP-4, Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area
Location: Avila Ranch is located on the north side of Buckley Road at the far southern edge of the City of
San Luis Obispo. The three parcels that make up the Avila Ranch area comprise approximately
150 acres. The entire site is located within the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Purpose: This area will be developed as primarily a residential neighborhood development with
supporting neighborhood commercial, park, recreation facilities, and open space/resource
protection. Within the project, emphasis should be on providing a complete range of housing
types and afford abilities. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the
following land use and design issues:
a.Provision of a variety of housing types and affordability levels.
b.Modification of the Airport Area Specific Plan to either exclude this area or designate it as a
special planning area within the Airport Area Specific Plan.
c.Provision of buffers along Buckley Road and along eastern edge of property from adjacent
agricultural uses.
d.Provision of open space buffers along northern and western boundaries to separate this
development from adjacent service and manufacturing uses.
e.Provision of open space buffers and protections for creek and wildlife corridor that runs
through property.
f.Safety and noise parameters described in this General Plan and the purposes of the State
Aeronautics Act; or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional
Airport.
g.Participation in enhancement to Buckley Road and enhancement of connection of Buckley
Road to South Higuera Street.
h.Appropriate internal and external pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to the City’s
circulation network.
i.Implementation of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan including connections to the Bob
Jones Trail.
j.Water and wastewater infrastructure needs as detailed in the City’s Water and Wastewater
Master Plans. This may include funding and/or construction of a wastewater lift station.
k.Fire protection and impacts to emergency response times.
l.Architectural design that relates to the pastoral character of the area and preserves view of
agrarian landscapes.
m.Provision of a neighborhood park.
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 52
Land Use Element
Page1-91
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
500 700
Commercial NC 15,000 SF 25,000 SF
Open Space / Agriculture OS
AG
50%2
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints.
2 Up to 1/3 of the open space may be provided off-site or through in-lieu fees consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan.
8.2. Special Planning Areas
The policies under Section 8.2 provide site specific guidance on the development / redevelopment of sites in
the city. For sites that have existing development, renovation of streetscapes, landscaping, and building
facades is encouraged. The City shall require property owners to prepare area plans with land uses consistent
with this section, as well as multi-modal circulation and infrastructure facilities as appropriate, design
guidelines and implementation programs. The City may consider implementation incentives for
redevelopment areas, such as variations from development standards and/or participation in the installation
or financing of infrastructure.
8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area
This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa, is
currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses.
At the affected property owners’ request, the boundary of this area on the north side of Foothill may be
extended to include one or more of the existing commercial properties west of Chorro Street. The City shall
work with property owners / developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical
mixed use) to include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community
Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations.
The non-residential component of the project should include elements that serve the nearby neighborhoods.
Examples include:
specialty stores and services
food service
entertainment, and
recreational facilities (except that movie theaters, nightclubs, bars/taverns and restaurants serving
alcohol after 11 pm shall be prohibited)
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 53
Page intentionally
left blank.
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
November 16, 2015
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners *Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
*Arrived at 6:05 p.m.
Absent: Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie
Staff: Interim Community Development Liaison Marcus Carloni, Associate
Planner Rachel Cohen, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Planning
Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen, Consultant John Rickenbach, and
Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES
The minutes of October 5, 2015 were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner Andreen recused herself from this item because she resides near the
subject property.
Commissioner Soll stated she spoke with the applicant and the appellant prior to the
hearing.
1. 128 Chorro Street. APPL-1974-2015; Review of an appeal of the Director’s approval
of a Guest Quarters permit (GUST-1645-2015); R-1 zone; Holly and Tony Garcia,
applicants; Jon Hanlon, appellant.
Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report, recommending a
resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission denying the
appeal and upholding the Community Development Director’s action to approve a guest
Draft ARC Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 2
quarters in the low-density residential zone, as represented in the agenda report and
attachments dated November 16, 2015 (128 Chorro Street, File No. GUST-1645-2015),
based on findings and subject to conditions, which he outlined.
In response to inquiries by Commissioner Nemcik, Planning Technician Van Leeuwen,
stated that the Cultural Heritage Committee would not be reviewing this project; noted
that a covenant agreement (for the guest quarters to be utilized as a bedroom only in
connection with an owner occupied residence) would be in place.
Planning Technician Van Leeuwen answered Commission inquiries, regarding
architectural compatibility, zoning code limitations, historic use of the accessory
structure, owner occupancy requirements, size of garage, and parking space
requirements.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Wynn acknowledged correspondence received from the Public.
Appellant, Jon Hanlon, San Luis Obispo, neighbor to the subject property, urged the
Commission to uphold the appeal if noise mitigation efforts are not addressed; voiced
concerns with the space changing from a non-occupied to an occupied space in a
structure that has little to no setbacks from the property line, citing a previous
application from 1981 in which the City acknowledged that setbacks were an issue.
Mr. Hanlon shared concerns over his property value diminishing; objected to operable
windows and skylights on the eastside of the proposed and existing structures;
requested the Commission ensure that the conditions in the staff report meet zoning
regulations and standards; requisitioned that all of the Director’s findings be included in
the final resolution, indicating that they are not included in the draft resolution.
Applicant, Antonio Garcia, San Luis Obispo, stated he poses minimal impact to
neighbors as a part-time resident, owning his home for 40 years without contention with
his neighbors; clarified the intent of the project is to remove an unpermitted addition to a
secondary structure, restore the garage portion of the structure to its original use, and to
create a 322-square foot addition in the R-1 zone intended to be used as guest-living
quarters for short term visitors not as a rental unit; expressed willingness to comply with
all zoning regulations and abide by conditions and covenants; indicated this would be
an improvement to his home and the neighborhood; asserted willingness to
accommodate the appellant by not installing operable windows facing east; maintained
the skylights would be operable and needed for ventilation.
Mr. Garcia stated the staff recommendations addressed the appellants concerns;
clarified that the 1981 proposal was not denied due to setback issues.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Draft ARC Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 3
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Wynn suggested interchanging the placement of the guest quarters and single car
garage to create a satisfactory layout for the appellant and applicant.
Interim community Development Liaison Carloni reminded the Commission of its ability
to continue the project to a date uncertain.
The appellant expressed interest in finding an amicable solution but maintained
opposition toward operable windows and skylights facing his property due to potential
shading issues and the obstruction of his current view.
Chair Wynn expressed agreement with the appellant’s concerns and advised against
skylights and windows facing east.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Nemcik, Chair Wynn clarified that current
standards indicate tandem parking cannot be used for garage conversion.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Root, Interim Community Development Liaison
Carloni clarified the depth of parking space is 18.4 feet.
Commissioner Curtis voiced agreement with Chair Wynn’s statement; noted being
unpersuaded by evidence in the staff report in regard to the original use of the two car
garage; spoke in favor of continuing the project in light of there being no additional
parking requirements.
Planner Technician Van Leeuwen clarified that the parking condition was removed from
the final resolution because a new tandem parking scenario was not being proposed
and the condition was not necessary.
Commissioner Soll acknowledged having prior meetings with both the applicant and
appellant.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Chair. Wynn, seconded by Commissioner Soll to continue to a date
uncertain.
AYES: Commissioners Root, Nemcik, Wynn, Curtis, Soll
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commissioner Andreen
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Ehdaie
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
Draft ARC Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 4
2. 1035 Madonna Road. ARCH-2287-2015; Preliminary review of the Draft Design
Guidelines for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project, requesting conceptual direction
to the project design; Dalidio and Laguna zones; San Luis Ranch, LLC, applicant.
Contract Planner, John Rickenbach presented the staff report, recommending that the
Architectural Review Commission provide input and direction on site layout, land usage,
architectural styles and mixes.
Planner Rickenbach answered Commissioner’s inquiries regarding land usage, access
ways to Madonna Avenue, and circulation towards Madonna Plaza.
Applicant Representative, Marshall Ochylski, from Coastal Community Builders stated
the project would be a mix-use neighborhood that incorporates agriculture as the main-
focus; expressed interest in receiving feedback from the Commission and the
community.
Property Owner Gary Grossman expressed optimism that the project will meet the
housing needs of San Luis Obispo.
Architect, Scott Martin from RRM Design Group, provided an overview of the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan project; stated key goals of the project including maintaining and
promoting San Luis Obispo’s agricultural heritage, outdoor recreation, diverse housing,
and multimodal transportation; indicated a desire to integrate this project with the
Community at large; stated that the mix-use development would offer unique housing
options for the workforce, noting this would be a smaller, denser community that would
help meet housing element goals and general plan policy goals; requested direction and
feedback.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Andreen, Mr. Martin stated that there will be a
mix of parking including alley loaded garages, and tandem parking but indicated the
details are under development; noted this will not be a car-centric development.
Mr. Martin answered Commission inquiries, regarding open space, bicycle connectivity
and sustainability; noted that the project is still in the early stages and the vision of the
project is to include open spaces, trails, bike paths, and offer sustainability.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Soll, Mr. Ochylski stated that extensive
research was done to implement concepts and elements in the development that would
fit best with the City of San Luis Obispo.
In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiry, Mr. Grossman stated that the project would be
developed over time, noting it could take an estimated eight to nine years to develop.
Draft ARC Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 5
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Theodora Jones, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with the creek potentially flooding
during the heavy rain seasons; suggested maintaining green open space between the
creek and the housing development; stated that high winds prevent people from biking
west or north and advised the developers to consider the direction of the wind into their
design; voiced concerns regarding the eucalyptus trees in the area and the birds in the
area; expressed concern over potential parking and traffic issues; suggested requiring
covenants, conditions, and restrictions to avoid overnight on-street parking, and
narrowing the street to help mitigate excess cars per housing unit, encouraging
residents to utilize public transit.
Caroline Smith, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the potential compromise of
quality of life and privacy as a result of this project; recommended to consider lots of a
larger size, opining that the lots should be similar to traditional sized yards; voiced
concerns regarding traffic and the lack of water resources in the area.
Mila Vijovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, former president of Save San Luis Obispo,
voiced environmental, economic, and safety concerns; particularly noting she would like
to know who would be financially responsible in the event of an airplane accident in the
area; spoke in support of preserving the natural habitat of plants and animals in the
area; opined the development is too large and not consistent with neighborhood
character; suggested adding connectivity to Laguna Lake, in addition to a bike trail;
recommended implementing one-way streets to help mitigate traffic, noted off-street
parking needs; voiced intent to contact Mr. Grossman and Cal Poly President
Armstrong to recommend alternative planning solutions.
Lenny Grant, member of the design team, stated that he has been a volunteer for many
years with housing organizations advocating for affordable housing; voiced support for
this project, stating that Mr. Grossman has been available to listen to concerns from the
community; noted being intimately familiar with the neighborhood; opined that there is a
need for this type of development, further describing the history of homes that have
become unaffordable for the workforce to own when homes are built on large lots;
indicated that this project would be affordable by design and would help mitigate the
housing needs of the community.
Mayson Wells, San Luis Obispo, shared concerns regarding potential traffic and
flooding issues near the creek; stated that the Prado overpass will need to be built due
to the density of the project; voiced support for a pedestrian access bridge to Laguna
Lake Park.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Andreen, Mr. Ochylski clarified that fifty acres
will be used for agricultural land.
There were no further comments from the public.
Draft ARC Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 6
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Andreen stated that she holds no opposition to the dense housing
project, considering that flooding, water, and traffic issues are addressed; opined that
the architectural mix is wonderful, highlighting the contemporary design; encouraged
that the applicant moves forward with the project.
Commissioner Root expressed concerns with the lack of private space, stating that the
public outdoor amenities need to be sufficient to meet the demands of the residents;
explained the importance of preserving the groves and wild life; added that the attached
townhomes have a wide variety of architectural styles and recommended a more
cohesive look; suggested paying close attention to the level of articulation and detail of
the architecture. Voiced support to the housing project as long as flooding, traffic, and
water issues are addressed.
Commissioner Nemcik voiced support to the project, including the idea of making this
into a community neighborhood by incorporating outdoor space and elements such as
porches and walk paths; expressed gratitude to the public for their comments and
stated that the issues that were brought forward including wind, traffic, water, parking,
and airport safety were important issues to consider; stated that there is a need for
smaller houses on smaller lots, noting that she has no concerns with density; indicated
support to the idea of adding pedestrian access to Laguna Lake Park.
Commissioner Soll discussed the importance of preserving the Eucalyptus trees;
concurred with Commissioner Andreen, that the modern/contemporary design appears
top heavy; commented that homes that lack yards will encourage people to use the
open space; expressed support for the direction of the project.
Commissioner Root, echoed Commissioners sentiments regarding the
modern/contemporary style home being too modern and suggested it should be revised.
Commissioner Curtis opined that the proposed site is not an ideal location for housing
due to many factors, including the possibility of flooding in the area; recommended that
the agricultural land be limited to direct agriculture production; stated that a street
should separate the agricultural land from the housing development; shared concerns
that consumers might find a dense housing community and having homes so close
together to be unappealing; recommended switching a portion of the commercial area to
be converted to apartment style housing in order to allow larger lot sizes for the single
family homes, noting that the adjacent shopping center on Madonna Plaza already
provides many shopping needs to the community; stated that the public comments need
to be carefully considered, including protecting the eucalyptus groves, potential flooding
issues, and concerns with circulation; indicated that connectivity to Madonna Road will
be a significant issue; advised against having an overpass on Dalidio Drive and stated
that an overcrossing would be a better option; explained that traffic signals on Madonna
Road need to be evaluated and indicated being in favor of having a pedestrian crossing
for direct access to Laguna lake Park.
Draft ARC Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 7
Chair Wynn, expressed gratitude to the public for sharing their concerns; added that the
specific plan allows for mix-used opportunities, such as allowing a business on the
lower level and housing on the upper levels of a building; suggested to leave the mix of
housing as is; stated that people like the sense of ownership from having a detached
home; stated that he would like to see an authentic design, recommending greater
articulation on allsides of the proposed townhomes (ARC-31-35); recommended more
four-sided architecture and the use of authentic materials; advised increasing roof pitch
in some areas; indicated that the design of the contemporary home did not fit in with the
agrarian theme; advised meeting storage requirements and adding storage wherever
possible; voiced concerns with the development looking “too perfect”; stated that he
would like to examine a variety of architectural styles; inquired to staff and the applicant
to review height measurements, noting the 50 foot height limit ; shared concerns with
how the NG-2 zone would appear from Madonna Road; shared concerns about how the
commercial structures would look from the adjacent residential property and maybe a
road could act as a buffer between the residential and commercial; expressed support
to the comments made by the public and the Commission.
Commissioner Soll, expressed support to the idea of making the commercial area a
mix-use space, including residential use.
Commissioner Andreen noted that having a separation between the homes might make
people feel that they have more space; suggested the builder survey different products
to find out what sells.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
No action was required.
3. 224 Tank Farm Road. ARCH-1407-2015; Review of the construction of a new
55-foot tall Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a water
tower, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-S-SP zone, Verizon
Wireless, applicant.
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending a resolution of the
Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo, approving a new
wireless telecommunications facility located at 224 Tank Farm Road, including a
categorical exemption from environmental review, dated November 16, 2015 (C-S-SP
ZONE; ARCH-1407-2015).
Aaron Anderson, Applicant Representative, requested the removal of the following
condition, noting that this area would not be seen by the public:
4. Landscaping. Landscaping using a combination of shrubs and ground cover shall
be provided around the edges of the facility to improve its appearance and to soften
its visual impact. The landscaping shall be carefully designed to be an integral part
Draft ARC Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 8
of the overall site landscaping program, employing the same planter area design
and using similar and compatible plantings used throughout the site.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Nemcik, Planner Oetzell clarified that the color
of the tank structure on the top of the tower is proposed to match the existing building
and the tower support structure would be the color of weathered metal.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Curtis, Mr. Anderson stated that the equipment
on the ground would be concealed.
In response to inquiry by Chair Wynn, Mr. Anderson stated that he could move the
ladder on the water tower to the opposite side and away from the fence.
The Commission discussed the color of the water tower, concluding that the coloring of
the tower structure should have a weathered metal appearance.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commissioner Root, seconded by Commissioner Andreen to approve a
wireless telecommunications facility, without the following condition:
4. Landscaping. Landscaping using a combination of shrubs and ground cover
shall be provided around the edges of the facility to improve its appearance and
to soften its visual impact. The landscaping shall be carefully designed to be an
integral part of the overall site landscaping program, employing the same planter
area design and using similar and compatible plantings used throughout the site.
AYES: Commissioners Andreen, Root, Nemcik, Wynn, Curtis, Soll
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Ehdaie
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
1. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
Draft ARC Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 9
The Commission agreed to cancel the meeting on December 21,, 2015 and
scheduled meetings on January 11th, February 1st, and February 8th of 2016.
Commissioner Andreen recommended the opportunity for someone to join the Tree
Committee; stated that the Tree Committee had been a good experience, noting a
desire to transition out due to a lack of time to prepare for meetings.
Marcus Carloni provided an agenda forecast of upcoming events.
2. Commission:
Commissioner Root, commented that Cal Tran’s Master Plan would probably not allow
an interchange on Dalidio Drive, suggesting it would likely be an overpass.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Root, Marcus Carloni noted that the project on
Broad Street, which has been stalled for three years, has an application for review.
Commissioner Wynn, commented on the Public Works’ bright yellow LED lights in
downtown, sharing concerns with the appearance of bright lights, and the impact to the
downtown area.
Commissioner Root, suggested addressing the proliferation of LED’s
The Commission discussed night sky lighting and the visual impact of bright lights.
Chair Wynn recommended changing the use of watts to lumens.
Commissioner Wynn noted that cutting into roads harms views and sets a bad
precedent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sarah Reinhart
Recording Secretary
Page intentionally
left blank.
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC)
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE (CHC)
JOINT MEETING MINUTES
December 7, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present: ARC Members: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn.
CHC Members: Commissioners Sandy Baer, Shannon Larrabee, James
Papp, Leah Walthert, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill.
Absent: ARC Commissioner Amy Nemcik and CHC Committee Member Craig
Kincaid.
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Interim Community Development Liaison
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary
Sarah Reinhart.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Maryann Stansfield, Atascadero, spoke on behalf of the Leadership SLO graduating
class. Stated that the class completed a “SLO Legacy Project” dealing with water
conservation and was looking forward to presenting the project in the spring of 2016.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 1009 Monterey Street. ARCH-2339-2015; Conceptual architectural review and
preliminary feedback for a new mixed-use project that includes a five-story, 60-foot
tall structure with approximately 5,400 square feet of retail space, 49,400 square
feet of office space, 10,600 square feet of residential space (21 units), 7,300 square
feet of common area, and 2,500 square feet of restaurant space; C-D-H zone; Rossi
King Organization, applicant.
Applicant Representative Rob Rossi provided an overview of the history of the building,
and reviewed the plans for the proposed project which include expanding retail, office,
and residential space; pointed out that the marquee of the Fremont Theater would
remain visible.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 2 of 10
Planning Consultant Shawna Scott, presented the staff report and reviewed the scope
of the project, including the design, architectural compatibility, and preservation of the
Fremont Theater, direction to staff and the applicant on items to be addressed in plans
submitted for formal review.
Committee Member Papp inquired about the height of the project; the applicant clarified
that the County Building is 68 feet tall and the proposed building would be 60 feet tall.
In response to inquiry by Committee Member Papp regarding the legal implications of
removing the existing buildings, Senior Planner Leveille, explained that a full historic
evaluation would be done to ensure consistency with the historic preservation
guidelines.
Commissioner Andreen inquired about the visibility impacts to the marquee; Consultant
Scott noted not having exact renderings at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, suggested eliminating the glass enclosure feature,
increasing setbacks in order to protect views of the Fremont Theater, and
recommended a lighter brick color be used; recommended creating an outdoor square;
and voiced concern over the fate of the Ficus trees on Monterrey Street.
Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, noting it meets City
objectives; appreciated the inclusion of housing. Indicated he would like to see the
views of the Fremont Theater preserved; stated supporting the removal of the adjacent
buildings.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, expressed the importance of protecting the iconic view
of the Fremont Theater, it is a community building and should be protected; opined that
the height, size and level of design of the proposed project would overwelm the Fremont
Theater.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, stated that the County Government Center should
remain prominent, noting that the proposed building height of 60 feet is very close to the
height of the County building. Shared concerns over the architecture not being
compatible with the exterior of the historic, plastered buildings; recommended that the
Fremont Theater sign remain up against the sky.
Michael Boudreau, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project; stated that with
less land available it makes sense for buildings to become taller and allow for more
affordable housing.
Chris Richardson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, stated the
importance of adding variations in the design to maintain the charm downtown; stated
that the office space is needed in the area to help accommodate the growing demands.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 3 of 10
Cheryl Mclean, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project, not liking the design
and size of the building.
Elizabeth Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, noted
concerns over the façade of the Fremont Theater becoming undermined; shared
discontent with the direction the City has taken, not maintaining the charm and
walkability in the downtown area.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, asked for
commercial uses to be limited; noting concerns over the project potentially diminishing
the unique and special qualities of San Luis Obispo.
Susan Pyburn, San Luis Obispo, suggested that the scale of the historic building
should be maintained; stated concerns withthe affordability of the proposed housing;
inquired as to the intended demographics for the housing component.
Joeseph Abrams, San Luis Obispo, stated that he hoped the applicant’s good design
and track record are reflected in the final outcome of the project.
Marilyn Forselles, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, opined that big
developers do not have the same values as the residents of San Luis Obispo.
There were no further comments made from the public.
CHC COMMENTS:
Committee Member Papp affirmed supporting the removal of the buildings; indicated the
proposed project has too many design elements that do not respect the art deco
aspects of the Fremont Theater. Stated that the new building does not need to
necessarily be art deco, but it should honor, not obstruct, the historic elements of the
Fremont Theater.
Committee Member Brajkovich expressed having mixed feelings over the proposed
height of the building; noted the importance of preserving the historical feel of the
Fremont Theater and using architecture that would complement it; voiced concerns over
parking issues; suggested the Plaza idea be developed more, appreciated the
suggestion of using lighter colors and stepping the building back to help preserve the
presence of the Fremont Theater.
Chair Hill voiced concerns with the placement of the paseo, noting she would prefer the
building be shifted closer to the Ferry Building; suggested making the alley feature
interesting and opening up the paseo with a larger space at Higuera Street; advised for
the use of materials that are durable and able to endure a long period of time;
suggested eliminating glass in the residential balconies, and simplify the design so it
becomes a backdrop to the Fremont Theater; recommended adding bike racks instead
of parking.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 4 of 10
Committee Member Papp, inquired about parking requirements; Senior Planner Leveille
explained that City policies are in place to guide this type of development, subject to
reduced parking requirements for this zone.
The Commission discussed the tradeoffs for increasing the height limit of the building
and allowing public access to the roof and the paseo; concluding that the public spaces
should add value to the community.
Following the discussion, Chair Hill summarized the comments of the Commission:
stating that the building should not overshadow existing buildings, ; the design should
be sensitive as it relates to the Fremont Theater and reiterated concerns with the
current design of the paseo; noted that with alterations, the 60-foot height could be
appropriate, considering the scale and mass for the area.
Committee Member Papp clarified that issues surrounding the level of density and
parking in downtown are not in the purview of the Cultural Heritage Commission.
There were no further comments made from the CHC Committee.
ARC COMMENTS
Chair Wynn, requested to see accurate renderings in order to best assess the size of
the building in relation to the downtown area.
Commissioner Andreen pointed out that the CHC comments were very helpful; noted
she would like the paseo to be of value to the Community; stated that the design of the
building needed to be refined; shared concerns over the lack of parking for the residents
of the building; spoke in support of preserving the views of the sky behind the marquee
of the Fremont Theater.
Commissioner Root voiced that he did not have any concerns regarding the paseo;
stated that the articulation of the building would need to be re-designed; point out the
Bradbury building in Los Angeles as a good example of the use of glass and steel, and
noted the proposed design could be improved; suggested adding an opaque treatment
to the balcony; suggested setting back the building along Monterey.
Commissioner Curtis stated it would be beneficial to have a second conceptual review
hearing; noted no objection to the height and suggested modifying and reducing the
massing; recommended gradually stepping the massing back from Monterrey Street
and articulating it as if it were two separate buildings; stated that the paseo could be
useful at Higuera Street; noted that the glass looked too stark for the design; stated not
having an objection to the brick exterior but would like to see a lighter feeling in the
upper levels; concerned that lack of parking could attract residents that would only use
the housing units as a weekend homes or rentals.
Commissioner Soll thanked the public for their feedback, recommended re-designing
the building with a more cohesive look; noted concerns regarding the lack of parking
being proposed, but supported the idea of adding a paseo.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 5 of 10
Vice-Chair Edhaie suggested having another conceptual review; agreed with previous
comments regarding the design being too complicated; suggested adding bicycle racks;
stated that the paseo would add value to the people living and working in the area;
noted supporting the uses and indicated this project would be beneficial to the
community.
Commissioner Wynn explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide the
applicant with directions during the pre-conceptual phase of the project; affirmed
wanting the process to be transparent; stated he would support adding the paseo after
some refinement; suggested it should be useful to the community opined that the paseo
should not be single loaded; ; indicated not having issues with the glass elevator or the
brick; suggested that if there is original brick that it gets re-used and preserved;
concurred with Commissioner Curtis’ concerns that the lack of parking could attract
weekend residents or that the units might be turned into air bnb’s; noted not having an
issue with the restaurant being on the same level as the housing; recommended the
applicant provide renderings demonstrating site-lines and projections on a 9 block
radius.
Applicant, Rob Rossi of Rossi King Organization, affirmed that changes would be made
to the project; noted having considered changing the placement of the paseo but
decided against it because the current design allows for more light to come through;
noted that the paseo would be an enjoyable space that would include a food court and a
market place; explained having ideas for parking, including the use of shared cars and
also including a bicycle parking area; noted that a driveway is needed to service the
Fremont Theater .
In response to Committee Member Papp’s inquiry regarding shading requirements,
Consultant Shawna Scott stated that a shading analysis would be included.
Pre-Conceptual Review only. No action was taken.
2. 1101 Monterey Street. ARCH 2323-2015; Conceptual architectural review and
preliminary feedback for a new 75-foot tall mixed-use project that includes an 80
room hotel, 26,000 square feet of residential units, 20,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant space, and 33,000 square feet of office space; C-R zone; Stone
Park Capital, applicant.
Applicant Representative, Andrew Firestone, provided an overview of the project which
seeks to connect the downtown to upper Monterey; noting that this project would best
utilize the property and help energize the area.
Applicant Representative, Pam Ricci, Planner, reviewed the history of the project site
including zoning regulations and allowed uses; pointed out that past project proposals in
the area have been auto dominated because of parking requirements, but this plan
would reinvigorate the site; noted that the project is consistent with downtown
guidelines. Representative Ricci shared the scope of the project which includes a 75-
foot hotel, a 75-foot structure intended for residential, office and restaurant use, and
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 6 of 10
indicated the intent for a Planned Development was to allow for a 75-foot tall buildings
where 45-feet is the maximum height in the C-R- zone; affirmed that this project would
serve many needs in the community.
Applicant Representative, Scott Martin, reviewed the details of the project and
requested feedback on the main aspects of the development; stated that the project
would fit in well with the overall downtown area.
In response to Commissioner Andreen’s inquiry regarding the proposed Transit Center;
Representative Ricci clarified that there is ongoing dialogue with the regional transit
authority and the location has been vetted but noted no commitment has been made.
Planner Rachel Cohen, presented the staff report, provided an overview of the project,
recommended the ARC provide feedback to the applicant.
Planner Cohen addressed Commissioners’ questions regarding shading requirements,
the possibility of adding a pedestrian bridge, and the size and position of the parking
garage; noted that adding a pedestrian bridge was discussed and could be a possibility
in the future; clarified that the parking garage would be 4-5 levels; indicated that
subterranean parking would not be possible due to drainage issues.
Commissioner Curtis commented that it would make sense to do a re-zoning of the
CBD, with clear design guidelines; Planner Cohen explained that it was staff’s
recommendation that a Planned Development was the best process for the site, but
indicated that it would be reassessed by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, stated that it was his opinion that the SLO Chamber of
Commerce does not represent the interest of the people who live in San Luis Obispo,
and noted that residents do not want large tall buildings; stated that the project does not
adhere to the General Plan; indicated supporting the mix uses but would like the
building height reduced to 45 feet.
Pam Orth, San Luis Obispo, Monterey Heights resident, spoke in opposition to the
project, noted concerns over shading and obstruction of the views to the mountains;
pointed out the large amount of vacant commercial spaces in downtown, many business
and restaurants do not remain in operation for very long.
William Cochran, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, noted concerns
over the height of the proposed building; believed the City is at a crossroads in terms of
the direction it could take; urged the Commission not approve the project.
Mike Manchar, San Luis Obispo, stated he could not endorse the project; however was
concerned with the vitality of the local community; and that there is a need for improved
infrastructure and workforce housing.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 7 of 10
Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, did not want to be
overshadowed by tall buildings; stated this building does not fit in with the City; shared
concerns over the wind due to the height of the project; and that the location was good
for a bus depot.
Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project; it would help make
downtown more robust, and is compatible with the downtown area.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, designer with over 60 years of experience, stated
concerns with losing views of the Hills; believes Santa Rosa Street is a barrier and
people won’t go to the other side; suggested an environmental study should be
conducted to ensure the project site is not toxic and/or hazardous.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the project, noted concerns with the
height.
Genevieve Czech, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over the project becoming
housing for Cal Poly students and not workforce housing; shared concerns over the size
and scale of the proposed building and suggested learning from Florence Italy, a city
that never constructed a building taller than the cathedral.
Pete Rodgers, San Luis Obispo, suggested this was the best location for the transit
center.
Dr. Steve Hanson, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over draught and climate issues;
asked for a building moratorium until water issues are resolved; warned against over
building.
Todd Smith, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, stated the project
enhances the downtown and maximizes the space; commented that infill development
is critical and parking is needed; indicated that young professionals in the area need
places to live.
Kyle Wiens, San Luis Obispo, owner of iFixit, spoke in support of the project, stated that
a transit center is needed, and noted that employees of iFixit would like to be able to live
and work in downtown.
Bob Lucas, San Luis Obispo, commended the City for having an open process; voiced
concerns over this qualifying as a plan development given the low amount of square
footage being dedicated for housing; stated that if details are overlooked the height,
massing, and scale of this project would be too big and not the right project for the
community.
Chris Richardson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, noted that the
height makes sense for the area; stated that this could make it possible for Cal Poly
grads to stay, work and live in the area post graduation; pointed out that despite
different perspectives everyone loves this community and wants to see it succeed.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 8 of 10
Sheryl Flores, San Luis Obispo, stressed the need for workforce and affordable housing
and voiced support for the project.
Charlene Rosales, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber
does not take positions, but noted that they advocate for thoughtful planning, sustaining
economic vitality, supporting appropriate infill, adding pedestrian amenities, protecting
corridors; supported redevelopment and mixed used, higher density housing. Stated
that many elements of this project align with the Chamber’s policy position. Clarified that
she was not necessary advocating for or against the height increase.
Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo, stated that SLO Chamber of Commerce did not
represent her interests either; ; spoke in opposition to the project, concerned about the
impact the proposed project would have on the views of the hills and the small town
charm of the City.
Wendy Lucas, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project; noted it would have
negative impacts in the City; concerned with the acoustic impacts of the project; urged
not to allow height limits to change.
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project; stated concerns over the
height, and lack of water resources; concerned with traffic and noise issues related to
being near Santa Rosa Street; commented that Santa Rosa Street is one of the loudest
streets; noted there would not be a substantial public benefit by allowing this project to
move forward; referred to the project as the Monterey Monster, and urged for it to be
scaled down.
Andrew Follick, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project and would meet a lot of
community needs.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Motion by Committee Member Andreen, seconded by Committee Member Ehdaie,
carried 6:0 to extend the meeting past 9:00 p.m.
AYES: Committee Members Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Root, Soll, and Wynn.
NOES: None.
RECUSED: None.
ABSENT: Committee Member Nemcik.
COMMISSIONER / COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Curtis, stated he could not support a seven floor building; suggested
changing the mix of uses and reducing the amount of retail space and housing; felt this
location would not be ideal for housing due to the large amounts of traffic and noise
level, noting this would be especially true if it becomes a transit center; shared concerns
over lack of demand for retail space noting that Santa Rosa is a substantial barrier for
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 9 of 10
people; suggested adding facilities for pedestrians to the parking garage in order to
make it more visually appealing; recommended fine tuning the massing and location.
Commissioner Andreen, stated that if the project yields good services and amenities
people would be willing to cross Santa Rosa St. and patron there; voiced concerns over
the height of the project; noted she would like to see nice pedestrian amenities in the
ground level of the parking structure, as proposed by Commissioner Curtis; suggested
scaling back on other uses but maintaining the housing element; stated that this project
would add a key component to downtown and felt it could help that section of downtown
blossom.
Commissioner Root, commented that the project seemed exciting and ambitious; stated
that the issues that were brought forth had to be scrutinized; recommended the housing
units be oriented away from the street in order to increase livability; stated that the plaza
had to be re-thought to take into consideration wind, and noise issues; stated having
mixed feelings about the height of the project; recommended a massing study; pointed
out that the demographics in San Luis Obispo are changing and noted that some people
want to work and live in downtown; stated that after some adjustments this could be a
good project.
Commissioner Soll, voiced concerns over the height of the building being too tall;
endorsed the idea of adding retail space to the floor level of the parking garage;
concurred with comments made by Commissioner Curtis regarding the location being
too loud; suggested changing the location of the plaza to help shield the noise from
Santa Rosa Street; advised against building to accommodate tourists and not for the
people living in that neighborhood; suggested incorporating a market; pointed out that
this project would be precedent setting.
Vice-Chair Edhaie, commended the applicant for proposing a high density project; did
not have an issue with the height as long as it accommodates workforce and affordable
housing; the scale and massing to be a good fit; but voiced concerns over the parking
structure being too bulky; recommended re-orienting the location of the plaza to the
inner sides of the parcel; but wanting to see the project move forward.
Commissioner Curtis recommended that the parking structure be concurrent with the
development itself.
Commissioner Wynn, stated that a 75-foot building should not be on the corner;
recommended starting at the third floor and scaling back towards the middle of the
parcel in order to help the building appear smaller and to limit shadows; concurred with
the recommendations to add programming to the side of the parking structure; believes
the paseo should be on the Santa Rosa Street due to the location of the sun; suggested
the applicant look at how other plazas have mitigated the noise by using waterfalls or
other materials; recommended including a market or other access to food; stated
changing the zone would be the best option; recommended closing a portion of Higuera
Street to be used only by public transportation and emergency vehicles if there is a
transit center at this location; stated not being in favor of midway crossings; suggested
the height of the project be comparable to the County Building, around 60 feet voiced
support for the design of the project.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 10 of 10
Commissioner Root stated that the barrier between Santa Rosa Street and the
downtown area could be softened with an enhanced pedestrian crossing.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Applicant Representative Andrew Firestone expressed appreciation for the feedback
and input.
No action was taken.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
Staff:
1. Agenda Forecast
a. Staff provided a brief forecast regarding future ARC hearing items which
include:
i. Review of “The Yard” project at 2450 Victoria Ave (23 live/work
units and 20 residential units among 8 new buildings).
ii. Review of 2390 Loomis Street project (ARC design review
recommendation to the City Council on a single-family residence
under appeal).
iii. Review of Motel Inn project
Commission:
1. The ARC commented on the recently installed illuminated entrance portal at the
Toyota dealership on Los Osos Valley Road.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sarah Reinhart
Recording Secretary