HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-16 ARC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Architectural Review Commission
Monday, November 21, 2016
5:00 pm
REGULAR MEETING
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Wynn
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Brian Rolph, Allen Root, Angela Soll,
Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of October 17, 2016
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. 1911 Johnson Avenue. ARCH-3641-2016: Review of modifications to a previously-approved
medical office building within the French Hospital campus and associated amendment to the
campus master plan, including removal of a 6,000-square foot office building from the plan,
with a determination that the significant environmental effects have been adequately addressed
in a previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project consists of a four-story
plus basement, 58,600-square foot medical arts building, basement parking garage, and
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of November 21, 2016 Page 2
additional parking spaces within the campus; O-S zone; San Luis Obispo Physicians Health
Alliance, applicant. (Shawna Scott)
2. 2881 Broad Street. ARCH-2264-2015: Continued review of four single-family dwellings
within a Common Interest Development, including minor exceptions to reduce Other Yards to
zero for carports and to allow building encroachments ranging from 1 to 7.5 feet into interior
Other Yards for limited portions of three buildings (categorically exempt from environmental
review); R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Finalize Recommended Goals for the 2017-2019 Financial Plan
b. Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Architectural Review Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday,
December 5 , 2016 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
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 $281
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.
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, October 17, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
October 17, 2016 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Standing Chair Suzan Ehdaie.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, and Standing Chair Suzan
Ehdaie
Absent: Chair Greg Wynn
Staff: Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen,
and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Consideration of Minutes for the Architectural Review Commission Regular Meeting
of August 15, 2016:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ROOT, to approve the Architectural Review Commission Minutes of
August 15, 2016 as presented on the following 4:0:1 vote:
AYES: Nemcik, Root, Soll, Ehdaie
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wynn
Consideration of Minutes for the Architectural Review Commission Regular Meeting of
September 12, 2016:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, to approve the Architectural Review Commission
Minutes of September 12, 2016 as presented on the following 4:0:1 vote:
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 2
AYES: Root, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wynn
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 560 Higuera Street. ARCH-3020-2016: Continued review of a mixed-use project that
includes 18 residential units and a commercial tenant space within the Downtown Commercial
zone, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D zone; Creekside Lofts,
LP., applicant.
Deputy Director Davidson introduced Associate Planner Cohen who provided Staff Report on the
Item continued from the August 15th ARC meeting with four (4) Directional Items.
Associate Planner Cohen passed a new materials board to Commissioners.
In response to inquiries by Commissioner Root, Associate Planner Cohen confirmed there are a
total of twenty-six (26) required parking spaces associated with this project, including nine (9)
approved off-site parking spaces.
Associate Planner Cohen responded to further inquiry by Commissioner Root, regarding the
parking structure on Nipomo and Monterey; indicated that a consultant has been hired to prepare
an environmental report, though no specific timeline for completion has been established.
In response to Commissioner Soll’s inquiry about the location of trees in the parking area not being
referenced in the preliminary landscape plan, Associate Planner Cohen stated that the existing
parking lot would remain (in the pole of the flag lot) as they are part of a parking easement.
Including additional trees could reduce the number of parking spaces.
Associate Planner Cohen responded to further inquiry by Commissioner Soll, regarding the
extension of the creek-walk threading through the parking garage; explained that the path behind
the back of the Creamery is blocked by a staircase and the applicant is proposing that the path pass
through the Creamery and then back out along the creek behind the proposed project.
Commissioner Soll commented that the solstice shadow encroachment should not shadow at noon
and inquired about a freestanding wall that might exist for shielding Dana Street residents from
headlight trespass; Associate Planner Cohen responded that condition #9 in the resolution had been
added by staff that required the project to include a wall or landscaping to limit light trespass onto
neighboring properties.
Commissioner Soll inquired about potential 3-dimensional imaging of neighboring and impending
projects toward a more holistic perspective; Associate Planner Cohen responded that a 3-D model
was not submitted as part of the plans
Commissioner Nemcik inquired about the assigning of tandem parking spaces for each unit;
Associate Planner Cohen responded that each tandem space would be assigned to one unit
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 3
Commissioner Ehdaie requested clarification about the onsite and offsite parking for the Creamery.
Associate Planner Cohen responded that 20 spaces are provided for the site – the required 11 spaces
for the proposed project and 9 off-site spaces for the Creamery.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Damien Mavis, project developer, discussed the Applicant’s response to the four (4) Directional
Items and responded specifically to Commissioner Soll’s multiple inquiries.
Commissioner Nemcik inquired about the material of the railings and about potential screening
for the mechanical equipment.
Commissioner Root inquired about the operational nature of the trash chute; inquired about the
aesthetics of the terra cotta tile.
Applicant Architect Steve Rigor responded to Commissioner Soll’s inquiries about the balance
between brick and corten steel elements.
Commissioner Soll inquired about the potential for noise-reducing plexiglass on the balconies.
Standing Chair Ehdaie requested clarification on the proposed materials for the vertical walls;
inquired whether the units were for sale or for rent; inquired about the transition from The
Creamery to the project and its applicability to the creek-path route.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Gary Dwyer, San Luis Obispo, commented that the City continues to treat Dana Street as an ugly
stepsister through its lack of maintenance and provision of free parking for downtown workforce
leading to the overabundance of auto presence.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, read excerpts from Alan Cooper’s public correspondence
regarding the landscape plan; questioned why this project was untethered from the Nipomo Lofts
project in the ARC hearing as intended.
Mary Mitchell, San Luis Obispo, voiced objection to the project because it sets a precedent for
future four-story apartment complexes in Downtown which do not adequately address parking
concerns.
Donna Duerk, San Luis Obispo, indicated her belief that the directive for the proposed project to
make height compatible with The Creamery has not been well served.
Ursula Bishop, San Luis Obispo, commented on her previously written request to have
neighborhood compatibility of both the Nipomo Lofts and this project considered in tandem not
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 4
having been honored and further requested postponement of this Item’s hearing; shared Creative
Vision’s suggestions for a creek-walk as it considers the privacy of Dana Street residents.
Geoffrey Chiapella, San Luis Obispo, spoke as transportation planner on SLOCOG staff; discussed
regional land use patterns and subsequent goals for providing vision toward how the community
will grow in order to accommodate reduction of vehicular-travel emissions; voiced support of this
in-fill development as a corrective.
Mary White, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the ever-worsening street parking issues and how
problems of light and noise from a parking garage will affect residents directly across the creek.
Nancy Hubbard, San Luis Obispo, spoke as South Town Eighteen’s project manager on the
adequacy on which the Applicant responded to the Commission’s previous suggestions.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Standing Chair Ehdaie indicated that one topic of discussion should concern mechanical
equipment screening.
Deputy Director Davidson responded to Commissioner Soll’s inquiry regarding plans for the
shielding of parking garage lighting by pointing out Condition #5.
Commissioner Soll inquired about the mandatory nature of developing the creek-walk, in
consideration of potential Special Overlay Ordinances for neighborhoods which buttress up
against commercial buildings; stressed the positives that evolved out of the Discussion Items;
voiced concerns about not being able to view project in holistic context with other neighboring
major developments to determine balance in compatibility.
Commissioner Root commented on the improvement made on the massing, the color scheme,
and the overall architecture; provided architectural suggestions for the elevation facing the creek.
Commissioner Nemcik concurred with Commissioner Root’s assessments and further
commented on the Applicant’s having responded favorably in becoming more compatible with
The Creamery; indicated that it was not necessary to view this project as part of a whole with the
Nipomo Lofts; discussed adding verbiage within Condition #9 as it pertains to screening of light
into the creek.
Commissioner Root added that transmission of noise is of additional concern which should also
be addressed with proper screening.
Standing Chair Ehdaie voiced support of project; voiced that the creek path should both continue
as a connector and remain in line with the Downtown Concept Vision Plan; indicated her
preference for boosting privacy-infringement mitigation measures.
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 5
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, the Architectural Review Commission adopted the Draft
Resolution based on findings and with the following amendment:
A.) Condition #9 to read, “The final building plans shall include additional screening in front of
the parking facing the creek to reduce the potential of light and noise trespass into the creek
and residential areas north of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.”
on the following 4:0:1 vote:
AYES: Root, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wynn
Standing Chair Ehdaie provided a five-minute recess.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
1. STAFF
a. Advisory Body Goals
Deputy Director Davidson introduced the early phases of the Architectural Review Commission
Goal-Setting and Financial Plan & Budget Process for 2017-2019; provided a PowerPoint
presentation on the process and the current financial context for it; mentioned that recused Chair
Wynn had submitted a goal list to Community Development in absentia; requested Commission
to provide preliminary set of goals through discussion.
Standing Chair Ehdaie established an outline for roundtable dialogue from both the ARC’s
previous 2015-2017 goals and Chair Wynn’s provided list; Commission discussion ensued.
By consensus of Architectural Commission Members, three (3) broad topics for budget goals were
identified toward fine-tuning of language by the deadline of November 7th: A.) Alternative
transportation incentives; B.) Community Design Guidelines; and C.) Recycled water.
b. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Director Davidson provided the Agenda Forecast:
First Meeting in November: 399 Foothill (corner of Tassajara Drive) mixed-use project
Deputy Director Davidson provided an update on appeals as they pertained to 22 Chorro Street;
Bishop Street Studios; Discovery signage; and the Olive Street mixed-use project.
Commissioner Soll requested further information on Assembly Bill 1069 for future discussion.
Commissioner Root mentioned the impact Measure J could possibly have on the backlog of
infrastructure projects.
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 6
ADJOURNMENT: Standing Chair Ehdaie adjourned the meeting at 7:36 PM.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2016
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of modifications to a previously-approved medical office building within the
French Hospital campus and associated amendment to the campus master plan, including removal of
a 6,000-square foot office building from the plan, with a determination that the significant
environmental effects have been adequately addressed in a previously-adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The project consists of a four-story plus basement, 58,600-square foot medical arts
building, basement parking garage, and additional parking spaces within the campus.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1911 Johnson BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3641-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) based on findings, and subject
to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant San Luis Obispo Physicians Health
Alliance (SLOPHA2), LLC
Representative Tim Ronda & Brian Starr, Studio
Design Group Architects, Inc.
Submittal Date August 9, 2016
Complete Date October 27, 2016
Zoning O‐S (Office Zone with the Special
Consideration overlay)
General Plan Office
Site Area 18 acres (overall hospital
campus)
Environmental
Status
A Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) of environmental impact
was approved by the City Council
on December 7, 1993.
SUMMARY
In 1993, the City approved a master plan for the French Hospital campus that anticipated the ultimate
build-out of the site with needed facilities for a range of different services. The plan included four
new buildings, including a 30,000-square foot (sf), three-story medical office building, identified as
“Building E”, an addition to the hospital, and a substantial expansion of site parking. An amendment
Meeting Date: November 21, 2016
Item Number: 1
ARC1-1
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 2
to the master plan was approved in 2013, which modified the sizes and locations of proposed
buildings; this approved amendment did not include any modifications to Building E.
In 2014, the applicant submitted revised plans for Building E, and in December 2014, the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed and approved the applicant’s proposal for a four-
story, 31,471 sf medical office building with a two-level parking garage; the action included approval
of a building height variance, allowing a maximum building height of 62 feet. Since that time, the
applicant has requested a design modification of Building E to better accommodate uses desired by
the French Hospital in response to community needs for medical care. In addition, the applicant is
requesting to amend the campus master plan by removing Building A; this 6,000-sf hospital office
building was included in the 1993 master plan, and was never constructed. Additional revisions to the
master plan include modifications to the square-footage of future buildings C and F (French Hospital
expansions), and modifications to the location of parking spaces, in order to accommodate the full
range of uses identified in the proposed revised campus master plan. The applicant is not requesting
design review of Buildings C or F at this time.
Therefore, the applicant is now requesting an amendment to the master plan and architectural approval
of the revised Building E (medical arts building).
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project includes the construction of the new medical arts building on the hospital campus as
shown on the proposed amended master plan. A height variance was previously approved by the
ARC, and no changes to the maximum height allowed by that approval are proposed; therefore, the
Commission’s purview does not include re-consideration of the previously-approved variance. The
ARC’s role is to review the proposed design modifications in terms of the project’s consistency with
the Community Design Guidelines (CDG).
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The overall hospital campus property is approximately 18 acres in size and extends generally from
Johnson Avenue to the railroad tracks. The site is composed of several different properties, some
of which are under separate ownership, and has an irregular shape. The various property lines
and ownerships are called out on the applicant’s plans (refer to Attachment 3, Sheet A1.0
Proposed Campus Plan – Current Phase). The main hospital access is at the stoplight at Johnson
Avenue and Lizzie Street. There is also a stoplight at Johnson Avenue and Ella Street with access
Site Size 18 acres
Present Use & Development French Hospital, medical offices, parking
Land Use Designation Office
Access Johnson Avenue, Ella Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: O‐S/R‐3 (Hospital campus / residential)
South: O‐S/R‐2 (Hospital campus / residential)
East: O‐S/R‐2 (Hospital campus / residential)
West: O‐S/R‐3 (Hospital campus / residential)
ARC1-2
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 3
to the site from Ella Street. The developed part of the hospital property is fairly flat to gently
sloping, but there is a steep slope bank between Johnson Avenue and the front parking lot, and
another steep slope bank between rear parking areas and the undeveloped property owned by the
hospital to the west. The project site is on Parcel 4, which is to the south of the hospital and to
the west of Pacific Medical Plaza. The overall campus site development includes the one- and
two-story French Hospital building, the three-story Pacific Medical Plaza to the south of the
hospital (separate ownership), and the Ella Street medical condominiums further to the south
(separate ownership). A 1,800 square-foot modular building that serves as a business office is
located on the north side of the hospital. Surface parking fields surround buildings. Land uses
surrounding the campus include vacant land, railroad tracks, and residential uses to the west, and
residential uses to the north, south and east.
Six structures have been constructed to date, including: the one- and two-story French Hospital
building (87,850 sf); three-story Pacific Medical Plaza (48,000 sf) to the south of the hospital
(separate ownership); a modular business office (1,800 sf); three-story Copeland Health
Education Pavilion (Building B) (17,742 sf); operating room hospital expansion (Building D,
4,850 sf); and two-story Ella Street Office Building (12,000 sf). Additional constructed features
include surrounding onsite parking, emergency vehicle access, detention basin, and paved Class
I bike path (refer to Figure 1 2012 Approved Campus Site Plan and Attachment 3, Sheet A1.3
Existing Overall Campus Plan).
2.3 Project Description
Revised Master Plan: The applicant is proposing the following revisions to the Approved 2012
Master Site Plan (refer to Figure 2 Proposed Revised Overall Campus Site Plan and Attachment
3, Sheet A1.2 Proposed Overall Campus Plan):
Building A: 6,000 sf hospital office proposed for removal from plan
Building C: hospital expansion proposed to be reduced from 17,550 sf to 14,000 sf
(reduction of 3,500 sf)
Building E: medical office building proposed to be increased from 31,471 sf and two-story
parking garage to 58,600 sf and basement-level parking
Building F: emergency room expansion proposed to be increased from 5,450 sf to 8,669
sf (increase of 3,219 sf)
Revised onsite parking lot spaces in response to proposed uses and due to loss of existing
spaces as plan is built-out:
- 56 vehicle and 6 motorcycle new surface parking spaces west of the hospital
- 29 new surface parking spaces east of Breck Street
- 7 new surface parking spaces in the southwest corner of site
- 24 surface parking spaces approved in the 1993 master plan for Building A to
remain to accommodate build-out parking demand.
Figure 1 2012 Approved Campus Site Plan, below, shows the buildings, hospital expansions,
parking areas, and other improvements approved under the 2012 Master Plan. For comparison,
Figure 2 Proposed Revised Overall Campus Site Plan, below, shows the proposed revisions to the
Master Plan; proposed changes are highlighted in red. The total proposed parking space count
would meet the required demand upon build-out of the proposed revised campus master plan.
ARC1-3
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 4
Figure 1. 2012 Approved Campus Site Plan
Figure 2. Proposed Revised Overall Campus Site Plan
ARC1-4
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 5
Proposed Medical Arts Building E: The new medical arts building (Building E) will be four
stories, with a 58,500-sf floor area and 27,000-sf basement parking garage, and is located west of
the Pacific Medical office complex on the south side of French Hospital. The proposed building
site is currently surface parking. The proposed project includes the following:
Basement: 61-space parking garage, chiller, mechanical room, elevator equipment,
electrical (27,000 sf)
Floor 1: Surgery center and catheterization laboratory (cath lab) (16,500 sf), obstetrics
(ob) (10,600 sf)
Floor 2: Medical offices (10,500 sf)
Floor 3: Medical offices (10,500 sf)
Floor 4: Medical offices (10,500 sf)
Differences between 2014 Building E Approval and Proposed Project: The primary architectural
modification from the previously approved plans is located within the southwest portion of the
building. The 2014 ARC approval allowed a two-story parking garage, with covered parking at
the basement level and uncovered parking on the first floor. The currently proposed project
includes covered parking in the basement, and a surgery center and cath lab on the first floor.
Comparing the two plans, the current proposal would increase the overall height of the southwest
portion of the building by approximately 17 feet. The comparative changes are shown in Figures
3 and 4 below (also refer to Attachment 3, Sheets A2.6 and A2.7, Elevations).
Figure 3. South Elevation, 2014 Approved Design
Figure 4. South Elevation, Currently Proposed
Parking Garage
ARC1-5
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 6
The northeastern portion of the building will largely remain the same in appearance, with some
minor increases and decreases in the elevation of a few vertical features on Floor 4, primarily in
the range of approximately 3 to 7 feet. One vertical increase of 12 feet is proposed along the east
elevation; however, this feature would be located behind the existing Pacific Medical Plaza. In
addition, the floor area of Floor 4 would be greater than what was approved in 2014 (refer to Table
1 Floor Area Comparison, below). The comparative changes are shown in Figures 5 and 6 below
(also refer to Attachment 3, Sheets A2.6 and A2.7, Elevations).
Table 1 below outlines the differences in uses and floor area between the 2014 ARC approved
plans and the currently proposed modifications. As discussed below, the overall architectural
design, colors, and materials would not change.
Table 1. Floor Area Comparison
Floor 2014 ARC Approval
Total Area (sf)
2016 Proposed Revision
Total Area (sf)
Basement Parking: 27,409 Parking: 27,000
Floor 1 Medical Offices: 11,3671 Surgery Center & Cath Lab: 27,100
Floor 2 Medical Offices: 11,334 Medical Offices: 10,500
Floor 3 Medical Offices: 11,334 Medical Offices: 10,500
Floor 4 Medical Offices: 4,975 Medical Offices: 10,500
Total 66,419 1 85,600
1 Does not including uncovered upper parking lot
Figure 5. East & West Elevations,
2014 Approved Design
Figure 6. East & West Elevations,
Currently Proposed
ARC1-6
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 7
Parking: In order to accommodate parking demand for the proposed medical arts building
(Building E) and 109 surface parking spaces displaced by the construction of the building, the
applicant has designated 61 vehicle and 6 motorcycle spaces within the building’s basement
parking garage, 6 short-term bicycle spaces near the medical arts building entrance, 16 parking
lot spaces near the building, and 71 vehicle and 6 motorcycle parking spaces in the eastern portion
of the campus. An additional 36 parking spaces are identified in the campus master plan to
accommodate future uses (refer to Attachment 3 Sheet A1.2 Proposed Overall Campus Plan). As
proposed, the overall campus master plan would provide 701 total vehicle parking spaces, which
is one space more than the minimum required 700 vehicle spaces for existing, proposed, and
future uses. Six short-term bicycle spaces are proposed to the east of the main building entrance
and 28 long-term bicycle parking are proposed within the basement parking garage (refer to
Attachment 3 Sheet A2.1 Site Plan and Sheet A2.2 Basement Floor Plan, respectively).
Height: The proposed height of the structure would be 62 feet, with some vertical articulation
along the roofline. A variance was processed and approved in 2014, allowing a maximum height
of 62 feet, and no modifications to maximum height of the structure are proposed.
Design: Similar to the previous design approved in 2014, the new freestanding building has been
designed to coordinate with the surrounding existing buildings. The main stucco building color
is a gold color (Pale Pollen). The large wall surfaces are relieved by stucco ‘J’ control joints to
add some texture and pattern. The other main surface material is a box-beam aluminum siding
that is used on tower elements and the first floor. Brushed aluminum is used on decorative
columns, canopies, and trim pieces.
In conjunction with the medical arts building, the basement parking garage will be located directly
to the west of the medical arts building. The parking garage would be accessed from stairs and
elevators on the east and west ends, and vehicular access driveway on the west end.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Consistency with the Community Design Guidelines
The CDG establish the intent of the development standards for office structures, and recognizes
that these types of structures differ from other commercial buildings, in that the building scale is
typically larger, primary activities are not limited to the first floor, and there are fewer entries
along building perimeters. In addition, the location of the project within an existing hospital
campus provides a context specific to this site, and the relative function and coordination among
the various medical and office buildings and facilities, which is recognized in the site’s O-S zone.
Overall, the project is compatible with the existing building elements within the hospital campus,
including the location of the structure proximate to existing medical buildings, consistent with the
approved campus master plan and intended function of the campus as a whole.
Building Design: When the ARC approved plans on July 1, 2013 for the Health Education and
Technology Pavilion and the urgent care facility, the applicant was directed to pursue a “holistic
architectural master plan for unifying the campus aesthetic”. To this end, and similar to the
previously-approved project, the design of the new building uses many of the same colors and
materials as the Pavilion building and has a mass and scale similar to the adjacent Pacific Medical
Plaza. Applicant-prepared photo-simulations show how the proposed project presents a style,
mass, and scale similar to existing structures within the hospital campus (refer to Attachment 3,
ARC1-7
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 8
Sheets A2.14 and A2.15 Renderings). Chapter 3.4 of the CDG provides guidance regarding the
building design for offices, specifically Section C.2, which is excerpted below in bold followed
by staff’s analysis of the proposed design in italics.
a. Depending upon adjacent land uses and building scale and mass, it may be
appropriate to place the first floor at the minimum setbacks, with upper floors set
back further.
Due to the grade of the property, the eastern portion of the building is four stories, and
the western portion of the building is two stories, including the visible portion of the
basement parking garage. Compared to the 2014 approved project, which proposed a
smaller and stepped-back fourth floor, the fourth floor of the proposed project is the same
size as the second and third floors.
This provision is more applicable to office zones on smaller lots where there may be lower
and/or residential structures in near proximity to the property lines. In this case, the
proposed building site is interior to the site and not near off-site buildings or residential
property lines. Therefore, considering the context, the project is generally consistent with
the intent of this guideline, by using varied stories to reduce the apparent overall mass of
the structure.
b. Building surfaces over two stories high or 40 feet in length should provide vertical
and horizontal wall plane offsets.
Vertical articulation is provided by the offset massing of the elevator towers and taller wall
projections that extend above the main building floors. Similar to the 2014 approved project,
a variety of different building details are utilized to provide horizontal articulation and further
help break up the apparent mass of the overall building through changes in surface textures
and recesses and projections along wall planes. The irregular building footprint provides
opportunities for the offsets and metal column and canopy details provide a unifying theme
and additional relief. The described features give the building additional relief and provide
some shadow. To provide further definition, the plaster walls will be painted in a gold color
(Pale Pollen) in contrast to the clear anodized aluminum storefronts of the curtain walls and
the box-beam aluminum siding that is used on tower elements and the first floor.
c. Office structure facades should have extensive window areas.
Similar to the 2014 approved project, the modern building includes extensive amounts of
windows; therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline.
d. The primary building entrance should be designed as a highly visible and significant
architectural feature.
Similar to the 2014 approved project, the building entrance is located in the southeast corner
and is oriented toward surrounding parking and driveway areas. The entry doors are
recessed back from adjacent building walls. A landscaped island separates a covered porte-
cochere drop-off area in front of the entrance from driveways. The proposed design is
consistent with the guideline to make a visible and interesting architectural statement for the
ARC1-8
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 9
entry. The landscaping plan (Attachment 3, Sheet L-1) indicates that enhanced paving will be
used for the surface of the entry area below the porte-cochere. Condition No. 10 is
recommended to call out the enhanced paving on building plans to the approval of the
Community Development Director. The porte-cochere also serves the dual purpose of
providing usable outdoor space at the second floor level as a deck and garden. Details are
included on an inset on Sheet L-1. Staff supports this design and finds that it further highlights
and enhances the overall entry design.
Building Height: As mentioned in the project description, a variance was previously approved,
allowing a maximum building height of 62 feet. The proposed modifications do not include any
changes that affect the findings that were adopted in order to approve the variance1 (refer to
Attachment 4, ARC Agenda Report dated December 15, 2014).
Parking: Site parking for the entire campus reflects years of development and is very complicated
with shared facilities between different entities. A major parking expansion was developed on the
west side of the hospital that added 270 parking spaces and was finalized in 2003. A total of 632
parking spaces are presently provided. Attachment 3, Sheet A1.0 Proposed Campus Plan –
Current Phase provides a parking summary that looks at existing facilities and their demand and
the added demand of the subject project. The new building requires a total of 229 parking spaces.
Required overall parking is 672 spaces, excluding future uses. Provided parking is outlined in
Table 2 below.
Table 2. Building E Parking Summary
New Vehicle Parking
Parking Garage
Surface Parking
61
87
Subtotal 148
Existing Parking Removed -109
Net New Parking 39
Existing Parking 632
Total Parking Provided 671
Total Parking Required 672
New Motorcycle and Bicycle Parking 1
Motorcycle Parking 12 provided / 11 required
Short-term Bike 6 provided / 3 required
Long-term Bike 28 provided / 27 required
1 Note: Based on 229 new vehicle parking spaces associated with project
1 Adopted findings included: 1) The large size of the hospital campus and approved master plan; 2) The precedent to
allow taller buildings for hospital facilities given their importance to the community; and 3) The minimal visual impacts
of the added height because of its location on the interior of the site near a like-sized building and removed from adjacent
residential uses.
ARC1-9
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 10
Although the proposed plan is short one parking space, staff finds that based on the extent of
available parking onsite, and the provision of adequate parking upon build-out of the campus
master plan, the lack of one space would not result in an unsafe condition and would not be
detrimental to the surrounding area or cause a decline in quality of life. In addition, the project
provides one additional motorcycle space, three additional short-term bicycle parking spaces, and
one additional long-term bicycle parking space.
Total comparative parking demand between the 2014 approved plan and the currently proposed
plan is shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Build-out Parking Summary
2014 Approved Plan Currently Proposed Plan
Existing Parking Demand 443 spaces 443 spaces
Building E Parking Demand 157 spaces 229 spaces
Future / Parking Demand 69 spaces 1 28 spaces 2
Total Required 669 spaces 700 spaces
Total Proposed 701 spaces
1 Buildings A, C and F
2 Elimination of Building A, Revised Buildings C and F
Screening of Roof-mounted Equipment: Attachment 3, Sheets A2.8 Building Section & A2.9
Site Sections include typical HVAC units to show how building parapets will screen equipment
from off-site views. Condition No. 8 is included requiring working drawings for a building permit
to provide additional detail to assure that equipment screening is adequate.
Lighting: Attachment 3 Sheet A2.13 Lighting and Trash Plan includes information on the
locations of proposed site and building lighting. Proposed soffit lights under canopies and low-
scale bollard lights are well-placed and in compliance with the City’s Night Sky Ordinance.
Tree Removals: Similar to the 2014 approved project, a total of 14 trees (9 eucalyptus, 3 camphor
& 2 bottlebrush) will need to be removed to accommodate construction. Their locations are shown
on the conceptual landscaping plan (Attachment 3, Sheet L-1 Conceptual Landscaping Plan). The
legend indicates that new tree planting will occur, but the exact number of replacement trees is
not entirely clear. Generally, a 1:1 ratio of compensatory tree planting for trees removed is
required with projects. Condition 11 calls for tree protection measures to be in place during
construction, and for 1:1 ratio compensatory tree planting to be shown in landscaping plans.
Additional guidance related to the trees is provided in Public Works Conditions 36 and 37.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by the Community Development Department
on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project
development. The MND was adopted by the Planning Commission with the approval of the original
1993 campus master plan. Approved mitigation measures that are still relevant are included as
conditions of approval. At the time of the 2013 campus master plan revision, the applicant submitted
ARC1-10
ARCH-3641-2016 (1911 Johnson)
Page 11
a traffic analysis by Orosz Engineering Group dated December 31, 2012, which documents that the
conclusion of the original traffic analysis from 1993 performed by Gerald Skiles (referenced in the
original initial study) is still relevant, in that planned facilities will not result in trip generation levels
that will adversely affect baseline intersection operations or Level of Service on Johnson Avenue.
The new analysis made this conclusion based on a trip generation comparison which took into
consideration current conditions including modifications to adjacent roadways. Upon review of the
current proposal, the applicant provided traffic data to the City Public Works, Transportation
Engineers, to confirm that the project would not reduce multi-modal Level of Service. Based on
review by City Transportation Engineers, the project would not reduce multi-modal Level of Service;
therefore, the findings of the adopted MND remain consistent. Based on the minor changes to the
project, and inclusion of previously adopted mitigation measures into the recommended conditions
of approval, Staff recommends that the ARC find that the significant environmental effects have been
adequately addressed in the previously adopted MND.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the Conditions of Approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
6.2 Continue the project to a date uncertain with directional items.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Applicant Proposal and Project Plans
4. ARC Agenda Report, Resolution, and Minutes dated December 15, 2014
5. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 109-93
Provided to Commissioners: 11 x 17 copy of plan set
ARC1-11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA GRANTING
APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO THE FRENCH HOSPITAL MASTER
PLAN AND GRANTING FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL TO A 58,600
SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING KNOWN AS THE MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING, AND AN ASSOCIATED BASEMENT PARKING GARAGE AT
FRENCH HOSPITAL (1911 JOHNSON AVENUE ARCH-3641-2016)
WHEREAS, the applicant, SLOPHA2, LLC., submitted a request for approval of
proposed revisions to the French Hospital Master Plan at 1911 Johnson Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, SLOPHA2, LLC., submitted a request for architectural
approval of a proposal to develop the 58,600 square-foot office building at 1911 Johnson Avenue,
and associated basement parking structure; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing to review and discuss plans in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 21, 2016, for the purpose of evaluating
the revised master plan; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing to review and discuss plans in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 21, 2016, for the purpose of evaluating
Building E Medical Arts Building for final design review; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of
environmental impact on December 7, 1993 for the hospital master plan that adequately evaluated
the potential environmental impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows/or that (whatever action is needed):
SECTION 1. Findings.
a) Development included in the proposed master plan will not adversely affect the
health, safety and welfare of persons living at the site or in the vicinity, because the
project design and required review of certain future uses address the concerns of
the special considerations zone which are:
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-12
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
i) Types of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with
general plan policies;
ii) City noise standards are satisfied;
iii) Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe
access to the site are provided; and
iv) Open space is preserved.
b) The development is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible
with surrounding land uses.
c) As conditioned, the proposal conforms to the general plan and meets zoning
ordinance requirements, including the concerns of the special considerations zone.
d) The project is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy 3.4.2 C which
recommends that medical services should be located near hospitals.
e) The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of those living
and working in the vicinity since the proposed location of the office building are
internal to the site and separated from nearby residences by parking areas, open
space and landscaping.
f) As conditioned, the project is consistent with Chapter 3.4 C of the Community
Design Guidelines that provides directives for offices, since it will create an
attractive building that is complementary to other site structures and provides
vertical and horizontal wall plane offsets, extensive window areas, and an
articulated entry.
g) A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by the Community
Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant
environmental impacts associated with project development. The MND was
adopted by the Planning Commission with the approval of the original 1993 campus
master plan. Approved mitigation measures that are still relevant are included as
conditions of approval. At the time of the 2013 campus master plan revision, the
applicant submitted a traffic analysis by Orosz Engineering Group dated December
31, 2012, which documents that the conclusion of the original traffic analysis from
1993 performed by Gerald Skiles (referenced in the original initial study) is still
relevant, in that planned facilities will not result in trip generation levels that will
adversely affect baseline intersection operations or Level of Service on Johnson
Avenue. The new analysis made this conclusion based on a trip generation
comparison which took into consideration current conditions including
modifications to adjacent roadways. Upon review of the current proposal, the
applicant provided traffic data to the City Public Works, Transportation Engineers,
to confirm that the project would not reduce multi-modal Level of Service. Based
on review by City Transportation Engineers, the project would not reduce multi-
modal Level of Service; therefore, the findings of the adopted MND remain
consistent. Based on the minor changes to the project, and inclusion of previously
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-13
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3
adopted mitigation measures into the recommended conditions of approval,
significant environmental effects have been adequately addressed in the previously
adopted MND.
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval
to the revised master plan and Building E (medical arts building and associated parking), subject
to the following conditions of approval:
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code
requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of
listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design,
colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director
or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. All applicable conditions of Use Permit A 140-11 approving a master plan for development of
the hospital campus including the subject medical arts building in the Office zone are
incorporated herein by reference.
3. The color and material board presented at the meeting were supported by the Architectural
Review Commission. Any modifications to the approved palettes shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working
drawings.
4. All stucco and plastered surfaces shall have a smooth hand-finished appearance to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and not be a sprayed-on type of
application. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly show the details of all windows and
storefronts and canopy features to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
6. A separate permit shall be obtained for all building signage, which shall fully comply with the
requirements included in the City’s sign regulations.
7. The locations of all wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building
elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall be installed
at a height of 15 or less and complement building architecture. The selected fixture(s) and all
proposed lighting shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with
the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of
the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights,
need to be included as part of plans.
8. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal
of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-14
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 4
show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the
roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-
sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This
condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
9. Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosure shall be included in working
drawings for a building permit and shall be to the review and approval of the Community
Development and Utilities Departments.
10. A final landscaping plan including irrigation details and plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings for each building permit
for the permanent structures. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and
species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees, including required street trees, with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The
landscaping plan shall also include information on hardscape areas around the building, such
as the specific type of enhanced paving treatment in front of the building entry. Planting,
consisting of fast-growing shrubs and trees, shall be added to the planter along the southern
boundary of the parking lot closest to adjacent homes, and also on the southern side of the
proposed parking structure to provide additional screening.
11. The landscaping plan called for in Condition 10 submitted with building permit plans for the
building shall reference all existing trees to remain, trees to be removed, and new trees
proposed as compensatory planting. Trees to remain shall be protected during construction to
the review and approval of the City Arborist and appropriate trees protection notes shall be
included on the landscaping plan. Support for the removal of trees is based upon 1:1
compensatory planting being clearly shown on the plans submitted for a building permit to the
approval of the City Arborist and the Community Development Director.
12. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard
and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by
the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
13. The applicant shall provide for the professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area
including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping in a first class condition.
14. The overall site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All plant
materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-15
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 5
15. Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on site in accordance with Table 6.5 of
the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that are
as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and located at least as conveniently
as the most convenient automobile parking space. Dimensioned locations and details of the
short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project’s construction plans
including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with
manufacturers’ standards. A minimum four-foot-wide path of travel shall be provided to all
bicycle parking spaces.
Fire
16. The required fire sprinkler risers for the building shall be located in a room with exterior door
access. Other fire department equipment shall be located internal to buildings where feasible.
17. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly
visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5"
high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background.
Public Works
18. The building plan submittal shall include consistency between all plan sheets. The
architectural site plan, civil plans, and landscape plans shall be consistent. The building plan
submittal should include the topographic survey included in the ARC submittal for reference.
19. The building plan submittal shall show and label all property lines, parcel boundaries, and
easements. The plans and supporting documentation shall include reference to all recorded
access and utility easements. Any required easements or modifications shall be recorded prior
to building permit issuance.
20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete utilities plan. Include the existing and
proposed site utility plans for reference. Show the location of any existing significant drainage
pipes or structures on the revised campus plan and detailed ARC plans for reference.
21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan per city
engineering standards and the previous campus approvals. The plans should include an overall
site plan at a smaller scale show and note all existing and proposed drainage system
improvements. The building plan submittal should include reference to the campus Use Permit
conditions that have been satisfied by the phase 1 permit. Include reference to the permit
number(s).
22. The grading and drainage plan and report shall clarify whether any changes will be required at
the detention basin, to accommodate the proposed retaining walls, fencing, and additional
parking spaces provided near the basin.
23. The building plan submittal shall provide verification that the original drainage analysis
covered campus build-out and is in general conformance with the proposed Master Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-16
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 6
changes. Alterations/expansions that may increase the site runoff shall be subject to the
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual if not otherwise included in the original
campus design approvals. A copy of the campus drainage report and/or update shall be
provided at the time of building permit application.
24. The building plan submittal shall provide verification that the original drainage analysis
covered campus build-out and is in general conformance with the proposed Master Plan
changes. Alterations/expansions that may increase the site runoff shall be subject to the
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual if not otherwise included in the original
campus design approvals. A copy of the campus drainage report and/or update shall be
provided at the time of building permit application.
25. The revisions to the medical arts building is considered part of the larger campus entitlements.
As such, this portion of the project is not subject to the current Post Construction Stormwater
Regulations. The architect of record or engineer of record shall provide an entitlement
summary to clarify that compliance is limited to the previous regulations. This project is
subject to the previous Low Impact Development Standards. The civil plans and landscape
plans shall show and note how the roof drainage and drainage from the parking structure roof
deck will be disconnected or otherwise conveyed to landscape planters/basins, vegetated
swales, or areas of porous paving prior to discharge and collection in the campus drainage
piping system. Runoff from trash enclosure areas shall be treated as required per City
Engineering Standard 1010.B.
26. The northern parking lot expansion deviates from the 2012 approved USE permit and will be
subject to the current Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. The building plan submittal
shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites. Include a complete Post
Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website for this
portion of the project.
27. The building plan submittal shall comply with City Engineering Standards for water quality
treatment due to the expansion of parking lot surfaces. This application for ARC for the new
Medical Arts building and the changes to the Master Plan should address any existing and/or
proposed water quality treatment Best Management Practices within a summary drainage
report.
28. The report and building plan submittal shall include any requirement for final inspection and
certification of the water quality controls and water quality controls for this campus. The
building plans shall include any required upgrades to the existing basin related to the metered
release of storm water. A final inspection and report from the engineer of record will be
required.
29. Fossil filter inserts (drain inserts) are only recognized as an acceptable BMP in conjunction
with other measures (treatment train) or as an upgraded or retrofit to an existing development
where other treatment options are not feasible. The use of drain inserts only shall be first
approved by the City.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-17
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 7
30. The project drainage report and campus plans shall show and note all proposed water quality
treatment BMPs in accordance with adopted standards. The proposed upgrades shall be
submitted with the first development proposal. A phasing plan may be proposed so that the
timing of the improvements will reasonably align with the construction, construction staging,
temporary uses, and overall development phasing plans.
31. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water treatment
program. An Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be developed for the existing and
proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater conveyance System (PSCS) agreement shall be
recorded in a format provided by the City prior to permit issuance or final inspection approvals
as applicable.
32. Prior to submittal of a construction application, the property owner shall collaborate with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine whether or not the proposed
development is considered to be part of a larger “Common Plan of Development” and whether
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. Provide either verification
from the RWQCB that a SWPPP is not required or a copy of a completed SWPPP and Waste
Discharger Identification (WDID) number shall be submitted with construction plans. At a
minimum, a water pollution control plan will be required.
33. The building plan submittal shall provide cross sections across the parking lot/parking garage
in both directions for reference.
34. The building plan submittal shall show the development of the driveway and parking areas to
comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes,
drainage, planters, landscaping, and materials. Parking spaces with an obstruction on one or
both sides, including columns and walls shall be widened in accordance with the standards.
The plans shall show compliance with the parking structure access ramps for
upsloping/downsloping driveways. The plans shall clarify the scope of work within the
existing parking lot needed for the transitions.
35. The building plan submittal shall include a complete parking lot plan and landscape plan. The
plan shall show all existing and proposed parking spaces to remain or to be altered. The plan
shall include all directional signing and striping accordingly. The plan shall show complete
details of the connection to Breck Street including the interface between the bike path and the
parking lot expansion per City Engineering Standards and to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director.
36. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter
of 3” or greater. Trees located outside the building footprint shall be retained unless otherwise
approved for removal by the City Arborist. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree
canopies should be generally shown to scale for reference. The plan shall note which trees are
to remain and which trees are proposed for removal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-18
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 8
37. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve
any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A
city-approved Arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures
shall be shown or noted on the building plans.
38. The project applicant shall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval
by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted
prior to the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings. In addition, the
contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the Construction
Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone numbers. The
Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and requirements:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips
and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours (e.g., 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM),
detour signs if required, directional signs for construction vehicles, and designated
construction access routes.
b. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding
when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring,
c. Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for
materials, equipment, and vehicles.
d. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize
impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and noise impacts to
surrounding neighbors.
e. The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following noise
reducing measures:
1.) Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
2.) All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided
by the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un-muffled exhaust pipes; and
3.) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or
other measures shall be incorporated to the extent possible.
f. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
g. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
h. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity.
i. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and
debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected.
j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking.
Utilities
39. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV inspection
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-19
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 9
shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the
Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
40. The proposed sewer lateral shall be constructed of HDPE pipe consistent with City standards.
41. Water service meters shall be adequately sized to serve the existing and proposed facilities.
42. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared drought
emergency estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum applied
water allowance (or MAWA).
43. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust
control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal
Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program.
Information on the program is available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5909
44. All proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards
effective at the time the building permit is obtained, and shall have reasonable alignments
needed for maintenance of public infrastructure.
45. Driveways and access routes to all proposed trash and recycling enclosures shall be designed
structurally to accommodate the size and weight of garbage trucks.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
____________________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-20
O-S
PF
R-3
R-2
R-2
R-3
R-2
R-2-SC-S-S-H
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-1R-3
R-2
R-3
R-1-PD
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-3
R-2
R-1
R-3
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
O
R-2
R-2-H
R-3-H
R-3-H
R-2
R-3-H
R-2-H
O-S
R-3
R-2
C/OS
PF
ELLA
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
IRIS
LEFF
T
O
R
O
LIZZI
E
GEOR
G
E
BUC
H
O
N
S
I
E
R
R
A
IS
L
A
Y
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
R
U
T
H
BI
N
N
S
BREC
K
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
PISM
O
H
E
N
R
Y
P
E
N
N
Y
F
A
I
R
V
I
E
W
KRISTY
KENDRA
B
R
E
C
K
A
L
L
E
Y
IRIS
VICINITY MAP ARCH 3641-2016
1911 JOHNSON ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1-21
September 23, 2016
Shawna Scott
Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: FHMC MAB ARCH-3641-2016, 1911 Johnson Avenue (1300 Ella St.)
Completeness Review #1 Response
Dear Shawna,
The current FHMC Medical Arts Building (MAB) project is submitted as a modification to
the approved 2014 ARC permit for this project since the location, design, footprint, and
impact is consistent with the 2014 ARC approval and the 2012 Master Plan. The changes
proposed now are effectively a reallocation of space within the approved Master Plan.
Since the 2014 approval the MAB design has been re-evaluated in an effort to
accommodate uses desired by French Hospital in response to community needs including
an Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) with four operating rooms, an Obstetrics Clinic, and a
cancer Infusion Clinic. Because these uses are critical to French Hospital’s ability to
continue providing the highest level of medical care to the community, this project
presented a unique and timely opportunity, especially since there are no other locations for
these uses given the necessary proximity to the hospital.
To accommodate the above FHMC uses the approved upper level parking deck has been
redesigned as a single level surgery center that will serve as an expansion of the hospital
surgery department with direct access to the hospital. This use requires more area per
patient to accommodate the latest equipment and technology so the parking demand is not
proportional to the area increase (only 18 spaces are required). To balance the overall
parking and be consistent with the 2012 approved Master Plan other adjustments to the
Master Plan are proposed including eliminating the 6,000 s.f. Building A from the Master
Plan and relocating parking previously on the upper parking deck of the MAB to the
proposed lot on the northwest side of the campus. The height and massing of the 4-story
medical office portion of the building is unchanged.
Below is an itemized response to your completeness review comments and request for
additional information.
Planning Division – Community Development Department
1. Refer to sheet A1.6 for a comparison of the proposed Master Plan with previous
approved projects and Master Plans. All of the proposed uses in the MAB are
outpatient uses with hours of operation typically from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm.
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-22
September 23, 2016
ARCH-3641-2016,1911 Johnson Avenue (1300 Ella St.) Completeness Review #1 Response
2
2. Revised plans include the following:
a. See A2.6 and A2.7 Elevations for comparison of previous building profile
with proposed. See A2.1 for comparison of previous building footprint with
proposed that is essentially unchanged.
b. The maximum building height of +356.23’ has not changed from the
approved project (approximately 62-feet ANG). The additional MAB area is
single story replacing the approved upper level parking. To be consistent
with the approved MAB the average natural grade is taken at the footprint of
the 4-story plus basement portion of the structure.
c. The revised MAB has the same design aesthetic and colors as the 2014
approved MAB, the recently constructed Health Education and Technology
Pavilion (Pavilion) on the north side of the campus and the approved
Emergency Department (ED) on the west side of the campus.
d. Additional dimensions have been added to plan exhibits as requested.
e. Refer to Site Sections on sheet A2.9 for clarification of rooftop mechanical
equipment screening from Johnson Avenue and Ella Streets.
f. See A2.2 for floor area call-outs at the basement level.
3. See A2.16 for an additional visual simulation as seen from Johnson Avenue.
4. The site earthwork is unchanged from the approved MAB with 1.3 acres estimated
site disturbance, 5,000 cubic yards of cut and export (500 haul trips), and 15-feet
maximum depth of cut for the garage and building foundation excavation.
5. Parking calculation clarification:
a. Refer to the attached parking calculation from the 1993 Master Plan for
documentation of the 173 parking spaces for the hospital. The bed count
on sheet A2.1 has been corrected to 112 for consistency.
b. The revised MAB first floor surgery center will have a maximum of 18
operating/patient beds.
c. The ED Expansion Building F will have a net increase of 4 beds/treatment
rooms.
d. The historic parking for the Ella Street office building is clarified in footnote
[1] on sheet A1.2.
6. Refer to A1.0 for motorcycle and bicycle space calculations. See A1.1 and A2.2
for location of spaces.
7. A digital copy of the plans set will be provided by dropbox link.
8. A copy of the approved colors and materials board is included with this submittal
(A2.12). The colors and materials are the same as the 2014 approved MAB and the
recently constructed Pavilion.
9. Sheet L-1 building description has been updated as requested.
10. The City Arborist was contacted for the 2014 MAB project and approved the tree
removals shown on the L-1 landscape plan. The building footprint is the same and
no further trees are proposed to be removed.
11. The applicant requests that a Construction Management Plan be a condition of
approval to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-23
September 23, 2016
ARCH-3641-2016,1911 Johnson Avenue (1300 Ella St.) Completeness Review #1 Response
3
(similar to condition #39 in the previous conditions of approval ARC1029-14). It is
essential that the Construction Management Plan be created within a few months of
construction start in order to be current and recognize the then-existing conditions
that should be addressed. The plan will include:
a. Construction staging areas (including worker parking)
b. Traffic management/control measures
c. Public safety measures and notifications
d. Construction safety measures and notifications
e. Construction material delivery routes (and related street condition
monitoring)
f. Construction related noise reduction measures
g. Construction area fencing
h. Construction debris/recycling plan
i. Emergency contact for construction/neighborhood relate issues
12. The building is accessed from three entrances that are connected by walkways and
to an accessible path of travel to Ella Street as shown on A1.0, A2.1, and A2.3. A
pedestrian entrance directly from the hospital is proposed as well as the main
entrance at the porte cochere. The hospital currently provides an electric vehicle
shuttle service from remote parking areas of the site to the hospital entrances and
will extend this service to the proposed MAB entrances as well.
13. See attached letter from San Luis Garbage. Additional information on the trash
pickup will be provided prior to the ARC hearing as requested
14. The proposed design revisions were reviewed with two adjacent neighbors on Ella
Street. Since the upper level parking deck has been removed these neighbors
agreed that the impacts due to traffic and parking were improved with this plan.
The approved parking basement that replaces the existing surface parking will
shield vehicles and headlights from surrounding neighbors. There is no change to
the location of the trash enclosure that was found to be acceptable by the ARC in
the approved 2014 plans.
15. Attached is a copy of the 2015 parking and trip reduction management program
that was prepared for the recently constructed Pavilion building. This program was
not finalized prior to the final occupancy of the Pavilion building and a bond was
posted. We will work with the Planning Department to update this plan as required
to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
16. Signage will be submitted in a separate Sign Permit application
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
17. The building footprint is essentially unchanged as clarified in Item 2a above.
Public Works – Transportation Division
18. The campus circulation, parking, and uses remain effectively the same and
consistent with the approved Master Plan. We have reviewed the City Multimodal
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-24
September 23, 2016
ARCH-3641-2016,1911 Johnson Avenue (1300 Ella St.) Completeness Review #1 Response
4
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (Guidelines) and do not believe that a new
transportation impact study is warranted for the following reasons:
a. The revised project is consistent with the 2014 approved MAB and 2012
Master Plan that included an updated traffic analysis by Orosz Engineering.
This analysis determined that the 2012 adjustments to the 1993 Master Plan
did not increase traffic impact concluding that the 1993 traffic study was
still relevant. Specifically the Orosz study determined that:
i. “All of the study area intersections where [traffic] volumes were
available currently experience lower traffic volumes in 2012 than
during the previous 1993 traffic conditions.”
ii. “Three of the study area intersections have additional or changed
lane geometry that will improve the intersection level of service.”
iii. “…traffic controls at the Ella Street intersection have improved to
include signalization since the original traffic study.”
iv. “…as the proposed project would result in fewer traffic trips along
Johnson Avenue and that the baseline traffic conditions in 2012 are
equal or better than those in 1993, a new detailed traffic analysis is
not required to be performed with the 2012 Master Plan.”
b. The revised project is consistent with the traffic impacts considered in the
2012 Master Plan for the following reasons:
i. Both parking demand and traffic impact are based on use.
Additionally traffic impact is based on hours of operation. Since the
uses, hours of operation, and parking demand in the proposed
Master Plan are consistent with those in the 2012 Master Plan, the
traffic impact is consistent with no increased impact anticipated.
ii. The parking required for the revised MAB is 49 spaces less than the
1993 Master plan. Refer to sheet A1.6 for a comparison of uses,
areas, and parking since the 1993 Master Plan.
iii. The uses in the proposed MAB addition are less intense those
contemplated in the approved 2012 Master Plan. For example, the
new proposal includes a 16,500 s.f. ASC that has fewer users and
parking per s.f. than in an equivalently sized medical office
building. Only 18 parking spaces are required for the proposed ASC
but 82 spaces would have been required if this was a typical
medical office space.
iv. The 6,000 s.f. Building A has been eliminated from the Master Plan
and this space has been reallocated to the revised MAB.
v. The revised project will not meet the 100 automobile peak hour trip
threshold in the Guidelines because the proposed uses are less
intense and the required parking is consistent with the previously
approved Master Plans.
19. Parking calculations have been rounded to whole numbers
20. Parking calculations for motorcycles and bicycles are shown on A1.0
21. The dashed green line on A1.0 indicates the edge of the open space easement.
Shading and a note have been added for clarification. The class-one bike bath
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-25
September 23, 2016
ARCH-3641-2016,1911 Johnson Avenue (1300 Ella St.) Completeness Review #1 Response
5
through the campus required by the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan was
completed with the Pavilion project. The existing pathway is shown on A1.0.
Utilities Department
22. Water demand and associated wastewater generation for the project is anticipated
to be approximately 12,970 gallons per day.
23. See L-1 for MAWA and ETWA water use tables and notes to comply with the City
Water efficient Landscape and Drought Ordinances.
Let us know if you have any further questions about this project.
Sincerely,
SDG
Tim Ronda LEED AP
Principal Architect, CFO
Enclosures
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-26
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-27
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-28
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-29
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-30
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-31
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-32
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-33
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-34
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-35
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-36
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-37
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-38
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-39
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-40
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-41
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-42
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-43
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-44
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-45
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-46
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-47
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-48
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-49
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-50
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-51
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
December 15, 2014
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy
Nemcik, Allen Root, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey -Good
Absent: Vice -Chair Greg Wynn
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
Brian Leveille, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: The minutes of December 1, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1327 Osos Street. ARC 96 -13; Review of revised plans for a mixed -use project
with nine condominium units and 8,000 square feet of office space in the Old Town
Historic District; R -3 -H, O -H zone; Mission Medical, LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft
Resolution which recommends that the City grant final design approval to the project,
based on findings and subject to conditions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public because public comments were made
at the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting immediately preceding this meeting on the
same date, December 15, 2014, with the Architectural Review Commissioners in the
audience.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Andreen stated that this is a difficult building on an odd lot in a neighborhood
with mixed styles. She added that the ARC did not disregard the recommendation of
the CHC, but felt the previous design was compatible, especially on Osos Street where
a lot of work was done to make it compatible with the church. She stated that she still
thinks the previous design was compatible but if the current design satisfies the
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-52
ARC Minutes
December 15, 2014
Page 2
neighbors, is economically feasible, and can be tweaked to reduce the mass on Morro
Street, she accepts it because of the need to provide more housing downtown. She
added that she does not love the new building and thinks there should be more room for
a clean, crisp contemporary design that respects the neighbors.
Commr. Curtis stated that his understanding is that the ARC is providing a
recommendation to the City Council which is not typical of the ARC.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that is correct.
Commr. Curtis stated he found the new design to be not as positive as the first one,
primarily in regard to the subterranean parking in the first design, which helped the
scale, height, and bulk. . He noted that he agrees with Commr. Andreen about the
design and that the prior plan was more sympathetic to and focused on the details of
the church. He added that the colors for the new building are a little too heavy and not
consistent with the lightness and detailing on the church. He noted that he has
expressed misgivings from the very beginning about the mass and scale of this project
and is willing to consider some modifications to the massing on the Morro Street side.
He added that he finds the marriage of faux Italianate and faux Craftsman to be a bit
awkward in the overall project but has no suggestion to overcome that.
Commr. Root stated that the items on the table are the decks, the massing on Morro
Street, and the massing overall. He noted that it is tricky to do a mixed -use project in a
residential neighborhood and there is an economic component that enters into the
viability of a project. He observed that in this most recent design, it looks like there is a
considerable amount of roof between the edge of the roofs and the decks. He added
that there is a precedent for roof decks on Islay Street. He stated that the design
previously approved by the Commission did a fine job of honoring the church while not
calling attention to itself but that the skin that has been proposed has details that directly
address the guidelines so it is an easier fit and more people will like it. He stated he is
in favor of approving what has been presented.
On motion by Commr. Andreen to recommend adoption of the Draft Resolution which
recommends that the City rant final design approval to the ro'ect based on findings
and subject to conditions, including consideration for reduction of the mass on the Morro
Street side, if appropriate, and directing the applicant to use a lighter-palette.
Commr. Nemcik complimented the architect and stated she is fine with the Osos Street
side but has issues with the Craftsman style on the Morro Street side. She added that,
while the applicant is trying to match the houses, this style is not appropriate for the size
and scale of the project, and it looks clumsy, especially the cantilevered portion, which
looks like it is waiting to be pushed back down. She added that this style does not go
with the bungalows on the street nor do the roof decks, which she supports, go with the
pitched roofs.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-53
ARC Minutes
December 15, 2014
Page 3
Commr. Ehdaie stated that she does not find this project compatible with the
neighborhood and the church on the Osos Street side and she is not in support of the
Italianate style. She added that she would like to see the project promote walkability so
she would prefer underground parking. She noted that walkability is in the design
guidelines. She supported reducing the Morro Street side to two stories, thereby
reducing the mass and scale and making it more compatible with the neighborhood.
Chair McCovey -Good sought a second for the motion and then a modification to the
motion.
Commr. Andreen stated that what the Commission has here is an attempt to appease
the concerns of the Morro Street neighbors. She added that she shares the view that
the building looks awkward because bungalows typically look grounded but she does
not want the applicant to have to do a redesign.
Commr. Curtis supported modification of the architectural style on Morro Street as well,
and suggested that a style more compatible with the scale and massing of the building
be used. He added that the Craftsman style does not match this scale and mass and
this design would probably not be recognized as Craftsman.
Commr. Andreen stated that the style looks like the shingle style of homes along New
England beaches which are tall and chunky, so it is a recognizable style, but the
question is whether it looks like San Luis Obispo. She added that what the
neighborhood wants is something that looks familiar and blends in more.
Commr. Curtis stated he would favor a motion that affirms the recommendations of the
CHC and that does not attempt to substitute the judgments of the Architectural Review
Commissioners.
Commr. Andreen stated she would second a motion as suggested by Commr. Curtis
and called it a wise approach. She withdrew her motion.
On motion by Commr. Ehdaie to support the Cultural Heritage Committee
recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission supporting a reduction of the
massing on the Morro Street elevation, recommending the use of the same design style
on both streets, reducing the massing and scale on Osos Street, and having it
compatible in terms of color and shading on both streets.
Commr. Andreen stated she still preferred a motion as stated by Commr. Curtis.
Commr. Ehdaie withdrew her motion.
On motion by Commr. Andreen to accept the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage
Committee recommending that consideration be given to reducing the mass on the
Morro Street side and consider additional building setbacks, and eliminate the roof
decks.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-54
ARC Minutes
December 15, 2014
Page 4
NOTE: Commr. Andreen did not call for elimination of roof decks although it was in the
CHC recommendation.
Commr. Curtis stated that his preference would be that the actual motion includes
reference to affirming the CHC recommendation rather than all the details.
Senior Planner Ricci reminded the Commission that the ARC has the more lengthy
resolution that goes forward to the City Council and suggested it could be modified by
adding a condition saying the project shall be consistent with the CHC recommendation
and the applicant shall make further reductions to the scale along Morro Street.
Commr. Andreen stated she wanted to include a comment about consideration of
lightening the palette on Osos Street. She added that otherwise Senior Planner Ricci is
correct in stating the wording she would like in her motion.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that reference to glazing in Condition 5, second sentence,
should be removed.
Commr. Curtis stated that, to reflect his concern, there should be a condition stating that
the ARC hereby affirms the recommendation of the CHC and further recommends this
to the City Council.
Senior Planner Ricci stated it would be good to have a separate condition about the
CHC recommendation. She also suggested that Condition 3 state that the color -board
presented at the meeting was supported for the Morro Street but the Osos Street side
shall have a lighter palette to be compatible with the church. She added a reference to
the porch setback being consistent with the neighborhood pattern and architectural style
and important to the design of the project.
Commr. Root stated he is fine with the motion as stated if something can be added that
addresses Commr. Nemcik's architectural concerns about massing and bungalow style.
He stated he was thinking about houses that line the shore in Long Beach that are
Craftsman and massive so he thinks this can be done. He added he is fine with the two
different styles but thinks a further tweak is needed.
Commr. McCovey -Good stated the project would be ok if it dropped one story so it is an
issue of the massing.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that she is concerned about dictating the style.
Commr. McCovey -Good suggested a general statement about massing and style on
Morro Street side.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested wording that affirms the CHC recommendation to
reduce the scale of the Morro Street elevation and further refine the massing to better
reflect the selected architectural style.
At this point Commr. Root seconded the motion.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-55
ARC Minutes
December 15, 2014
Page 5
Commr. Ehdaie stated she would not support the motion because she is not in support
of the architectural design on Osos Street because it is not compatible with the
neighborhood but she does support the CHC recommendation and the motion wording
about the colors.
Commr. McCovey -Good stated she was not comfortable in making the applicant change
the massing.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Root to recommend the City
Council approve the promect with a reduction to massing on the Morro Street side of the
building and the suqqestion to utilize a lighter color palette on the Osos Street side of
the project.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, and Root
NOES: Commrs. Ehdaie and McCovey -Good
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Wynn
The motion passed on a 4:2 vote.
2. 1911 Johnson Avenue. ARCH - 0240 -2014; Review of plans to construct a new
four -story medical office building including a two -level parking garage consistent
with the approved Master Plan for the French Hospital Medical Center site, a
building height variance, and reaffirmation of a previously approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; O -S zone; SLOPHA, applicant.
Pam Ricci)
Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft
Resolution which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, including
findings supporting approval of a building height variance, and subject to conditions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bob Canepa, SLO, stated that he lives near the easternmost entrance to the hospital
complex and that this project comes within 55 feet of his property. He noted that the
French Hospital owners have never come to the neighborhood for comments. He
added that this is a gigantic structure behind his house with a large number of windows
and the trees will take many years before privacy is at least enhanced. He stated that
he is hoping all the planned vegetation is appropriately large in size. He noted that, as
the hospital has grown, so has traffic and the number of patients and, with the
construction of the Pavilion changing the traffic pattern in the parking lot, cars are going
by at relatively high speeds in the early morning which affects the safety of his driveway.
He noted that a speed bump in the entry way, removed for parking lot repaving, has
never been put back. He stated that he wants speed bumps on the north and south
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-56
ARC Minutes
December 15, 2014
Page 6
side of his driveway because people are speeding in both directions. He added that the
photos shown by the applicant minimize the height of the hospital and he requested the
Commissioners go to the site and look for themselves.
Randy Walter, SLO, stated he lives on Ella Street in a two -story house adjacent to the
parking garage. He expressed concern about the parking garage being open toward
the homes so that car lights and garage lighting will be visible. He noted that the top of
the second story garage will be at the same level as his bedroom. He suggested
planting big trees and added that he knows the hospital has to grow but that no one has
contacted the neighbors to show consideration for their concerns.
Brian Starr, architect, stated that the applicant is happy to work with the neighbors and
plant more trees. He added that access to the top level parking will be up a ramp about
42" high and that cars will go down about 6 -7 feet to the lower level. He stated that the
parking will have walls about four feet high for both levels so lights from cars should be
totally screened.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Curtis asked the architect about the possibility of putting up an open grill screen
as a decorative feature between the two levels of parking to screen lighting and noise
and that would make the parking structure look like a building.
Mr. Starr replied that he thinks landscaping can be used to achieve what Commr. Curtis
is suggesting.
Commr. McCovey -Good questioned about traffic, is there anything in the resolution that
addresses the traffic on Ella Street.
Commr. McCovey -Good suggested adding language to Condition 11 about placement
of vegetation to help buffer the two neighbors.
Commr. Curtis asked about including a condition about harmonizing the new building
with the existing structures. He stated he is concerned about individual piecemeal
projects which are improvements but do not provide a sense of an overall direction. He
suggested integrating pavement materials, lighting, etc., on all the buildings that would
direct pedestrians.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that there is a bike trail is being constructed from
Lizzie /Johnson intersection through the project. She noted that people walk along bike
paths. She agreed about the need for pedestrian improvements but noted that there
are multiple properties within the hospital complex which makes it difficult.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-57
ARC Minutes
December 15, 2014
Page 7
Commr. Curtis acknowledged the dilemma that multiple ownership creates when it
comes to harmonizing the buildings. He questioned how someone coming to the
complex would know where the best parking is for their destination within the
assemblage of buildings and, once parked, how would they know how to get to the
appropriate entrance.
Senior Planner Ricci responded that, as each project is developed, improvements are
made and there is better signage now due to some wayfinding improvements.
Commr. Curtis agreed but noted that the coherence of the whole is a little elusive.
Commr. McCovey -Good asked if there was support to include encouragement to blend
the architectural styles with existing buildings.
Commr. Curtis stated he would like to see that in the resolution in addition to integrating
the site amenities such as exterior lighting and routes to the buildings.
Senior Planner Ricci stated it would be almost better to have this as a separate motion
in the minutes. She noted that Condition 8 talks about lighting.
Commr. McCovey -Good suggested adding that the walls on the parking structure would
block car lights from flooding into the residences.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested this wording: "Vehicle lights in the parking structure
shall be screened by the structure walls."
Commr. Curtis asked if it is possible to put planters on the upper level parking surface to
break up the view of a barren parking lot visible from the upper floors. He suggested
that would be required if it was a surface lot.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that she thinks the idea is to make the parking disappear
and that neither Sierra Vista or Mind -Body parking lots have plants. She added that it
gets complicated to plumb for water and then to maintain the plants and that the main
thing to add is fast - growing larger trees and plantings to screen the lot from the
residences.
Commr. Nemcik stated that something about the traffic and speed bumps should be
included.
Commr. Curtis stated that the speed bumps are not on this parcel and must be dealt
with piecemeal.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that maybe the applicant team can have further discussion
with the neighbors.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-58
ARC Minutes
December 15, 2014
Page 8
On a motion by Commr. Ehdaie seconded by Commr. Nemcik to adopt the Draft
Resolution grantinq final approval to the project, based on findings, including findings
supporting approval of a building height variance and sub'ect to amended conditions as
noted.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey -Good, Nemcik, and Root
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Wynn
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
January 12, 2014 — the project on the Miner's property, the Thompkins
commercial project at Santa Rosa and Monterey.
WEDNESDAY, January 21, 2014 — four large homes off Grand near Cal
Poly, the cafe lofts across from Railroad Square, the Homeless Service
Center at 40 Prado Road.
4. Commission: Chair McCovey -Good presented a proclamation to Senior Planner
Ricci for her service on behalf of city residents and staff.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on January 12, 2015.
V a
Laude Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-59
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a four-story, 31,471 square-foot office building with two-level parking
garage on the south side of the main hospital building on the French Hospital campus located
near the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1911 Johnson Avenue BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner (781-7168)
E-mail: pricci@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARC 240-14 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final
approval to the project, based on findings, including findings supporting approval of a building
height variance, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant San Luis Obispo Physicians Health
Alliance (SLOPHA2), LLC
Representative Tim Ronda & Brian Starr, Studio
Design Group Architects, Inc.
Zoning O-S (Office Zone with the Special
Consideration overlay)
General Plan Office
Site Area 18 acres (overall hospital
campus)
Environmental
Status
A Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) of environmental impact
was approved by the City Council
on December 7, 1993.
SUMMARY
In 1993, the City approved a master plan for the French Hospital campus that anticipated the
ultimate build-out of the site with needed facilities for a range of different services. The plan
included four new buildings, an addition to the hospital, and a substantial expansion of site
parking. On March 15, 2013, Administrative Use Permit A 140-11 was approved amending the
original 1993 master plan including the sizes and locations of proposed buildings. The proposed
office building is one of the planned buildings included as part of the overall hospital master
plan.
The applicant is now requesting final architectural approval of the medical office building and
associated parking garage.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2014
Item Number: 2
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-60
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project includes the construction of the new medical office building and parking garage on
the hospital campus as shown on the approved master plan. The ARC’s role is to review the
project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG).
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Administrative Use Permit A 140-11
In 1993, the City approved a master plan for the French Hospital campus that anticipated the
ultimate build-out of the site with needed facilities for a range of different services. The plan
included four new buildings, an addition to the hospital, and a substantial expansion of site
parking. Most of the additional parking was developed many years ago when a large medical
office building was proposed and permits reviewed. However, the planned office building on the
south side of the hospital near Pacific Medical Plaza was never constructed. The current
application for a medical office building is generally for a building of about the same size and in
the same location as this prior building.
Twenty years after the approval of the master plan, the hospital took another look at its future
facility needs and their locations. The applicant processed a use permit to allow the requested
modifications to the original master plan. On March 15, 2013, the Hearing Officer approved the
use permit at an administrative hearing (Attachment 4). The premise for reviewing the master
plan as a revision, rather than an entirely new project is that the overall square footage of the
project will not exceed originally approved building areas. The applicant hired a traffic engineer
to do a traffic analysis to confirm that the current mix of planned buildings would not create new
traffic impacts. The new traffic study concluded that modifications to the roadways and current
traffic levels did not affect the conclusions of the original analysis. The use permit documented
the reasons that the previous initial study for the original master plan was still valid. Mitigation
measures from the original initial study that were still relevant were incorporated as conditions of
approval in the new use permit.
The recently approved master plan still includes a total of four new buildings and an addition to
the hospital. The subject office building is one of the approved buildings. On July 1, 2013, the
ARC approved two of the other buildings envisioned in the master plan. The new office building
known more commonly as the Pavilion Building is currently under construction on the north side
of the hospital campus and will be three stories and have a total floor area of 17,591 square feet.
The second approved building was an urgent care clinic that will be a freestanding structure in
the front parking lot and will contain 5,450 square-foot of floor area. It will be located just to the
south of the existing hospital’s main entry, but construction has not begun on it yet.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-61
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 3
2.2 Site Information/Setting
The overall hospital campus property is about 18 acres in size and extends generally from
Johnson Avenue to the railroad tracks. The site is composed of several different properties, some
of which are under separate ownership, and has an irregular shape. The various property lines
and ownerships are called out on Sheet A1.0 of plans. The main hospital access is at the
stoplight at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. There is also a stoplight at Johnson Avenue and
Ella Street with access to the site from Ella Street.
The developed part of the hospital property is fairly flat, but there is a steep slope bank between
Johnson Avenue and the front parking lot, and another steep slope bank between rear parking
areas and the undeveloped property owned by the hospital to the west. The office building under
review as a part of this application is located on property currently owned by Dignity Health, but
a sale is pending to the project applicant, known as SLOPHA2, LLC. The project site is on
Parcel 4 which is to the south of the hospital and to the west of Pacific Medical Plaza.
Figure 1. Overall French Hospital Master Plan showing project site
The overall campus site development includes the one- and two-story French Hospital building,
the three-story Pacific Medical Plaza to the south of the hospital (separate ownership), and the
New MOB
Parking
Structure
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-62
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 4
Ella Street medical condominiums further to the south (separate ownership). A 1,800 square-
foot modular building that serves as a business office is located on the north side of the hospital.
Surface parking fields surround buildings. Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the
west, and residential uses to the north, south and east.
2.3 Project Description
The new medical office building described on plans as the Medical Arts Building (Building E)
will be four stories, have a total floor area of 31,471 square feet, and is located west of the
Pacific Medical office complex on the south side of French Hospital. The proposed building site
is currently surface parking. The proposed office building will have a maximum building height
of 62’ (measured from average natural grade under the building footprint to the parapet height).
The previous master plan approval allowed new medical office buildings near the hospital to
have a maximum building height of 45’6”. Therefore, a Variance is being processed along with
the final design review of the building to allow the requested 62’ building height.
The new freestanding office building has been designed to coordinate with the surrounding
existing buildings. The main stucco building color is a gold color (Pale Pollen). The large wall
surfaces are relieved by stucco ‘J’ control joints to add some texture and pattern. The other main
surface material is a box-beam aluminum siding that is used on tower elements and the first
floor. Brushed aluminum is used on decorative columns, canopies, and trim pieces.
In conjunction with the office building, a two-level parking garage with a total of 112 spaces is
proposed. The garage will be located directly to the west of the office building. The basement
level is accessed from two entries off an internal driveway on the west end and includes 67
spaces. The upper floor of the parking garage is at the first floor level of the office building and
contains 45 parking spaces. The upper level is accessed from a sloped driveway off an internal
driveway on the south side. The two levels of the parking structure are distinct and do not have
an internal connection.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Building Design
When the ARC approved plans on July 1, 2013 for the Pavilion Office building on the northwest
side of the hospital and the urgent care facility near the front hospital entry, the applicant was
directed to pursue a “holistic architectural master plan for unifying the campus aesthetic”. To
this end, the design of the new office building uses many of the same colors and materials as the
Pavilion building and has a mass and scale similar to the adjacent Pacific Medical Plaza.
Chapter 3.4 of the Community Design Guidelines provides guidance regarding the building
design for offices, specifically Section C.2, which is excerpted below in bold followed by staff’s
analysis of the proposed design in italics.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-63
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 5
a. Depending upon adjacent land uses and building scale and mass, it may be
appropriate to place the first floor at the minimum setbacks, with upper floors
set back further.
This provision is more applicable to office zones on smaller lots where there may be
lower and/or residential structures in near proximity to the property lines. In this
case, the proposed building site is interior to the site and not near off-site buildings.
However, the internal building space on the fourth floor is smaller and stepped back
from lower floors which provides additional offsets and articulation consistent with
the intent of this guideline to reduce the apparent mass of larger structures.
b. Building surfaces over two stories high or 40 feet in length should provide
vertical and horizontal wall plane offsets.
Vertical articulation is provided by the offset massing of the fourth floor previously
mentioned, elevator towers, and taller wall projections that extend above the main
building floors.
A variety of different building details is utilized to provide horizontal articulation and
further help break up the apparent mass of the overall building through changes in
surface textures and recesses and projections along wall planes. The irregular building
footprint provides opportunities for the offsets and metal column and canopy details
provide a unifying theme and additional relief.
The described features give the building additional relief and provide some shadow. To
provide further definition, the plaster walls will be painted in a gold color (Pale Pollen)
in contrast to the clear anodized aluminum storefronts of the curtain walls and the box-
beam aluminum siding that is used on tower elements and the first floor.
Figure 2. West Elevation showing varied heights of building
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-64
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 6
c. Office structure facades should have extensive window areas.
The modern office building includes extensive amounts of windows consistent with
this guideline.
d. The primary building entrance should be designed as a highly visible and
significant architectural feature.
The building entrance is located in the southeast corner and is oriented toward
surrounding parking and driveway areas. The entry doors are recessed back from
adjacent building walls. A landscaped island separates a covered porte-cochere
drop-off area in front of the entrance from driveways. This covered drop-off area is
required by the building code for a medical office building.
Figure 3. Perspective View highlighting the building entry
Staff finds that the proposed design is consistent with the guideline to make a visible
and interesting architectural statement for the entry. The landscaping plan (Sheet L-
1) indicates that enhanced paving will be used for the surface of the entry area below
the porte-cochere. Condition No. 11 is recommended calling for the details of the
enhanced paving to be called on building plans to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
The porte-cochere also serves the dual purpose of providing usable outdoor space at
the second floor level as a deck and garden. Details are included on an inset on Sheet
L-1. Staff supports this design and finds that it further highlights and enhances the
overall entry design.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-65
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 7
3.2 Building Height
As previously mentioned in the project description, a Variance is needed to allow the proposed
office building to have a maximum building height of 62’ (measured from average natural grade
under the building footprint to the parapet height). The previous master plan approval allowed
new medical office buildings near the hospital to have a maximum building height of 45’6”.
62’ is the maximum height of the building. However, the main four-story portion of the office
building is generally about 52' and the 10' beyond, which is not a continuous wall height, is for
equipment screening and elevator towers. Elevator towers and equipment screens are allowed by
the Zoning Regulations to extend a maximum of 10 feet above the maximum building height.
The proposed building elevation views on Sheets A2.6 & A2.7 show the outline of the adjacent
Pacific Medical Plaza beyond to illustrate the similarity in scale of the proposed and existing
buildings. The applicant also included photo-simulations to show the massing of the new
building in relationship to existing building and improvements. While the new building is taller,
it looks appropriate in context when viewed next to the existing office building at the interior of
the site and substantially set back from adjacent streets.
Because of the unique nature of hospitals being on larger sites, often taking up multiple blocks
and frontages, and their important and essential public service to the community, a precedent has
been set for several decades to support variance applications to allow buildings to exceed typical
height standards of the underlying zone. As an example, both the parking garage and a proposed,
but not yet built hospital tower at Sierra Vista were granted height variances. The hospital tower
if it is ever built would be the tallest structure in town with a total of 92 feet in height.
Given past precedent and the placement and design of the proposed office building, staff has
prepared findings in the attached draft resolution to support approval of the building height
variance, including:
1. The large size of the hospital campus and approved master plan;
2. The precedent to allow taller building for hospitals facilities given their importance to the
community; and
3. The minimal visual impacts of the added height because of its location on the interior of
the site near a like-sized building and removed from adjacent residential uses.
3.3 Parking
Site parking for the entire campus reflects years of development and is very complicated with
shared facilities between different entities. A major parking expansion was developed on the
west side of the hospital that added 270 parking spaces and was finalized in 2003. A total of 632
parking spaces are presently provided.
Sheet A1.0 of plans provides a parking summary that looks at existing facilities and their demand
and the added demand of the subject project. The new office building requires a total of 157
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-66
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 8
parking spaces. The top portion of the table on Sheet A1.0 lists parking required for existing
facilities and the Pavilion Building under construction, and also includes the 157 spaces required
by this project. Required overall parking is 580 spaces.
Parking Provided
New Parking
- basement 67
- first floor 45
- Parcel 2 15
Subtotal 127
Existing Parking removed -110
Net New Parking 127-110 = 17 17
Existing Parking 632
Total Parking Provided 632 + 17 = 649 649
Total Parking Required 580
With its development, the two-level parking structure will create a total of 112 spaces. Another
15 spaces shown with purple shading on Sheet A1.0 will be added on the northwest side of the
campus. Therefore, a total of 127 parking spaces will be added with the project, and a total of
110 spaces removed, for a net addition of 17 spaces. Total parking provided would be 649
spaces (632 + 17 = 649). Therefore, the provided parking of 649 spaces after project
development surpasses City requirements of 580 spaces.
3.4 Parking Structure Design
The two-level, 112-space parking structure will be convenient for patients visiting the new
medical office building. It has a simple utilitarian design with rectilinear plaster-finished walls to
match the adjacent building. Garage entries on the west side have a simple, unadorned design
(see Figure 2 on Page 5).
Figure 5. South Elevation showing parking structure
The benefit of the design is that parked cars will be more effectively screened. Cars within the
basement will have some exposure from wall openings on the south side, but most of the vehicles
on the upper level will be screened by the structure walls.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-67
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 9
3.5 Screening of Roof-mounted Equipment
Sheets A2.8 & A2.9 include typical HVAC units to show how building parapets will screen
equipment from off-site views. Condition No. 9 is included requiring working drawings for a
building permit to provide additional detail to assure that equipment screening is adequate.
3.6 Lighting
Sheet A2.12 includes information on the locations of proposed site and building lighting.
Proposed soffit lights under canopies and low-scale bollard lights appear well-placed. However,
the free-standing pole lights on the upper level of the parking structure may cause light trespass
and glare if not properly shielded. Condition No. 8 is recommended to limit pole heights to 15
feet (21 feet is typical) because of proximity to residential uses and to require additional
shielding of fixtures depending on specific lighting details and photometrics.
3.7 Tree Removals
To accommodate construction, a total of 14 trees (9 eucalyptus, 3 camphor & 2 bottlebrush) will
need to be removed. Their locations are shown on the conceptual landscaping plan (Sheet L- 1).
The legend indicates that new tree planting will occur, but the exact number of replacement trees
is not entirely clear. Generally, a 1:1 ratio of compensatory tree planting for trees removed is
required with projects. Condition 11 calls for tree protection measures to be in place during
construction, and for 1:1 ratio compensatory tree planting to be shown in landscaping plans.
Additional guidance related to the trees is provided in Public Works Conditions 37 & 38.
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Some of the requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Use Permit
follow-up letter. Include in the attached draft resolution as conditions of approval are
requirements of Fire and Public Works.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced size project plans
4. Administrative Use Permit A 140-11 follow-up letter
Included in Commission member portfolios: project plans
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-68
RESOLUTION NO. -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
GRANTING FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL TO A 31,471 SQUARE-FOOT
OFFICE BUILDING KNOWN AS THE MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING,
AND AN ASSOCIATED TWO-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND
APPROVING A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A
62-FOOT HIGH STRUCTURE AT FRENCH HOSPITAL
ARC 240-14 (1911 JOHNSON AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the applicant, SLOPHA, INC., on December 15, 2014, submitted a request
for architectural approval of a proposal to develop the 31,471 square-foot office building at 1911
Johnson Avenue, and associated two-level, 112-space parking structure; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing to review and discuss plans in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 15, 2014, for the purpose of evaluating
the project for final design review; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of
environmental impact on December 7, 1993 for the hospital master plan that adequately
evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby makes the following
findings in support of final approval of the project design:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy 3.4.2 C which
recommends that medical services should be located near hospitals.
2. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of those living and
working in the vicinity since the proposed location of the office building are internal to the
site and separated from nearby residences by parking areas, open space and landscaping.
3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Chapter 3.4 C of the Community Design
Guidelines that provides directives for offices, since it will create an attractive building that
is complementary to other site structures and provides vertical and horizontal wall plane
offsets, extensive window areas, and an articulated entry.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-69
Resolution No. -14
Page 2
4. The Architectural Review Commission approves a variance from property development
standards to allow a maximum building height of 62 feet for Building E, based on the following
findings:
a. The large size of the hospital campus and the master plan concept for its development,
which allow for greater controls and more detailed review over proposed and future
development of the site, along with the vital public service that the hospital and its
associated facilities provide the community, constitute circumstances which do not apply
generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning.
b. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, because
other hospital facilities are of a similar height of that proposed for Building E and a
precedent has been set with past approvals to allow taller buildings on hospital sites.
c. As evidenced by submitted elevations and photo-simulations, the variance will not
adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons working on the site or in the
vicinity, given the proposed siting of Buildings E near other similar facilities and
substantial separation from the closest residences.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration was adopted by the
Planning Commission with the approval of the original 1993 master plan. Approved
mitigation measures that are still relevant are included below as conditions of approval. A
new traffic analysis was conducted by Orosz Engineering Group dated December 31, 2012,
which documents that the conclusion of the original traffic analysis from 1993 performed by
Gerald Skiles (referenced in the original initial study) is still relevant that planned facilities
will not result in trip generation levels that will adversely affect baseline intersection
operations or Level of Service on Johnson Avenue. The new analysis made this conclusion
based on a trip generation comparison which took into consideration current conditions
including modifications to adjacent roadways.
Section 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval
to the office building and parking structure, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and
code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the
margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to
approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be
approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. All applicable conditions of Use Permit A 140-11 approving a master plan for development
of the hospital campus including the subject medical office building in the Office zone are
incorporated herein by reference.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-70
Resolution No. -14
Page 3
3. The color and material board presented at the meeting were supported by the Architectural
Review Commission. Any modifications to the approved palettes shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working
drawings.
4. All stucco and plastered surfaces shall have a smooth hand-finished appearance to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and not be a sprayed-on type of
application. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly show the details of all windows and
storefronts and canopy features to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
6. A separate permit shall be obtained for all building signage, which shall fully comply with
the requirements included in the City’s sign regulations.
7. The locations of all wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building
elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall be installed
at a height of 15 or less and complement building architecture. The selected fixture(s) shall
be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the
City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning
Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be
included as part of plans.
8. Proposed pole lights on the upper deck of the parking structure shall be limited in height to
15 feet, have properly shielded fixtures, and be in compliance with the City’s Night Sky
Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
9. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be
placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen
them. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will be
adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
10. Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosure shall be included in
working drawings for a building permit and shall be to the review and approval of the
Community Development and Utilities Departments.
11. A final landscaping plan including irrigation details and plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings for each building permit
for the permanent structures. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and
species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees, including required street trees, with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The
landscaping plan shall also include information on hardscape areas around the building, such
as the specific type of enhanced paving treatment in front of the building entry.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-71
Resolution No. -14
Page 4
12. The landscaping plan called for in Condition 11 submitted with building permit plans for the
building shall reference all existing trees to remain, trees to be removed, and new trees
proposed as compensatory planting. Trees to remain shall be protected during construction
to the review and approval of the City Arborist and appropriate trees protection notes shall be
included on the landscaping plan. Support for the removal of trees is based upon 1:1
compensatory planting being clearly shown on the plans submitted for a building permit to
the approval of the City Arborist and the Community Development Director.
13. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
14. The applicant shall provide for the professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area
including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping in a first class condition.
15. The overall site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All plant
materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary.
16. Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on site in accordance with Table 6.5
of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that
are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and located at least as
conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking space. Dimensioned locations and
details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project’s
construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in
compliance with manufacturers’ standards. A minimum four foot wide path of travel shall be
provided to all bicycle parking spaces.
Fire
17. The required fire sprinkler risers for the building shall be located in a room with exterior door
access. Other fire department equipment shall be located internal to buildings where feasible.
18. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a
minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-72
Resolution No. -14
Page 5
Public Works
19. The building plan submittal shall include consistency between all plan sheets. The
architectural site plan, civil plans, and landscape plans shall be consistent. The building plan
submittal should include the topographic survey included in the ARC submittal for reference.
20. The building plan submittal shall show and label all property lines, parcel boundaries, and
easements. The plans and supporting documentation shall include reference to all recorded
access and utility easements. Any required easements or modifications shall be recorded
prior to building permit issuance.
21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete utilities plan. Include the existing and
proposed site utility plans for reference. Show the location of any existing significant
drainage pipes or structures on the revised campus plan and detailed ARC plans for
reference.
22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan per city
engineering standards and the previous campus approvals. The plans should include an
overall site plan at a smaller scale show and note all existing and proposed drainage system
improvements. The building plan submittal should include reference to the campus Use
Permit conditions that have been satisfied by the phase 1 permit. Include reference to the
permit number(s).
23. The grading and drainage plan and report shall clarify whether any changes will be required
at the detention basin, to accommodate the proposed retaining walls, fencing, and additional
15 parking spaces provided near the basin.
24. The building plan submittal shall provide verification that the original drainage analysis
covered campus build-out and is in general conformance with the proposed Master Plan
changes. Alterations/expansions that may increase the site runoff shall be subject to the
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual if not otherwise included in the
original campus design approvals. A copy of the campus drainage report and/or update shall
be provided at the time of building permit application.
25. The building plan submittal shall provide verification that the original drainage analysis
covered campus build-out and is in general conformance with the proposed Master Plan
changes. Alterations/expansions that may increase the site runoff shall be subject to the
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual if not otherwise included in the
original campus design approvals. A copy of the campus drainage report and/or update shall
be provided at the time of building permit application.
26. This project is part of the larger campus entitlements. As such, the project is not subject to
the current Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. The architect of record or engineer of
record shall provide an entitlement summary to clarify that compliance is limited to the
previous regulations. This project is subject to the previous Low Impact Development
Standards. The civil plans and landscape plans shall show and note how the roof drainage
and drainage from the parking structure roof deck will be disconnected or otherwise
conveyed to landscape planters/basins, vegetated swales, or areas of porous paving prior to
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-73
Resolution No. -14
Page 6
discharge and collection in the campus drainage piping system. Runoff from trash enclosure
areas shall be treated as required per City Engineering Standard 1010.B.
27. The building plan submittal shall comply with City Engineering Standards for water quality
treatment due to the expansion of parking lot surfaces. This application for ARC for the new
Medical Arts building and the changes to the Master Plan should address any existing and/or
proposed water quality treatment Best Management Practices within a summary drainage
report.
28. The report and building plan submittal shall include any requirement for final inspection and
certification of the water quality controls and water quality controls for this campus. The
building plans shall include any required upgrades to the existing basin related to the metered
release of storm water. A final inspection and report from the engineer of record will be
required.
29. Fossil filter inserts (drain inserts) are only recognized as an acceptable BMP in conjunction
with other measures (treatment train) or as an upgraded or retrofit to an existing development
where other treatment options are not feasible. The use of drain inserts only shall be first
approved by the City.
30. The project drainage report and campus plans shall show and note all proposed water quality
treatment BMP’s in accordance with adopted standards. The proposed upgrades shall be
submitted with the first development proposal. A phasing plan may be proposed so that the
timing of the improvements will reasonably align with the construction, construction staging,
temporary uses, and overall development phasing plans.
31. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water treatment
program. An Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be developed for the existing and
proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater conveyance System (PSCS) agreement shall be
recorded in a format provided by the City prior to permit issuance or final inspection
approvals as applicable.
32. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water treatment
program. An Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be developed for the existing and
proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater conveyance System (PSCS) agreement shall be
recorded in a format provided by the City prior to permit issuance or final inspection
approvals as applicable.
33. Prior to submittal of a construction application, the property owner shall collaborate with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine whether or not the proposed
development is considered to be part of a larger “Common Plan of Development” and
whether a Stormwater Pollution prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. Provide either
verification from the RWQCB that a SWPPP is not required or a copy of a completed
SWPPP and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number shall be submitted with
construction plans. At a minimum, a water pollution control plan will be required.
34. The building plan submittal shall provide cross sections across the parking lot/parking garage
in both directions for reference.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-74
Resolution No. -14
Page 7
35. The building plan submittal shall show the development of the driveway and parking areas to
comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes,
drainage, and materials. Parking spaces with an obstruction on one or both sides, including
columns and walls shall be widened in accordance with the standards. The plans shall show
compliance with the parking structure access ramps for upsloping/downsloping driveways.
The plans shall clarify the scope of work within the existing parking lot needed for the
transitions.
36. The building plan submittal shall include a complete parking lot plan and landscape plan.
The plan shall show all existing and proposed parking spaces to remain or to be altered. The
plan shall include all directional signing and striping accordingly.
37. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk
diameter of 3” or greater. Trees located outside the building footprint shall be retained unless
otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Include the diameter and species of all
trees. Tree canopies should be generally be shown to scale for reference. The plan shall note
which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal.
38. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve
any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A
city-approved Arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures
shall be shown or noted on the building plans.
39. The project applicant shall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval
by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted
prior to the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings. In addition, the
contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the Construction
Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone numbers. The
Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and requirements:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck
trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours (e.g., 11:30 AM to 1:30
PM), detour signs if required, directional signs for construction vehicles, and designated
construction access routes.
b. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel
regarding when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring,
c. Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for
materials, equipment, and vehicles.
d. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize
impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and noise impacts to
surrounding neighbors.
e. The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following noise
reducing measures:
1.) Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-75
Resolution No. -14
Page 8
2.) All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided
by the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un-muffled exhaust pipes; and
3.) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible,
and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers
or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent possible.
f. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
g. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
h. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity.
i. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and
debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected.
j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking.
Utilities
40. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV
inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and
approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
41. The proposed sewer lateral shall be constructed of HDPE pipe consistent with City standards.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of December, 2014.
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-76
O-S
PF
R-3
R-2
R-2
R-3
R-2
R-2-SC-S-S-H
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-1R-3
R-2
R-3
R-1-PD
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-3
R-2
R-1
R-3
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
O
R-2
R-2-H
R-3-H
R-3-H
R-2
R-3-H
R-2-H
O-S
R-3
R-2
C/OS
PF
ELLA
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
IRIS
LEFF
T
O
R
O
LIZZIE
GEORG
E
BUCH
O
N
SI
E
R
R
A
IS
L
A
Y
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
R
U
T
H
BI
N
N
S
BREC
K
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
PISMO
H
E
N
R
Y
P
E
N
N
Y
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
KRISTY
KENDRA
B
R
E
C
K
A
L
L
E
Y
IRIS
VICINITY MAP ARCH 0240-20141911 JOHNSON ¯
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-77
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
12
/
4
/
1
4
Fr
e
n
c
h
M
O
B
D
D
2
.
2
.v
w
x
MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
1911 JOHNSON AVENUE, SAN LUIS OBISPO
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Project Information
T1.0
Land Use Zone O-S
Present Land Use O-S
Proposed Use
Occupancy B, I-2.1, S-2
Construction Type II-A
Stories 4 + Basement
Building Height 62'-0"
Allowable Building Height 35'-0" Max.
Fire Sprinklers Yes
Medical Office and Ambulatory Surgery Center
General Building Information
(Request Height Variance for 62'-0")
Medical Arts Building
1911 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo Physician's Health Alliance, LLC
750 Pismo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SLOPHA2
T1.0 Title Page
A1.0 Proposed Overall Campus Site Plan
A1.1 Proposed Overall Campus Master Site Plan -REFERENCE-
A1.2 Existing Overall Campus Master Site Plan -REFERENCE-
A2.1 Building Site Plan
A2.2 Basement Floor Plan
A2.3 First Floor Plan
A2.4 Second Floor Plan and Third Floor Plan
A2.5 Fourth Floor Plan and Roof Plan
A2.6 Elevations
A2.7 Elevations
A2.8 Building Section
A2.9 Site Sections
A2.10 Shadow Studies
A2.11 Green Building Checklist
A2.12 Colors and Materials
A2.13 Lighting Plan and Trash Enclosure
A2.14 Renderings
A2.15 Renderings
L-1 Conceptual Landscape Plans
C-1 Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan
Applicable Codes: 2013 CA Building Codes, San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Construction Type:II-A
Allowable Area:
Occupancy Allowable(Area Proposed Area
Basement S-2 39,000(s.f.27,409 s.f.
1st Floor I-2.1 15,000(s.f.11,367 s.f.
2nd Floor B 37,500(s.f.11,334 s.f.
3rd Floor B 37,500(s.f.11,334 s.f.
4th Floor B 37,500(s.f.4,975 s.f.
Allowable Height:
I-2.1 2 stories (located on first floor)
B 5 stories
Separation:
I-2.1 / S-2 2-hr
I-2.1 / B 2-hr
A.Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 507 of the CFC. An approved water
supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire
flow shall be determined using Appendix B of the CFC.
B.Rooms or areas containing controls for air-handling systems, automatic fire-protection
systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by
the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the
door to the room or area stating "Fire Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel". Fire
sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access.
C.Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and CBC. An
approved NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system will be required. Shop drawings and
specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. Fire main
and all associated controls shall be installed per NFPA 24 standards and city engineering
standards.
D.Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with
Chapter 34 of the CFC.
E.This project shall meet the following portions of the 2013 CBC Chapter 7A requirements:
Class A fire-rated roof assembly is required. Attic, roof, eve, and subfloor vents must be
designed to resist flame and ember intrusion, and must be corrosion resistant and
noncombustible. Building siding must be composed of noncombustible material.
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
A
R
C
1
-
7
8
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
LEGEND
ASP
H
F
I
R
E
L
A
N
E
FH
24" CMP
EL=245.94'
FL OUT
54" CMP
EL=247.28'
FL OUT
18" CPP
EL=254.11'
FL OUT
250
285
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
29
5
29
0
290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
250
260
265
270
2
5
5
2
8
5
285
29
5
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295
320
290
29
5
29
0
290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
297
296
296
297
297
296
28
5
29
0
296
296
297
296
300
295 3
1
0
285
280
275
270
26
5
2
6
0
255
265
2
7
0
297
275
296
295
27
5
280
280
29
0
300
290
2
5
0
240
24
0
240
245
245
245
250
250
250
2
5
0
255
255
255
2
5
5
260
26
0
260
26
0
265
26
5
265
265
27
0
270
27
0
270
27
5
2
7
5
28
0
2
8
0
B
R
E
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
B
R
E
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
PROPOSED OVERALL CAMPUS SITE PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
REF
NORTH
M.O.B. Overall Campus
Plan A1.0
0 125 250
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
PACIFIC
MEDICAL
PLAZA
ELLA ST.
MEDICAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
MODULAR
BUSINESS
OFFICE
JOHNSON AVENUEJOHNSON AVENUE
EL
L
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
FAIRVIEW STREET
FAIRVIEW STREET
IR
I
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
IR
I
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 6
PARCEL 7
B
E
NEW FHMC MOB (MEDICAL ARTS)
NEW - 15 PARKING SPACES PER
MASTER PLAN A1.1
12
/
4
/
1
4
Fr
e
n
c
h
M
a
s
t
e
r
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
3
.
2
.v
w
x
PARKING DECK: 34 SPACES
PARKING GARAGE: 67 SPACES
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS ROAD IN COMPLIANCE
W/ CH. 5 AND APPENDIX D, 2013 CFC.
Building/Use SF #Beds/Units Parking
Calc/Ratio
Min. Parking
Required
French Hospital 83,000 112 N/A 173.0
Pacific Medical Plaza 48,000 N/A 1/260 [2]185.0
Modular Business Office 1,800 N/A 1/300 6.0
OR Expansion (Bldg D) [3]4,850 N/A N/A 0.0
New MOB (Bldg E)
Medical Office 31,471 N/A 1/200 157.0
Health Education and Technology
Pavilion (Bldg B)
Office 17,742 N/A 1/300 59.1
Sub-Total 186,863 580.1
Total Demand (per City Standards)186,863 112 580.1
FOOTNOTES
Proposed Area changes from 1993 Approved Master Plan are shown in Bold Type
[1] -Not Used-
[2] City allowed 1/260 parking ratio for mixed use of Medical Offices and Hospital uses
[3] Completed in 1996 (9,500 SF approved. 4,850 SF Constructed)
New Parking
First Floor 67
Second Floor 45
Parcel 2 15
Sub-Total 127
Existing Parking Removed -110
Net New Parking Sub-Total 17
Existing Parking (See A1.2)632
Total Parking Provided 649
Parking Required
Parking Provided
PARCEL OWNER
1, 2, 3, 7 DIGNITY HEALTH
4 DIGNITY (SLOPHA PENDING)
5 ROFFONI PMP LTD.
6 ELLA ST. OFFICES
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
A
R
C
1
-
7
9
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building Proposed Overall Campus
Plan A1.1
12
/
4
/
1
4
Fr
e
n
c
h
M
a
s
t
e
r
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
3
.
2
.v
w
x
LEGEND
ASP
H
F
I
R
E
L
A
N
E
FH
24" CMP
EL=245.94'
FL OUT
54" CMP
EL=247.28'
FL OUT
18" CPP
EL=254.11'
FL OUT
250
285
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
29
5
29
0
290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
250
260
265
270
2
5
5
2
8
5
285
29
5
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295
320
290
29
5
29
0
290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
297
296
296
297
297
296
28
5
29
0
296
296
297
296
300
295 3
1
0
285
280
275
270
26
5
2
6
0
255
265
2
7
0
297
275
296
295
27
5
28
0
280
29
0
300
290
2
5
0
240
240
24
0
245
245
245
250
250
250
2
5
0
255
255
255
2
5
5
260
260
260
26
0
265
26
5
265
26
5
27
0
270
27
0
270
27
5
2
7
5
28
0
2
8
0
X XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
B
R
E
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
B
R
E
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
PROPOSED OVERALL CAMPUS MASTER SITE PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
REF
NORTH
0 125 250
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
PACIFIC
MEDICAL
PLAZA
ELLA ST.
MEDICAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
A
B
C
D E
MODULAR
BUSINESS
OFFICE
PROPOSED 17,550 S.F. TWO-STORY
HOSPITAL EXPANSION
PROPOSED 18,000 S.F. THREE-STORY
HEALTH EDUCATION & TECHNOLOGY PAVILION
& 17 PARKING SPACES
1993 CITY-APPROVED 6,000 S.F.
HOSPITAL OFFICE BUILDING
& 24 PARKING SPACES
1993 CITY-APPROVED 30,000 S.F. THREE-STORY
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGELIMINATE 1993 CITY-APPROVED
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (35,000 S.F.)
& ASSOCIATED PARKING EXPANSION
1993 CITY-APPROVED
HOSPITAL EXPANSION (6,000 S.F.)
ASP
H
F
I
R
E
L
A
N
E
FH
24" CMP
EL=245.94'
FL OUT
54" CMP
EL=247.28'
FL OUT
18" CPP
EL=254.11'
FL OUT
250
285
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
29
5
29
0
290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
250
260
265
270
2
5
5
2
8
5
285
29
5
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
29
5
320
290
29
5
29
0
290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
297
296
296
297
297
296
28
5
29
0
296
296
297
296
300
295 3
1
0
285
280
275
270
2
6
5
2
6
0
255
265
2
7
0
297
275
296
295
27
5
28
0
280
29
0
300
290
2
5
0
24
0
24
0
24
0
245
245
245
25
0
25
0
25
0
2
5
0
255
255
255
2
5
5
26
0
260
260
26
0
265
26
5
265
26
5
27
0
270
27
0
270
27
5
2
7
5
28
0
2
8
0
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDINGS
PER APPROVED '93 MASTER PLAN
PROPOSED REALLOCATION OF
BUILDINGS B & C AREAS
PROPOSED TEMPORARY AUDITORIUM
(24 - 36 MONTHS)
PROPOSED PARKING SUPPORT FOR
BUILDING E, WHEN CONSTRUCTED
PROPOSED BRECK STREET CONNECTOR
ROAD CONSTRUCTED CONCURRENTLY
WITH BUILDING A
DUE TO REVISED
PARKING, THE 40 SPACES
SHOWN ON PARCEL 2
ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR
BUILDING E
9,500 S.F. HOSPITAL O.R.
EXPANSION
(COMPLETED)
PARKING LOT EXPANSION
(COMPLETED)
RE-LOCATE BULK OXYGEN STORAGE (REMOVE 3
PARKING STALLS), CONCURRENT WITH
BUILDING 'C' CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED 2,000 S.F.
TEMPORARY AUDITORIUM
JOHNSON AVENUEJOHNSON AVENUE
EL
L
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
15 PARKING SPACES CONCURRENT WITH
BUILDING 'E' CONSTRUCTION (PER U109-93)
B
F
PROPOSED 5,350 S.F.
EMERGENCY OUTPATIENT CLINIC
Revised '12 Master Plan
Parking Requirements
E
D
A
B
C
F
Building/Use SF #Beds/Units Parking
Calc/Ratio
Min. Parking
Required
Existing Buildings
French Hospital 83,000 112 N/A 173.0
Pacific Medical Plaza 48,000 N/A 1/260 [2]185.0
Modular Business Office 1,800 N/A 1/300 6.0
1993 Approved Buildings to be retained
New Hospital Office Building
(Bldg A)6,000 N/A 1/300 20.0
OR Expansion (Bldg D) [3]4,850 N/A N/A 0.0
New MOB (Bldg E)30,000 N/A 1/200 150.0
2012 Requested Building Revisions
Proposed Hospital Expansion
(Bldg C) 17,550 22 1/bed 22.0
New Health Education and
Technology Pavilion (Bldg B)N/A
Office 13,000 N/A 1/300 43.3
Storage 5,000 N/A 1/1000 5.0
New Emergency Outpatient Clinic 5,450 N/A 1/200 27.3
Sub-Total 214,650 631.6
Ella Street Office Building [1]12,000 N/A 1/200 [4]20.0
Total Demand (per City Standards)226,650 134 651.6
Total parking spaces presently provided 603
Proposed new parking spaces to be added 96
Provided parking spaces to be lost -33
Grand Total of parking spaces as shown on this sheet 666
FOOTNOTES
Proposed Area changes from 1993 Approved Master Plan are shown in Bold Type
[1] '93 Approved Plan did not account for Ella Street MOB (46 spaces total; 26 on Ella site plus 20 on Campus)
Per Use Permit U 1100 and ARC 83-39, 20 spaces of the required 46 spaces are required "off-site"
(ie shared parking on the Campus)
[2] City allowed 1/260 parking ratio for mixed use of Medical Offices and Hospital uses
[3] Completed in 1996 (9,500 SF approved. 4,850 SF Constructed)
This proposal reallocates the 41,000 SF combined space of buildings "B" and "C" as shown on
the 1993 Master Plan as approved by the City of SLO. The total area of the revised Master
Plan (226,650 SF) is less than shown on the 1993 Master Plan (231,000 SF)
FAIRVIEW STREET
FAIRVIEW STREET
PROPOSED 40 PARKING SPACES
PROPOSED 20'-0" WIDE CONNECTOR ROADWAY
TO BRECK STREET, CONCURRENT WITH BUILDING
'A' CONSTRUCTION
IR
I
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
IR
I
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
(E) DETENTION
BASIN
(E) DETENTION
BASIN
(E) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS
(E) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS
8'-0" WIDE CLASS I BIKE PATH
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 6
PARCEL 7
FO
R
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
L
Y
A
R
C
1
-
8
0
ASP
H
F
I
R
E
L
A
N
E
FH
24" CMP
EL=245.94'
FL OUT
54" CMP
EL=247.28'
FL OUT
18" CPP
EL=254.11'
FL OUT
250
285
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
29
5
29
0
290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
250
260
265
270
2
5
5
2
8
5
285
29
5
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295
320
290
29
5
29
0
290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
297
296
296
297
297
296
28
5
29
0
296
296
297
296
300
295 3
1
0
285
280
275
270
2
6
5
2
6
0
255
265
2
7
0
297
275
296
295
27
5
28
0
280
29
0
300
290
2
5
0
12"
12"
18"
12'
18"
24"
12"
12"
4"
12"
6"
18"
14"
12"TR
24"TR
18"
4"
TR
8"
10"
TR1
TR4
8"OAK
72"STUMP
12"STUMP
60"STUMP
48"STUMP
60"STUMP
24"STUMP
48"STUMP
60"STUMP
48"STUMP
240
24
0
240
245
245
245
250
250
250
2
5
0
255
255
255
2
5
5
260
26
0
260
26
0
265
26
5
265
265
27
0
270
27
0
270
275
2
7
5
28
0
2
8
0
60"STUMP
10"
12" TREE
13" TREE
12" TREE
13" TREE
19" EUC.
10" TREE
19" EUC.
21" EUC.15" EUC.
19" EUC.17" EUC.
15" EUC.
10" EUC.
19" EUC.
13" EUC.13" EUC.
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
EXISTING OVERALL CAMPUS MASTER SITE PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
REF
NORTH
Existing Overall Campus
Plan A1.2
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
PACIFIC
MEDICAL
PLAZA
ELLA ST.
MEDICAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
JOHNSON AVENUE
EL
L
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
0 125 250
(E) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS
(E) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS
(E) DETENTION
BASIN
(E) DETENTION
BASIN
B
R
E
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
B
R
E
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
FAIRVIEW STREET
FAIRVIEW STREET
IR
I
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
IR
I
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
(E) SECURITY FENCING
(E) SECURITY FENCING
(E) SECURITY FENCING
(E) WELL HEAD & TANK
FO
R
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
L
Y
12
/
4
/
1
4
Fr
e
n
c
h
M
a
s
t
e
r
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
3
.
2
.v
w
x
(E) TREES TO BE REMOVED
99
7
7
17
1717 17 17
110 EXISTING SPACES TO BE
REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT
(BUILDING E) INDICATED IN YELLOW
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 6
PARCEL 7
EXISTING PARKING:
PARCELS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7
623 SPACES
A
R
C
1
-
8
1
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
BUILDING SITE PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Building Site Plan
A2.1
AS
P
H
FUELTANK
FIRE
LANE
WI
N
D
S
O
C
K
FH
24" CMPEL=245.94'FL OUT 54" CMPEL=247.28'FL OUT18" CPPEL=254.11'FL OUT250
J O
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
.
28
5
30
5
3
1
0
31
5
31
0
30
5
31
5
30
5
295
290
2
9
0
2
9
5
28
5
29
0
2
9
5
2
8
5
285 290 295 36"PALM CLUMP14"CEDAR 36"PALM CLUMP36"CLUMP8"TREE8"OAKGUYGUYJP24"EUC28"EUC28"EUC24"TREE24"EUC 4"EUC28"EUC14"EUC24"EUC24"DEAD10"TWIN8"EUC 12"PEPPER DBL40"PALM16"EUC36"PALM24"PEPPER48"EUCCLUMP22"EUC CLUMP18"EUC
3"
O
A
K
5"
O
A
K
5"
O
A
K
3"
O
A
K
16"PINE28"PEPPER40"PALM3"OAK3"OAK72"EUCCLUMP26"EUC
1
2
"
W
I
L
L
O
W
6"
D
B
L
E
U
C
6"
E
U
C
6
0
"
P
L
E
U
C
2
4
"
E
U
C
36"EUC CLUMP250
2
6
0
2
6
5
2
7
0
255 285
28
5
295
30
5
3
1
0
31
5
31
0
30
5
31
5
30
5
295
32
0
2
9
0
295
290
2
9
0
2
9
5
28
5
29
0
2
9
5
2
8
5
285 290 295
2
9
7
2
9
6
2
9
6
2
9
7
2
9
7
2
9
6
285 290 296
29
6
2
9
7
2
9
6
30
0
295
310
285280275270265260255265270 297275
2
9
6
2
9
5
27
5
28
0
28
0
290
30
0
290250
NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NOPARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
PACIFIC
MEDICAL
PLAZA
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
VAN ACCESSIBLE
7 SPACES
7 SPACES
11 SPACES
9 SPACES
11 SPACES
15 SPACES
2 SPACES
(E)
RESIDENTIAL
CONDOS
(E)
RESIDENTIAL
CONDOS
(E)
RESIDENTIAL
CONDOS
(E)
RESIDENCE
(E)
GARAGE
ELLA STREET
MEDICAL BUILDING
F.F. = 297.58'
TRASH ENCLOSURE
(2-BINS), SEE A2.13
SHADED AREA INDICATES EXTENT OF
BUILDING ENVELOPE AS PRESCRIBED
BY EASEMENT RECORDED IN SLO
COUNTY DOCUMENT #1994-030595
081632
01632 291 .4
5
'
N .G .297'
N .G .
11
.6
%
S
L
O
P
E
F.F. = 296.00'
NEW
MEDICAL
ARTS
BUILDING
A A
B
B
43
'
-
4
"
60
'
-
6
"
43
'
-
4
"
43'-10"
43'-8 5/8"
43
'
-
4
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
43
'
-
4
"
5'
-
2
5
/
8
"
53
'
-
1
3
/
4
"
44
'
-
0
3
/
4
"
68
'
-
5
3
/
8
"
24
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
9
"
15
'
-
9
"
(E) FIRE
HYDRANT T.B.R.
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
0 40 80
A
R
C
1
-
8
2
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
ICU/C
C
U
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
OVERALL FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
TYP @
COLUMN
U
P
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
MOTOR
CYCLE
MOTOR
CYCLE
MOTOR
CYCLE
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
MOTOR
CYCLE
MOTOR
CYCLE
ELEV.
EQUIP.
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
STORAGE
VAN ACCESSIBLE
VAN ACCESSIBLE
MOTOR
CYCLE
A A
UP
VA
N
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
J
O
I
N
T
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
J
O
I
N
T
19 SPACES
2 SPACES
12 SPACES
12 SPACES
2 SPACES
18 SPACES
2 S
P
A
C
E
S
TR
A
S
H
NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
ELEV ELEV
60
'
-
6
"
18
'
-
6
"
23
'
-
6
"
18
'
-
6
"
10'-0"9'-0"
TOTAL PARKING:
67 SPACES
TYP
GARAGE
ENTRY
GARAGE
ENTRY
B
B
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Basement Floor Plan
A2.2
A
R
C
1
-
8
3
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
ICU/CCU EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
OVERAL
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A
S
P
H
FUELTANK
FIRE
LANE
WINDSOCK
FH
24" CMPEL=245.94'FL OUT 54" CMPEL=247.28'FL OUT18" CPPEL=254.11'FL OUT250
J O
H
N S O N A V E .
28
5
30
5
3
1
0
31
5
31
0
30
5
31
5
305
295
290
2
9
0
2
9
5
28
5
290 295285285290295 36"PALM CLUMP14"CEDAR 36"PALM CLUMP36"CLUMP8"TREE8"OAKGUYGUYJP24"EUC28"EUC28"EUC24"TREE24"EUC 4"EUC28"EUC14"EUC24"EUC24"DEAD10"TWIN8"EUC 12"PEPPER DBL40"PALM16"EUC36"PALM24"PEPPER48"EUCCLUMP22"EUC CLUMP18"EUC3"OAK5"OAK5"OAK3"OAK16"PINE28"PEPPER40"PALM3"OAK3"OAK72"EUCCLUMP26"EUC12"WILLOW6"DBLEUC6"EUC60"PLEUC24"EUC36"EUC CLUMP250260265270 255 285
28
5
295
30
5
3
1
0
31
5
31
0
30
5
31
5
305295
32
0
2
9
0
295
290
2
9
0
2
9
5
28
5
290 295285285290295
2
9
7
2
9
6
2
9
6
2
9
7
2
9
7
296285290 296 296
2
9
7
2
9
6
300 295
310
285280275270265260255265270 297275
2
9
6
2
9
5
27
5
28
0
280 290 300290250
NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
VAN ACCESSIBLE
08163201632
CO
V
E
R
E
D
E
N
T
R
Y
ELEC.RA
M
P
RA
M
P
DN
DN
EXPANSION JOINT
EXPANSION JOINT
RA
M
P
RA
M
P
DN
RA
M
P
DN
RA
M
P
DN
DN
A A
UPDN
2 SPACES
ELEV ELEV
U
P
DN ELEC.ELEV ELEVUPDN
11 SPACES
7 SPACES
7 SPACES
9 SPACES
11 SPACES
TOTAL PARKING:
45 SPACES
B
B
± 4,154 S.F.
± 5,120 S.F.
FIRST FLOOR
F.F. = 297.00'
FIRE RISER ROOM W/ SIGNAGE:
"FIRE SPRINKLER RISER" + "FIRE
ALARM CONTROL PANEL"
FIRE RISER
KNOX BOX
F.D.C.
UNDERGROUND FIRE
LINE (SIZE TO BE
DETERMINED BY FIRE
SUPPRESSION ENGINEER)
11
.6
%
SL
O
P
E
1-HR WALL
1-HR WALL
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
(±11,367 S.F.)
REF
NORTH
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
First Floor Plan
A2.3
A
R
C
1
-
8
4
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
CORRIDOR
205
CORRIDOR
114
WOMENBATH
30" X 48"SIDEAPPROACH
30" X 48"FRONTAPPROACH
FLUSH
30" X 48"SIDEAPPROACHADA
ADA
A ATHIRD FLOOR
F.F. = 325.00'
LOBBY
LOBBY
UPDN
± 4,154 S.F.
± 5,532 S.F.
ELEV ELEV
U
P
DN
B
B
152
151
STAFF LOUNGE
3
5
9410
7
8
1
11
1
6
2
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
SECOND FLOOR
PLANTER
PLANTER
A AF.F. = 312.00'
CO
V
E
R
E
D
E
N
T
R
Y
LOBBY
UPDN
± 4,154 S.F.
± 5,532 S.F.
ELEV ELEV
U
P
DN
LOBBY
B
B
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Second & Third Floor
Plans
A2.4
0 20 4002040
A
R
C
1
-
8
5
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
DECK
A-6.0
V
W
X
FOURTH FLOOR
ELEV
ELEV
LOBBY
DECK
A A
DN DN
PLANTER
F.F. = 337.00'
MECH
MECH
± 1,472 S.F.
± 969 S.F.
ROOF
FOURTH FLOOR
F.F. = 338.00'
LOBBY
DN
± 2,825 S.F.
ELEV ELEVDN
RESTROOMS
UP
B
B
(E)
(E)(E) (E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E) (E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
1
ICU/CCU RM #9
143
ICU/CCU RM #8
3
3
3
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
ROOF PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
ROOF PLAN
DECK
BELOW
+62 .00'+57 .00'+55 .00'+55 .00'+52 .00'+52 .00'+55 .00'+57 .00'+57 .00'+55 .00'+52 .00'+57 .00'+57 .00'+62 .00'+52 .00'+55 .00'+52 .00'+55 .00'
F.F. = +41.00'
+52 .00'+57 .00'+59 .00'
+57.00'
+52.00'
+/- 52.00'+52 .00'
+62.00'
+55.00'
+55.00'
A A
F.F. = +41.00'
DECK
ROOF: +349.00'
F.F. = +338.00'
DN
B
B
TYPICAL ROOFTOP
EQUIPMENT
4'-6" HIGH PARAPET,
TYP.
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Fourth Floor & Roof Plans
A2.5
0 20 4002040
A
R
C
1
-
8
6
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
CR
S
/
V
E
C
T
O
R
W
O
R
K
S
C
O
L
O
R
C
H
A
R
T
WEST ELEVATION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
North & South Exterior
Elevations
A2.6
0 20 40
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF +296 .50'
+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT
+285 .8
'
PARKING GARAGEMECHANICAL
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
JOHNSON AVENUE
LEASE CORR.
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
ROOF
11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKING DRIVE
(N)
WALKWAY FRENCH HOSPITAL
EXISTING PARKING LOT +295 .21'P L P L P L P L
P L P L P LP L +300 .50'+313 .80'
(N)
PRK'G
P L
(E) GRADE
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00'
ROOF
+356.23'
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
62
'
-
0
"
CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
+294.23' A.N.G.
PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA BEYOND
PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA BEYOND
EAST ELEVATION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
0 20 40
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF+296.50'
+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT
+285
.
8
'
PARKING GARAGEMECHANICAL
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
JOHNSON AVENUE
LEASECORR.
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
ROOF
11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKINGDRIVE
(N)
WALKWAYFRENCH HOSPITAL
EXISTING PARKING LOT+295.21'
P LP LP LP L
P LP LP L P L+300.50'+313.80'
(N)
PRK'G
P L
(E) GRADE
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00'
ROOF
+356.23'
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
62
'
-
0
"
CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
+294.23' A.N.G.
OUTLINE OF PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA IN FRONT
1911
ADDRESS NUMBER:
5" HIGH X 1/2"
STROKE (MIN.)
(SEE A2.1)
297 - 291.45
2
356.23' - 294.23' = 62'
+291.45 = 294.23'
A
R
C
1
-
8
7
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
CRS/VECTORWORKS COLOR CHART
EXTERIOR PLASTERHORIZONTAL METAL SIDINGALUMINUM CURTAIN WALLFRAMING WITH AZUREBLUE GLAZING
NORTH ELEVATION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
SOUTH ELEVATION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
West & East Exterior
Elevations
A2.7
0 20 40
0 20 40
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF+296.50'
+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT
+285
.
8
'
PARKING GARAGEMECHANICAL
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
JOHNSON AVENUE
LEASECORR.
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
ROOF
11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKINGDRIVE
(N)
WALKWAYFRENCH HOSPITAL
EXISTING PARKING LOT+295.21'
P LP LP LP L
P LP LP L P L+300.50'+313.80'
(N)
PRK'G
P L
(E) GRADE
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00'
ROOF
+356.23'
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
62
'
-
0
"
CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
+294.23' A.N.G.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF +296 .50'
+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT
+285 .8'
PARKING GARAGEMECHANICAL
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
JOHNSON AVENUE
LEASE CORR.
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
ROOF
11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKING DRIVE
(N)
WALKWAY FRENCH HOSPITAL
EXISTING PARKING LOT +295 .21'P L P L P L P L
P L P L P LP L +300 .50'+313 .80'
(N)
PRK'G
P L
(E) GRADE
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00'
ROOF
+356.23'
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
62
'
-
0
"
CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
+294.23' A.N.G.
OUTLINE OF PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA IN FRONT
PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA BEYOND
1911
FRENCH HOSPITAL
BEYOND
A
R
C
1
-
8
8
+285.00'
PARKING GARAGE MECHANICAL
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
CORRIDOR
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH 11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
+297.00'
F.F. 1ST FLOOR
+312.00'
F.F. 2ND FLOOR
+325.00'
F.F. 3RD FLOOR
+338.00'
F.F. 4TH FLOOR
+349.00'
ROOF
+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
4'
-
6
"
MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
A - BUILDING SECTION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Building Section
A2.8
0 20 40
A
R
C
1
-
8
9
A - SITE SECTION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF+296 .50'
+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT
+285
.
8
'
PARKING GARAGE MECHANICAL
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH 11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
JOHNSON AVENUE
ROOF
EXISTING PARKING LOT
P LP LP L P L+300 .50'
P L
(E) GRADE
CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
LEASECORR.
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
11
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKINGDRIVE
(N)
WALKWAYFRENCH HOSPITAL +295 .21'
P LP LP LP L+313 .80'
(N)
PRK'G
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
B - SITE SECTION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Site Sections
A2.9
0 40 80
0 40 80
A
R
C
1
-
9
0
WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW STUDY: 9am
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
Medical Arts Building
Pacific Medical Plaza
French Hospital
Medical Arts Building
Pacific Medical Plaza
French Hospital
WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW STUDY: 12pm
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
Medical Arts BuildingMedical Arts Building
Pacific Medical PlazaPacific Medical PlazaFrench HospitalFrench Hospital
WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW STUDY: 3pm
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
Medical Arts Building
Pacific Medical PlazaFrench Hospital
Medical Arts Building
Pacific Medical PlazaFrench Hospital
French Hospital Medical Center CampusSan Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
Se
p
t
.
8
,
2
0
1
4
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
Da
t
e
:
9/
9
/
1
4
Tim
e
:
2:
4
7
:
2
9
P
M
Fil
e
n
a
m
e
:
Fr
e
n
c
h
M
O
B
S
h
a
d
o
w
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
2
.
0
.
v
w
x
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Winter Solstice
Shadow Studies
A2.10
A
R
C
1
-
9
1
LEED-NC v3.0 Preliminary Project Checklist
3/19/10
Preliminary Review Only - Subject to Change
Yes ?No
15 Sustainable Sites 26 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Sedimentation Control Plan
1 Credit 1 Site Selection**1P r o j e c t in not located on a prohibited site
5 Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity**5w i t h i n 1/2 mile of neighborhood and 10 basic services
Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1
6 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation , Public Transportation Access**6w i t h i n 1/4 mile of two or more bus lines
Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation , Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1
Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation , Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3
Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation , Parking Capacity 2
Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat 1
Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1
Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1
Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1
1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 15 0 % o f hardscape to have SRI of 29 or higher
1 Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1R o o f material to have SRI of 78 or higher
1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1
Water Efficiency 10 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Required
Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping**2 to 4
Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2
Credit 3 Water Use Reduction **40%2 to 4
5 Energy & Atmosphere 35 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required
Y Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required
Y Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required
5 Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 19 20% improvement in building performance rating
Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy **1%1 to 7
Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2
Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2
Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 3
Credit 6 Green Power 2
7 Materials & Resources 14 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required
Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1 to 3
Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1
1 Credit 2 Construction Waste Management 1 to 2 recycle/salvage 50% of construction waste
1 Credit 3 Materials Reuse 1 to 2 salvaged, refurbished and reused materials for 5% of total materials cost
1 Credit 4 Recycled Content 1 to 2 recycled or post-consumer product equals 10% min. of total materials cost
2 Credit 5 Regional Materials 1 to 2 at least 20% of building materials come from within 500 miles of project site
1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 rapidly renewable materials account for 2.5% (min.) of building material cost
1 Credit 7 Certified Wood 15 0 % o f wood based materials to be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council
14 Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required
Y Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required
1 Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1I n s t a l l carbon dioxide monitoring systems
1 Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1 increse ventilation rates to occupied spaces by 30% above minimum required
1 Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan , During Construction 1 Develop Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for construction phase
1 Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan , Before Occupancy 1 Develop Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for pre-occupancy phase
1 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials , Adhesives & Sealants 1I n d o o r adhesives and sealants not to exceed VOC limits
1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials , Paints & Coatings 1I n t e r i o r paints and coatings not to exceed VOC limits
1 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials , Flooring Systems 1C a r p e t installed shall not exceed VOC limits
1 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials , Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 1N o a d d e d urea-formaldehyde resins
1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 Permanent entryway systems, sufficiently exhaust spaces, air filters of MERV 13 or better
1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1 Provide individual lighting controls for 90% of building occupants
1 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 1 Provide individual thermal comfort controls for 50% of the building occupants
1 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design 1 HVAC systems and building envelop to meet ASHRAE standards
1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1 Implement a thermal comfort survey of building occupants
Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views , Daylight 75% of Spaces 1
1 Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views , Views for 90% of Spaces 1D i r e c t line of site to outdoor environment for 90% of all regularly occupied spaces
1 Innovation & Design Process 6 Points Notes
Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
1 Credit 2 LEED® Accredited Professional 1L E E D AP on design team
3 Regional Priority (93401 eligible credits indicated by **)4 Points Notes
1 Credit 1.1 Regional Priority: Site Selection - SSc1 1 per USGBC's list of Regional Priority Credits for Zip Code 93401
1 Credit 1.2 Regional Priority: Development Density & Community Connectivity - SSc2 1 per USGBC's list of Regional Priority Credits for Zip Code 93401
1 Credit 1.3 Regional Priority: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access - SSc4.1 1 per USGBC's list of Regional Priority Credits for Zip Code 93401
Credit 1.4 Regional Priority: Provide Specific Title 1
45 Project Totals (pre-certification estimates)110 Points
Yes ?No Certified 40-49 points Silver 50-59 points Gold 60-79 points Platinum 80-110 points
French Hospital - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
San Luis Obispo, CA
French Medical Arts Bldg
4/8/10
EQ C4.1 Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives & Sealants 1 pt.
• Indoor adhesives and sealants not to exceed VOC limits
EQ C4.2 Low-Emitting Materials: Paints & Coatings 1 pt.
• Interior paints and coatings not to exceed VOC limits
EQ C4.3 Low-Emitting Materials: Carpet Systems 1 pt.
• Carpet installed shall not exceed VOC limits
EQ C4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 1 pt.
• No added urea-formaldehyde resins
EQ C5 Indoor Chemical &Pollutant Source Control 1 pt.
• Install permanent entryway systems
• Sufficiently exhaust spaces which contain hazardous gases or
chemicals
• Install air filters of MERV 13 or better
EQ C6.1 Controllability of Systems: Lighting 1 pt.
• Provide individual lighting controls for 90% of the building occupants
EQ C6.2 Controllability of Systems: Thermal Comfort 1 pt.
• Provide individual thermal comfort controls for 50% of the building occupants
EQ C7.1 Thermal Comfort: Design 1 pt.
• HVAC systems and building envelop to meet ASHRAE Standards
EQ C7.2 Thermal Comfort: Verification 1 pt.
• Implement a thermal comfort survey of building occupants
EQ C8.2 Daylight & Views: Views for 90% of Spaces 1 pt.
• Direct line of site to outdoor environment for 90% of all regularly occupied spaces.
ID C2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 pt.
• Project team to include a LEED Accredited Professional
RP C1 Regional Priority 3 pts.
• Additional credits for achieving LEED credits in categories classified
as having environmental importance for San Luis Obispo
Point Total LEED Certified - 45 pts.
Certified: 40-49 Silver: 50-59 Gold: 60-79 Platinum: 80-110
French Medical Arts Bldg
4/8/10
• Improve energy performance by at least 20% above base level
MR P1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Req.
• Provide accessible areas for collection & storage of recyclable
materials
MR C2 Construction Waste Management: Divert 50% from Disposal 1 pt.
• Recycle/Salvage 50% of total construction debris
MR C3 Materials Reuse: 5% 1 pt.
• Use salvaged/reused materials for 5% of total materials cost
MR C4 Recycled Content: 10% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer) 1 pt.
• Use materials with recycled content for 10% of total materials cost
MR C5 Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured 2 pts.
• Source of 20% of total building materials shall be within 500 miles of
project site.
MR C6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 pt.
• Use rapidly renewable building materials for 2.5% of total building
materials cost.
MR C7 Certified Wood 1 pt.
• A minimum of 50% of wood shall be certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council
EQ P1 Minimum IAQ Performance Req.
• Each building to meet minimum requirements
EQ P2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required Req.
• Prohibit smoking in the buildings & within 25 feet of entries
EQ C1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 pt.
• Install carbon dioxide monitoring systems
EQ C2 Increased Ventilation 1 pt.
• Increase ventilation rates to occupied spaces by 30% above
minimum required
EQ C3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan: During Construction 1 pt.
• Develop Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for construction phase
EQ C3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan: Before Occupancy 1 pt.
• Develop Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for pre-occupancy
phase
4/8/10
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
LEED v.3
New Construction and Major Renovation
SS P1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Req.
• Sedimentation Control Plan
SS C1 Site Selection 1 pt.
• Project site will avoid prohibited locations
SS C2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 5 pts.
• Opt 1: Renovate a building on previously developed site
• Opt 2: previously developed site & within ½ mile of residential
neighborhood and basic services
SS C4.1 Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access 6 pts.
• Provide no new parking
SS C7.1 Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof 1 pt.
• 50% of hardscape to have SRI of 29 or greater
SS C7.2 Heat Island Effect: Roof 1 pt.
• 75% of roof surface to have SRI of at least 78
SS C8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 pt.
• Do not exceed exterior maximum lighting power densities
• Non-emergency interior lighting to be automatically turned off during
non-business hours
WE P1 Water Use Reduction Req.
• Reduce water use by 20% through low-flow fixtures
EA P1 Fundamental Commissioning of Bldg. Energy Systems Req.
• Designate a Commissioning Authority to review and oversee
completion of commissioning process activities.
• Owner will document Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR)
EA P2 Minimum Energy Performance Required Req.
• 10% improvement in building performance rating
EA P3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Req.
• Zero use of CFC-based refrigerants
EA C1 Optimize Energy Performance 5 pts.
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Green Building Checklist
A2.11
A
R
C
1
-
9
2
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Colors & Materials
A2.12
COLORS & MATERIALS
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
BRUSHED ALUMINUM
CORRUGATED 'BOX' METAL SIDING
(PAC-CLAD-HWP, TO MATCH PAVILION)AZURE
CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM
VISTA PAINT #7889
Pale Pollen
(DARKER COLOR IS BODY
COLOR IN SHADOW)
NO SCALE
A
R
C
1
-
9
3
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Lighting & Trash Enclosure
A2.13
LIGHTING PLAN - PROPOSED
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
FIRE
LANE
28
5
295
290
28
5
295
2
9
0
295
290
2
9
6
2
9
5
NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
RA
M
P
RA
M
P
DN
DN
EXPANSION JOINT
EXPANSION JOINT
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
RA
M
P
RA
M
P
DN
RA
M
P
DN
RA
M
P
DN
DN
NO
PARKING
TR
A
S
H
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
A PARKING LIGHT
LITHONIA DSX0 LED 68 WATT, PHOTOCELL
20' MAX. HEIGHT
C RECESSED DOWNLIGHT
(OIL RUBBED BRONZE TRIM NOT SHOWN)
LITHONIA L7XLED T24 11 WATT, PHOTOCELL
B WALL PACK
ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS MLB-1
LED 42 WATT, MOTION DETECTOR
D BOLLARD
LITHONIA DSXB-LED 22 WATT, PHOTOCELL
TRASH ENCLOSURE
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
A
R
C
1
-
9
4
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Renderings
A2.14
VIEW FROM ELLA STREET - PROPOSED
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
VIEW FROM ELLA STREET - EXISTING
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
VIEW FROM PARKING LOT - PROPOSED
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
VIEW FROM PARKING LOT - EXISTING
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
A
R
C
1
-
9
5
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Renderings
A2.15
VIEW FROM ELLA STREET - PROPOSED
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
VIEW FROM ELLA STREET - EXISTING
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
A
R
C
1
-
9
6
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAFRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1
9-25-14
SCALE: 1”= 20’
ENLARGEMENT ‘A’: SECOND-FLOOR ROOF DECK AND GARDEN 1”= 20’
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PROPOSED
PARKING GARAGE
SEE ENLARGEMENT ‘A’ FOR SECOND FLOOR ROOF GARDEN
PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL
PROPOSED BUILDING
X
X
X
XXX
XX
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
R
C
1
-
9
7
A
R
C
1
-
9
8
March 18, 2013
Dignity Health ETAL
French Hospital Medical Center
Attn.: Controller
1911 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 140-11: 1911 Johnson Avenue
Gentlemen:
On Friday, March 15, 2013, I conducted a public hearing on your request for a Use Permit
to allow revisions to the master plan for the development of the French Hospital campus at
the above-listed location.
After reviewing the information presented, I have approved your request, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. Development included in the proposed master plan will not adversely affect the
health, safety, and welfare of persons living at the site or in the vicinity, because the
project design and required review of certain future uses address the concerns of the
special considerations zone which are:
a. Types of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general
plan policies;
b. City noise standards are satisfied;
c. Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access
to the site, are provided; and
d. Open space is preserved.
2. The development is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. As conditioned, including the previously-approved height variance reaffirmed through
Finding No. 4, the proposal conforms to the general plan and meets zoning
ordinance requirements, including the concerns of the special considerations zone.
4. The Hearing Officer hereby reaffirms a variance from property development
standards to allow a maximum building height of 45.5 feet for Buildings B & E, based
on the following findings:
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-99
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 2
a. The large size of the hospital campus and the master plan concept for its
development, which allow for greater controls and more detailed review over
proposed and future development of the site, constitute circumstances which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning.
b. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning, because other hospital facilities are of the same or greater height than
that proposed for Buildings B & E.
c. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons
working on the site or in the vicinity, given the proposed siting of Buildings B & E
near other similar facilities and substantial separation from the closest residences.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration was adopted by the
Planning Commission with the approval of the original 1993 master plan. Approved
mitigation measures that are still relevant are included below as conditions of
approval. A new traffic analysis was conducted by Orosz Engineering Group dated
December 31, 2012, which documents that the conclusion of the original traffic
analysis from 1993 performed by Gerald Skiles (referenced in the original initial
study) is still relevant that planned facilities will not result in trip generation levels that
will adversely affect baseline intersection operations or Level of Service on Johnson
Avenue. The new analysis made this conclusion based on a trip generation
comparison which took into consideration current conditions including modifications
to adjacent roadways.
Conditions
Use Restrictions
1. Any substantial change to a proposed use or any new use at the site from that
shown on the approved master plan shall be subject to review and approval of an
Administrative Use Permit. Uses shall be limited to hospital facilities, physician
and health professional offices, outpatient medical services, and medical
laboratories. Residential patient care shall require the approval of an
administrative use permit.
2. Specific development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street shall require the approval
of an administrative use permit. Uses shall be restricted to those of a low intensity
such as residential care or offices related to the hospital where minimal public
access is required thereby decreasing traffic impacts. With development of the site
at 1615 Fairview Street, street access shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
3. The proposed temporary auditorium may remain in place for a maximum period of
three years from the date of final occupancy granted by the City through the
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-100
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 3
required building permit process. A single, one-year time extension may be
requested in writing prior to the expiration of the three-year approval period to
review and approval of the Community Development Director.
Planning Requirements
4. Specific site development envisioned by the master plan is subject to the review
and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Plans shall include all
information on the checklist for final architectural review.
5. Building and parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not
cast glare onto adjacent properties consistent with the requirements of the City’s
Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning
Regulations. The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval of the
Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the height and
type of lighting fixtures
6. The applicant shall update the submitted parking and trip-reduction management
program to provide an enhanced trip-reduction program that contains a
comprehensive list of actions to reduce auto use to the Community Development
Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
revised program shall include all of the measures included in the draft plan plus all
of the following measures, if not already included, and show in narrative and plan
view how these are met:
a. Provide lockable bicycle storage consistent with the standards specified in the
Zoning Regulations and Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2007).
b. Include showers and lockers in the project to encourage employees to ride
bicycles or walk to work.
c. Provide preferential parking places (closer to building entries) for employees
who carpool.
d. Provide an incentive program for employees who bicycle or walk to work.
7. The project shall maintain the final approved version of the parking and trip-
reduction management program as part of the long-term hospital operations. After
a final program is approved, any future changes to the program shall be submitted
to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Prior to the issuance of
building occupancy for new structures, the applicant shall designate a
Transportation Coordinator who will manage transportation programs for the
project and shall promote alternative modes of transportation. This coordinator will
be responsible for submitting annual reports to the Community Development
Director detailing current number of employees and the effectiveness of the trip-
reduction plan components in meeting objectives. New trip-reduction measures
shall be approved for implementation into the program if existing measures are
proven to be ineffective.
8. The applicant shall consider, as part of the trip-reduction program, more
aggressive parking management practices such as a valet service or onsite
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-101
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 4
shuttles to transport patients from remote parking spaces to various buildings and
converting the doctor-only parking spaces in the front parking lot to general parking
to accommodate more spaces near the urgent care clinic for faster turnover visits.
With implementation of these or similar parking management practices, the
Community Development Director may approve without a separate administrative
hearing up to a 10% shared parking reduction.
Construction Requirements
9. During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the
following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as
necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency will be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities
during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be
used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. Dirt stock pile areas (if any) should be sprayed daily as needed.
d. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
e. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or
should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
f. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak
hour emissions.
g. If determined to be needed, periodic washdowns or mechanical streetsweeping
of streets in the vicinity of the construction site shall be done.
10. Protective fencing shall be installed prior to, and maintained in place until
conclusion of, grading and development of parking lot areas to prevent excess soil
from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site.
Public Works
11. Complete public improvement plans will be required in conjunction with the
development of Building A. A separate public improvement plan application,
submittal, review, and inspection fee to the Public Works Department will be
required based on the City Engineering Standards and fee resolution in place at
the time of the submittal. Projects approved after September 6, 2013, may be
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-102
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 5
subject to additional post-construction storm water management regulations as
promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
12. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show compliance with the Floodplain
Management Regulations. Portions of this campus are located within the X-
shaded (XB or former B) flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). This area is not considered to be a Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA).
Although not subject to mandatory flood insurance requirements, any structures or
building appurtenances located within this zone of shallow flooding shall comply
with our local ordinance. The project drainage report could be used to clarify the
extent of the underlying flood zone(s) in relation to the existing and proposed
campus improvements. The building plans shall show the location and extent of
the XB zone for reference.
13. The existing drainage outlet to the Southerly drainage channel has partially failed.
The existing head-cut and non-erosive outlet shall be repaired or replaced to the
satisfaction of Public Works Director and Natural Resources Manager. A permit
application and repair plan shall be included with or submitted concurrently with the
first building permit application. The plan shall be approved prior to building permit
issuance and shall have all work complete prior to occupancy of the first building
unless otherwise approved for deferral by the City.
14. The final drainage report shall evaluate the pre vs. post development runoff for the
100-year storm event in accordance with the Waterways Management Plan
Drainage Design Manual. The current basin design and analysis appears to be
conservative but was based on prior standards that were limited to the 50-year
storm.
15. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water
treatment program. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be developed
for the existing and proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater Conveyance System
(PSCS) agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City prior to
permit issuance or final inspection approvals as applicable.
16. The report and building plan submittal shall include any requirement for final
inspection and certification of the water quality controls and water quantity controls
for this campus. It is unclear from the previous design and reports whether the
outlet controls (metering) for the basin had been installed. The building plans shall
include any required upgrades to the existing basin related to the metered release
of storm water. A final inspection and report from the engineer of record will be
required.
17. The building plan submittal for future development shall show and note compliance
with Engineering Standard 1010.B for Storm Water Quality Management. This
code requirement is applicable to new or redeveloped sites where the total area of
impervious driveway and parking surfaces is more than 5,000-square feet. An
upgrade to the existing facilities and improvements is required.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-103
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 6
18. Fossil filter inserts (drain inserts) are only recognized as an acceptable BMP in
conjunction with other measures (treatment train) or as an upgrade or retrofit to an
existing development where other treatment options are not feasible. The use of
drain inserts only shall be first approved by the City.
19. The project drainage report and campus plans shall show and note all proposed
water quality treatment BMP’s in accordance with adopted standards. The
proposed upgrades shall be submitted with the first development proposal. A
phasing plan may be proposed so that the timing of the improvements will
reasonably align with the construction, construction staging, temporary uses, and
overall development phasing plans.
20. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water
treatment program. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be developed
for the existing and proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater Conveyance System
(PSCS) agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City prior to
permit issuance or final inspection approvals as applicable.
21. The report and building plan submittal shall include any requirement for final
inspection and certification of the water quality controls and water quantity controls
for this campus. It is unclear from the previous design and reports whether the
outlet controls (metering) for the basin had been installed. The building plans shall
include any required upgrades to the existing basin related to the metered release
of storm water. A final inspection and report from the engineer of record will be
required.
Erosion Control
22. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are
required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity
where clearing, grading, or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more
acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre, but which is part of a larger
common plan of development or sale, also requires a permit. Permits are required
until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction
Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit
a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State
Board under their recently-adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and
Tracking System (SMARTS).
23. Prior to submittal of a construction application, the property owner shall collaborate
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine whether or
not the proposed development is considered to be part of a larger “Common Plan
of Development” and whether a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will be required. Either verification from the RWQCB that a SWPPP is not required
or a copy of a completed SWPPP and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID)
number shall be submitted with construction plans. At a minimum, a water
pollution control plan will be required.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-104
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 7
24. Plans for the proposed bikeway shall be included with or submitted concurrently
with the first building permit application. The plan shall be approved prior to
building permit issuance and shall have all work complete prior to occupancy of the
first building unless otherwise approved for deferral by the City. Record drawings
for the bikeway improvements shall be provided to the City per City Engineering
Standards for the Northerly reach where located within the proposed easement
and intended for maintenance by the City.
25. Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credits will be available with the first and subsequent
phases if necessary. The previous TIF analysis included this segment of the bike
path and assumed that 25% of the costs would be from the Citywide TIF. Any
allowable credit of up to 50% of the total calculated TIF for any one phase will be
applied to the respective building permits. A project cost estimate will be required
at the time of plan submittal. Final credits and/or reimbursements will not be
applied until final receipts and invoices are received and accepted by the City for
the completed improvements. If applicable, the applicant/owner will be responsible
for documenting compliance with current Prevailing Wage legislation for any areas
of construction related to a fee credit or reimbursement.
Open Space
26. A permanent open space, drainage, access, and bikeway easement(s) shall be
dedicated to the City for the open space areas as shown schematically on the
revised campus plans. The Northerly and Southerly open spaces shall be linked
by the narrower band that parallels the Westerly property line adjacent to the
UPRR right-of-way. The easement agreement shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director,
Natural Resources Manager, and the City Attorney. The final easement boundary
and delineation shall be based on the existing and proposed site improvements
including, but not limited to, security fencing, bikeway construction, grading and
slope bank locations, utility locations, and access driveway construction. The open
space and related easement agreement is not intended to be an exclusive
easement and the on-going maintenance responsibility of these areas, unless
otherwise noted, will remain with the underlying property owner(s).
27. If clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including any tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs are proposed, all work shall be to the
satisfaction of the City and any pertinent regulatory agencies.
28. To insure maintenance of the mature trees on the site, the heavily-wooded portions
not to be used for parking and/or building pads should be maintained as
permanent open space easements. Tree trimming and removal of small trees and
other vegetation as part of an on-going open space maintenance program is
encouraged and shall be to the review and approval of the Natural Resources
Manager.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-105
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 8
29. Concurrent with the recordation of the permanent open space easement, applicant
shall submit an Open Space Management Plan for the area which shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager, Fire Marshall, and
City Arborist. At a minimum, the plan shall address tree and vegetation
management and maintenance, fencing and trespass abatement, and on-going
monitoring and patrol to address protection of the riparian area and other natural
resources, fire hazards, and transient activity.
This use permit shall be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer if the City
receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer,
or Police Department employee, that includes information and/or evidence supporting a
conclusion that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations
applicable to the property or the operation of the business, has occurred. At the time of
the Use Permit review, to insure on-going compatibility of the uses on the project site,
conditions of approval may be added, deleted, modified, or the permit may be revoked.
The Hearing Officer may refer the complaint to the Planning Commission at his/her
discretion.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the
action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are
available in the Community Development Department or on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $268 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
If you have any questions, please call Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Doug Davidson
Hearing Officer
cc: SLO County Assessor’s Office
Brian Starr
762 Higuera Street, Suite 212
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-106
•
city of san Luis oBisp o
'INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T
SITE LOCATION 1941 Johnson Avenue APPLICATION N ;.09-9 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONConstruCt new 30,000 square-foot office building an d
develop associated parking .Hospital master plan including futur e
building pads and improvements (zoning/general plan map changes).
APPLICANT Summit Health &Cambridge Healthcare Development Corp .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRE D
PREPARED BYPam Ricci,Associat e
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION :/
Nal(A rr.rDEATIUCbECLRATICtJ iJb\,24ZAllwt .
11
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDING S
I .DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING •
II .POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECT S
A.COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS YES *
B.POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH NONE *
C.LAND USE YES *
D.TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION YES *
E.PUBLIC SERVICES NON E
F.UTILITIES YES *
G.NOISE LEVELS NONE *
H.GEOLOGIC &SEISMIC HAZARDS &TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS NON E
I.AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS YES *
J.SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY NONE
K.PLANT LIFE YES *
L.ANIMAL LIFE NONE *
M.ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL NON E
N.AESTHETIC NONE *... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O.ENERGY/RESOURCE USE NON E
P.OTHER Llghtin.90 YES *
III .STAFF RECOMMENDATIO N
NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATIO N
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT 58.85
X MITIGATION INCLUDE D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRE D
Planner DATE 10-27-9 3
r~~/za~93DATE
1-40
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-107
INITIAL STUDY ER 109-9 3
I .
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTIN G
A.Project Descriptio n
A master plan for the development of the French Hospital "campus" has been submitted by
Summit Health, the same corporation that owns the hospital . The word campus is used t o
describe the existing hospital property, the property developed with the Pacific Medica l
Plaza office building directly to the south of the hospital, and undeveloped properties to th e
west, north and southwest that are owned by Summit Health . Further development of th e
campus properties are proposed in phases .
Phase I calls for the development of Building E, a 30,000 square-foot medical offic e
building, on property located just south of the existing Pacific Medical Plaza . The applicant
for this new building is Cambridge Healthcare Development Corporation . This phase als o
includes the development of additional parking on currently undeveloped property to th e
west of the hospital. Phase IA, which includes the reconfiguration of parking areas near th e
site's Lizzie Street entry and behind the hospital, would be developed concurrently with th e
Phase I medical office building and improvements .
S Phase II involves the development of future buildings and facilities . Building A, located t o
the north off of Fairview Street, would house some type of office use associated with th e
hospital, but not necessarily doctors' offices . Building B, located just north of the hospital ,
is proposed as a three-story, 35,000 square-foot medical office building . Building C,
proposed near the front entry of the hospital, would be a 6,000 square-foot addition to th e
hospital as an obstetrics/gynecology center. The obstetrics/gynecology center would be buil t
first (1994-5); other planned buildings would not be constructed for at least another fiv e
years .
B.Project Entitlements Requeste d
1.
Phase 1 - Medical Office Building (Building E )
a.Planning Commission Use Permit (U 109-93) -is required to allow th e
addition of the medical office building to the site because of its 0-S
zoning, to allow a height variance (allow 45 .5-foot structure where a
35-foot maximum height may be allowed) and to allow a 2% mixed us e
parking reduction .
b.Architectural Review Commission (ARC 109-93) approval -design
review of Phase I development - Building E and site developmen t
10
plans .
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-108
ER 109-93
Page 2
2.Phase 2 - Future Facilitie s
a.General Plan Amendment/Rezoning (GP/R 109-93) -Change land us e
designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office for propertie s
located at 1615 Fairview Street and 1250 Iris Street . Rezone the sam e
two properties from R-2-S to O-S, Office with Special Consideration s
Overlay. Amend the zoning for the undeveloped property to the wes t
of the hospital from 0-PD to 0-S .
b. Street Abandonment (Aban 109-93) -Abandon portions of Church an d
Ruth Streets located in the far western part .of the site .
C.Environmental Settin g
The total area covered by the hospital's master plan is 17 .2 acres . 9 .6 acres is develope d
with the hospital and Pacific Medical Plaza and the remaining 7 .6 acres is undeveloped .
1.Developed Portion of Hospital Property (1911 Johnson Avenue )
The 6 .2-acre site is developed with the hospital, parking lot and driveway areas an d
landscaping . The developed part of the hospital property is fairly flat, but there i s
a steep slope bank between Johnson Avenue and the front parking lot, and anothe r
steep slope bank between rear parking areas and the undeveloped property owne d
by the hospital to the west .
French Hospital is a one- and two-story building licensed for up to 138 beds .
Although it is located on a separate piece of property, it is linked by commo n
driveways to the other medical properties to the immediate south . Surrounding lan d
uses include the medical office buildings to the south, vacant land to the west, an d
residential uses to the north and east .
2.Pacific Medical Plaza (1941 Johnson Avenue )
The Pacific Medical Plaza is a three-story medical office building located in betwee n
French Hospital and the Ella Street medical condominiums on a 3 .4-acre site .
3.Undeveloped Portions of Hospital Propert y
The undeveloped portions of the hospital's master planned area are generally locate d
to the west of the hospital and bordered by the railroad on the northwestern propert y
lines . These areas are described in the following paragraphs :
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-109
ER 109-9 3
Page 3
a.1250 Iris Street -this 0 .93-acre site is currently zoned R-2-S . Much of
the western part of the site is contained within a creek area . Withi n
the creek area is a steep bank which separates the creek channel fro m
the bulk of the site . Another steep slope bank exists along the eas t
property line . The remainder of the site is fairly flat . Most of th e
site's vegetation exists in the creek area . Several eucalyptus trees and
a pepper tree are located near the site's east property line .
b.Property to the west of the hospital -this 5 .3-acre area is currentl y
zoned 0-PD . The area is lower in elevation than the develope d
portion of the hospital property and is separated from it by a stee p
slope bank . A helicopter pad is still visible, but no longer used . The
same creek area described above is located on the southwest side .
c.1615 Fairview Street -this 1 .4-acre site is currently zoned R-2-S an d
is located on a quiet cul-de-sac accessed via Breck Street from Johnso n
Avenue . The immediate neighborhood contains mostly apartmen t
buildings . A house on the site was recently demolished after an arso n
fire . A mature stand of eucalyptus trees and a open drainage cours e
are located on the south side of this area .
II . POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIE W
A.
Community Plans and Goal s
Land Use Element
Phase I, which calls for the development of the 30,000 square-foot medical office buildin g
(Building E), is consistent with general plan policies that apply to medical offices whic h
provide for them to be established in "specialized centers such as medical complexes" an d
allow "continued use and limited expansion of office areas outside the periphery of th e
Central Business District ...when such areas ...are based on an established group of offices "
(Section C.3 .b .(1 .) & (2 .) of adopted LUE, pages 16-17).
However, Phase II, which involves changing the land use designations of properties to th e
northwest* at 1615 Fairview Street and to the southwest at 1250 Iris Street from Medium -
Density Residential to Office, raises some issues in terms of general plan conformanc e
which are discussed below:
1 . Like the development of the new medical office building proposed in Phase I, th e
proposed amendments could be found consistent with the policies contained i n
Section C.3 .b .(1 .) & (2 .) of the adopted LUE which encourage centralization of
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-110
•
ER 109-93
Page 4
functionally-related offices and expansion of offices in specialized centers such a s
medical complexes .
2.
Professional Office Policy C.3 .b .(4 .) states that :
'The city should review all requests for conversion of residential uses t o
professional office activities to ensure their ability to adequately function as offic e
uses, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,..."
Conclusion :May be significant.
The ability of the two sites to be compatibly developed with adjacent residential uses is ke y
to establishing whether the proposed general plan amendments are appropriate . The issu e
is whether the encroachment of office development into the two residential areas will creat e
a significant adverse impact on the character of these neighborhoods . Offices may b e
considered conditionally compatible with residential uses subject to buffering treatment s
being a part of the physical site development plans . In addition, natural features of the sit e
such as creeks, topography, vegetation or streets may provide a natural screen or buffe r
between properties .
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council who wil l
ultimately determine whether the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood s
and consistent with the general plan . The land use compatibility issue is further evaluate d
in the Land Use section of this initial study .
3.
Professional Office Policy C .3 .b .(6 .) states that :
'Primary access to professional office activities should be provided fro m
commercial arterial or collector streets and should avoid the use of loca l
residential circulation ."
Primary access to the site will continue to be through the signalized intersection at Lizzi e
Street and Johnson Avenue . The southern entrance to the site, located off of Ella Street ,
opposite of Sierra Way, will remain and is not proposed to be modified . The mos t
significant circulation addition to the plan is an internal driveway linking the main entranc e
off of Johnson Avenue with Fairview Street to the north .
With the proposed rezoning of the two properties to the southwest at 1250 Iris Street an d
the north at 1615 Fairview Street, the issue becomes whether the land use change wil l
introduce commercial traffic onto Iris Street, and its connections with Ella Street, an d
Fairview and Breck Streets, all currently functioning as local residential streets .
Conclusion :May be significant .
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-111
ER 109-93
Page 5
The property at 1250 Iris Street is proposed to be developed with additional parking lo t
areas. These new parking areas will be linked to the existing parking lots through interna l
driveways . No vehicular access, other than for emergency vehicles, from the project to Iri s
Street is proposed ; therefore, commercial traffic generated by the project will not b e
directed to Iris Street or the other residential streets that are accessed from Ella Street .
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reinforce the prohibition of projec t
access to Iris Street in case the issue is raised again in the future .
Mitigation Measure :
■Vehicular access, other than for emergency vehicles, to the portion of the project sit e
currently addressed as 1250 Iris Street, shall be prohibited .
The property at 1615 Fairview Street is more complicated to evaluate in terms o f
consistency with the cited policy since a direct connection between the project an d
Fairview/Breck Streets is proposed . Although many will access the site through the hospita l
property via the signalized intersection at Lizzie Street and Johnson Avenue, vehicles ma y
still choose to access the site from Breck Street . Vehicles accessing the site either via Breck
Street or through the hospital will introduce commercial traffic onto residential streets .
Conclusion :May be significant .
Mitigation Measure :
Consistency with Professional Office Policy C .3 .b.(6.) could be achieved by :
■Denying the request to rezone the property at 1615 Fairview Street from R-2-S t o
0-S and eliminating the need for the street connection from the site to Fairvie w
Street (pedestrian and emergency access only); o r
■Reducing commercial traffic on residential streets to insignificant levels by adoptin g
mitigation measures to restrict traffic .
(This option is discussed in detail, along with areawide circulation issues and traffic
impacts, in the Transportation and Circulation section of this initial study .)
Housing Element
Both sites with R-2-S zoning (1250 Iris Street, 1615 Fairview Street) have average cros s
slopes of approximately 13%, which allow a maximum density of 12 equivalent density unit s
per net acre . Maximum densities would be 11 .1 units for the site at 1250 Iris Street an d
16 .8 units for the site at 1615 Fairview Street . However, these maximum densities represen t
unit counts that probably could not be realistically attained since both sites contain cree k
areas that reduce their buildable area and provide constraints to development to their full
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-112
ER 109-93
Page 6
potential . For example, the condominium project approved for 1250 Iris Street containe d
a total of 6 units and an equivalent density of 8 .5 .
Housing Element policies attempt to preserve the existing housing stock and to provide a
variety of housing types suitable to the different preferences and incomes of city residents .
The proposals will not result in the removal of existing housing or the displacement o f
residents . However, with approval of the two general plan amendment/rezoning requests ,
the residential development potential for approximately 15 housing units will be lost . 1 5
housing units represent 1 .6% of the existing vacant housing supply, 0 .08% of the total
existing housing supply, and about 8% of the total new dwellings expected to be built in on e
• year in the 1990's, based on the City's Growth Management Ordinance .
The project would not be consistent with policies which favor minimizing the conversion o f
residential land to non-residential uses, although the specific program language in th e
housing element that directly addresses the issue does not prohibit such rezonings :
Program # 16 -
Changes from residential to non-residential land us e
designations will be minimized.
Additionally, the requests when viewed in a citywide context - the loss of the developmen t
potential of these two sites compared to the amount of land suitable for residentia l
development within the city's planning area - will not have a significant impact on the city's
existing and planned supply of housing . For example, page 24 of the Draft LUE date d
February 1992 indicates that the three major expansion areas have a residential capacity o f
approximately 2,300 dwellings .
Conclusion :The loss of housing stock is insignificant when considered from a citywid e
perspective .
B.
Population Distribution and Growth ,
Since the site at 1250 Iris Street is proposed for parking and the undeveloped property t o
the west of the hospital is already zoned for offices, the component of the project that ha s
the most potential to create any population impacts is the development of the property a t
1615 Fairview Street with office uses . The following discussion focuses on anticipated sit e
occupancies associated with office development in comparison with residential development .
The submitted master plan shows that the 1 .4-acre site at 1615 Fairview Street would b e
eventually developed with Building A, a 6,000 square-foot office building . The City's Draf t
LUE uses an employment generation rate of 4 employees per 1000 square feet of floor are a
for offices . Using that employment generation rate, the new office building would house 2 4
workers . In addition, there would be clients and customers at the site during working hour s
and their numbers would vary based on the specific office use established .
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-113
ER 109-9 3
Page 7
If the property were developed with 10 two-bedroom units under the present R-2-S zoning ,
the expected resident population would be 24 people, using the State Department o f
Finance's 1993 average household size of 2 .4 persons .
Conclusion :No significant population changes are expected with the proposed land us e
change at 1615 Fairview Street .
The total number of projected workers is the same as anticipated residents . The characte r
of the population would be different with a greater daytime population with offices an d
larger evening population with residences . It could be expected that the number of
customers and clients associated with an office use would exceed the number of guests t o
be expected with residences . However, from an occupancy standpoint - the relative numbe r
of persons at the site at any one time - the differences with the two types of land uses ar e
not significant .
C.
Land Use
The change in land use for the property at 1250 Iris Street and its development as a parkin g
lot will not result in significant adverse impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood .
The site is naturally separated and buffered from the rest of the neighborhood by the cree k
. area and the vegetation along it . The landscaped treatment along the street will provide a
visual transition between the residential uses and the site and help screen parking . Th e
limitation on access from the site to Iris Street will prevent traffic impacts to the adjacen t
neighborhood .
The suitability of the change in land use for the property at 1615 Fairview Street is not a s
apparent . The proposal raises concerns with compatibility and traffic . Residences are no t
existing immediately adjacent to the proposed office building, but they are located directl y
across the street from the site . With the site's proposed 0-S zoning, development of th e
property will require the processing of a Planning Commission use permit . Conditions of
that use permit would presumably address compatibility types of issues including hours o f
operation, lighting and other limitations on office uses to reduce impacts . The project wil l
introduce commercial traffic to a residential area which raises policy and quality of lif e
issues for the adjacent neighborhood .
Conclusion :May be significant .
Mitigation Measure :
The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the proposal is consisten t
with LUE policy by finding that :
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-114
ER 109-9 3
Page 8
■Access to the site is from an arterial street, rather than a local residential street ,
given the project's proposed internal connection from Fairview/Breck Street to th e
signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street . This would include th e
determination that commercial traffic on Breck Street will be insignificant becaus e
most vehicles will find that the signalized intersection is more direct and easier t o
access .
■Proposed mitigation measures restricting traffic on Breck Street discussed in th e
following Section D., Transportation and Circulation, will reduce traffic impacts t o
a level of insignificance .
D .
Transportation and Circulatio n
Given the potential for traffic impacts associated with proposed further and futur e
development of the hospital and adjacent properties, City staff required that a traffi c
analysis be submitted with project plans . The traffic analysis prepared by Gerald Skiles i s
incorporated into this study as Appendix A .
1.Trip Generatio n
The traffic study concludes that estimated project trip generation for Phase I, the medica l
office building, will be 1,026 ADT . Future facilities will add 1,596 ADT . Taking int o
consideration that there will be some trips generated between on-site facilities, a total o f
2,230 daily trips are estimated to be added to access streets with full development . Th e
highest added volumes attributable to the project will be on Johnson Avenue north of Lizzi e
Street and the greatest increase in volumes over existing traffic levels will be for thos e
segments of Ella Street between Johnson Avenue and project driveways .
2.Impacts to Existing Signalized Intersection s
The existing Level of Service (LOS) for the two signalized intersections closest to the projec t
are LOS A for the Johnson Avenue/San Luis Drive intersection and LOS B for the Johnso n
Avenue/Lizzie Street intersection . With added traffic generated by the project, both th e
intersections will operate at LOS B .
Conclusion :Not significant ; the adjacent signalized intersections will comply with th e
City's acceptable level of service (LOS D or better).
3.Impacts to Johnson Avenue/Ella Street Intersectio n
The Johnson Avenue/Ella Street intersection will have the highest percentage increase i n
side street traffic of the intersections analyzed in the traffic study . Along with increased
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-115
ER 109-93
Page 9
levels of traffic on Johnson Avenue, delays at the stop-controlled intersection will increas e
with the project .
Conclusion :May be significant .
The traffic study does not conclude that a traffic signal needs to be installed at th e
intersection with Phase I development . There are a number of different dela y
measurements that are used to determine whether traffic signal warrants are met . Th e
traffic study concludes that "while side street delay will be increased, the quality of operatio n
will be acceptable with addition of project traffic ." However, the report qualifies thes e
conclusions with the statement that "it is not possible to predict the effect of added volum e
with any certainty ."
Since there are uncertainties associated with delay measurements, actual traffic patterns ma y
be different than those estimated in the report. That is the rationale for the Public Work s
Department 's request for a letter of credit for the cost of a signal at the Johnso n
Avenue/Ella Street intersection to be deposited as a condition of project approval althoug h
actual signal installation prior to Phase I occupancy is not required . The City is furthe r
requesting that on-going monitoring with annual reports be done after Phase I occupanc y
to gauge whether traffic signal warrants are actually met . The report also recommends tha t
striping changes to streets and timing mechanisms be added to signals to improve traffi c
flow in the vicinity of the hospital .
Mitigation Measures :
■The applicant shall mark Ella Street for through-left and right lanes at Johnso n
Avenue .
■The applicant shall deposit a letter of credit with the City for the cost of th e
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street .
The letter of credit shall be held for a period of up to five years from complet e
campus build-out . The applicant shall provide annual reports to the City Engineer ,
prepared by a Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer, during the time that the letter o f
credit is held, evaluating the need for installation of a traffic signal at th e
intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street . The traffic signal shall be designe d
to include an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) and interconnect with th e
intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street .
■The applicant shall install an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) at th e
intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Streets .
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-116
ER 109-93
Page 10
4.Project Street Access and Internal Circulatio n
Plans indicate that the project driveway entry at the intersection of Johnson Avenue an d
Lizzie Street will be modified to allow additional stacking area for vehicles on-site . Projec t
parking in the vicinity of the entry has been reworked accordingly . These changes are
proposed as part of Phase I development with construction of the medical office building .
The Fire Department has noted that 360-degree fire apparatus access is required around th e
hospital and that minimum width of access driveways is 20 feet. The Fire Department ha s
indicated concerns that parking areas and driveways depicted on project plans may not mee t
these minimum requirements .
Conclusion :May be significant .
Mitigation Measure :
■ The applicant shall submit a plan for the review and approval of the Fire Marsha l
indicating how minimum access requirements for emergency vehicles will be me t
without compromising other requirements for parking and landscaping .
5.Project Connection with Fairview/Breck Street s
Plans show that the on-site driveway continuing from the Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Stree t
signalized intersection will be extended to provide access to Fairview/Breck Streets to th e
north . This connection is intended to tie hospital facilities with property it owns at 161 5
Fairview Street . A general plan amendment/rezoning has been requested to change th e
land use and zoning from residential to office to allow for commercial development of th e
site with some type of facility related to the hospital .
The concern for the introduction of commercial traffic to the existing residentia l
neighborhood has been discussed previously on Pages 4-5 under Section' A ., Community
Plans and Goals, and Page 7 under Section C ., Land Use, in this initial study . The issue i s
also evaluated in the submitted traffic study .
The traffic study indicates that the planned connection to Fairview/Breck Street results i n
some undesirable impacts . Beyond the LUE policy conflict previously discussed, th e
connection raises concerns with traffic safety because of the poor sight distances at th e
Breck Street/Johnson Avenue intersection . Exiting movements from Breck Street t o
Johnson Avenue are both dangerous and disruptive to traffic flow on the arterial street .
The report also points out that it is not a desirable circulation design to use a public stree t
to connect parts of a project .
Conclusion :May be significant .
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-117
ER 109-93
Page 1 1
Mitigation Measures :
■With review of a future use permit for development of the site at 1615 Fairview
Street, the Planning Commission shall restrict office uses to those related to th e
hospital where minimal public access is required thereby decreasing traffic impacts .
■With development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, street access shall either b e
closed off entirely at the intersection of Breck Street and Johnson Avenue or limite d
to entry only to the satisfaction of the City Engineer .
F.
Utilitie s
The normal level of demand for city water exceeds the safe yield of supplies . The city has
responded by adopting measures to limit allocation of water to development, so a balanc e
between safe yield and normal demand can be reached as new water sources are developed .
These measures would apply to any further development or change of use on the site, an d
will mitigate potential water-use impacts .
The proposed plan for sewering individual buildings will depend on their precise locatio n
on the site. Sewer lines are located in Johnson, Ella and Fairview Streets . Depending o n
the size and planned uses of individual buildings, it may be necessary to improve th e
capacity of existing sewer lines to assure adequate flow through the system .
Conclusion :May be significant.
Mitigation Measure :
■The applicant shall submit precise plans and calculations for how individua l
buildings will be sewered to the approval of the Public Works and Utilities Directors .
Improvements to the capacity of existing sewer mains may be needed .
G .
Nois e
Short-term Impact s
There will be short-term noise impacts associated with construction that will affect nearb y
neighbors .
Conclusion :Not significant . No additional mitigation measures are necessary . However,
the provisions of the Noise Regulations that restrict construction to certai n
hours do apply (SLO Municipal Code Section 9 .12.050 B .6 .).
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-118
•
ER 109-93
Page 1 2
Long-term Impact s
The major sources of noise that affect the project are the Southern Pacific Railroad to th e
west and Johnson Avenue to the east . The Noise Contour Map included in the Draft Nois e
Element (1990) shows existing noise levels at the site to be less than 60 decibels (DB) Ld n
(average day/night exposure level over a 24-hour period). With build-out of the City, mos t
of the site will fall within the 60 DB Ldn contour, but an increased portion of the wester n
edge of the site adjacent to the railroad tracks will fall between the 60 and 65 DB Ld n
contours .
Most of the area of the site where noise levels will be loudest are proposed to be develope d
with parking areas . Building A, proposed on the northern property located off of Fairvie w
Street, has the most potential to be affected by increased noise levels .
Conclusion :Not significant .
Figure 1-2, a chart included in the City's adopted Noise Element (1975), provide s
compatibility guidelines in terms of acceptable noise levels for various types of land uses .
For hospitals, the normally acceptable range is between 60-65 Ldn and for offices th e
normally acceptable range is 65-75 Ldn . Therefore, proposed project facilities includin g
Building A will be located to fall within acceptable noise level ranges for the proposed uses .
Standard building construction techniques can be used to conform to the adopted 45 Ld n
for interior noise .
I .
Air Quality and Wind Condition s
Short-term Impact s
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated wit h
construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heav y
duty construction equipment .
Conclusion :May be significant .
Mitigation Measure :
■Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15 .44 .270, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon an y
adjoining property or street . The following measures shall constitute the project's
dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's
construction :
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-119
O ER 109-9 3
Page 13
a.Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complet e
coverage of all active areas);
b.Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph ;
c.Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph ;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transporte d
on-site or off-site;
e.Watering material stockpiles ;
f.Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of streets in the vicinit y
of the construction site; an d
g.Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work .
h.Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce pea k
hour emissions .
Long-term Impact s
Increased traffic associated with planned facilities will incrementally increase the pollutant s
in the air .
Conclusion :Cumulatively significant .
Mitigation Measure :
■ The applicant shall update the approved parking management plan to provide a tri p
reduction program that contains a comprehensive list of actions to reduce auto us e
to the Community Development Director for review and approval . The plan shal l
include the following additional measures :
a.Provide lockable bicycle storage for the office portions of the propose d
medical facilities consistent with the office standards specified in the Bicycl e
Transportation Plan (June 1993).
b.Include showers and lockers in the project to encourage employees to rid e
bicycles or walk to work .
c.Provide preferential parking places (closer to building entries) for employee s
who carpool .lb
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-120
ER 109-9 3
Page 14
d .
Expand incentive program to include employees who bicycle or walk to work .
K.
Plant Life
A survey of the vegetation located on properties included in the master plan was prepare d
by Malcolm Mc Leod Ph .D . and is incorporated into this study as Appendix B . The surve y
discusses two specific areas of the site with denser vegetation in more detail and the n
generally discusses vegetation found on the remainder of the site .
The first area discussed in detail is a fairly steeply sloping ravine area located to the nort h
and the west of proposed Building B . The whole area is covered by a canopy of eucalyptu s
trees. The eucalyptus trees are the dominant plant form of the area because of the shadin g
their canopies provide and the allelopathic chemicals, associated with tree droppings such
as bark, branches, fruit and leaves, which inhibit the growth of other plants that they com e
in contact with . Native plants found in the area include toyon, arroyo willows, poison oa k
and coast live oak .
The second specific area is the creek area located along the western edge of the property .
Eucalyptus trees again dominate, but there is also a grouping of live oak trees . Native
plants in this area are generally in better condition than in the first area .
No rare, endangered or sensitive plants were found in the two areas where the detaile d
studies were done . Most of the open areas between the hospital and the two area s
described are covered with annual introduced grasses . Plans for master plan development
in general do not result in the removal of significant trees or other plants . However, gradin g
operations need to be carefully conducted to prevent excess soil from sloughing off int o
sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site and possibly disturbing or killing existin g
trees and plants . These areas should also be protected from the possibility of futur e
development .
Conclusion :May be significant.
Mitigation Measures :
■Protective fencing shall be installed prior to, and maintained in place unti l
conclusion of, grading and development of parking lot areas to prevent excess soi l
from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site .
■To insure maintenance of the mature trees on the site, the heavily wooded portion s
not to be used for parking and/or building pads should be maintained as permanen t
open space easements .
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-121
ER 109-9 3
Page 1 5
•
L.
Animal Life
The creek area provides habitat to wildlife, mainly birds, but also amphibians, small reptile s
and mammals, and insects .
Conclusion :Not significant .
Proposed buildings and improvements will be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the to p
of creek bank . No modifications are proposed to the creek channel . Therefore, no furthe r
mitigation is required .
N.
Aesthetic s
The proposed 30,000 square-foot medical office building will be located to the south an d
west of the existing Pacific Medical Plaza and will be 45 .5 feet high . The new building wil l
be freestanding, but will have a common entry area with the existing office complex . Th e
height and scale of the building make its siting a factor in terms of minimizing visua l
impacts .
Conclusion :Not significant .
The relative flatness of the footprint area and the proximity to the existing medical comple x
are factors that will minimize visual and compatibility issues . Specific features of buildin g
design to minimize the apparent mass of the building will be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Commission .
P.
Lightin g
Parking lot facilities are planned to cover most of the western part of the project site .
These areas are somewhat buffered from adjacent residential uses by the vegetation in th e
creek area, but there is the potential for glare from parking lot lighting to impact nearb y
residences .
Conclusion :May be significant .
Mitigation Measure :
■Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare
onto adjacent properties . The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval o f
the Architectural Review Commission . The ARC shall carefully review the heigh t
and type of lighting fixtures .
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-122
ER 109-9 3
Page 1 6
III . STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends that a negative declaration be prepared for this project with note d
mitigation measures incorporated into the project. If the Community Development Directo r
determines that the mitigation measures outlined in this initial study are ineffective o r
physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of th e
original measures .
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-123
ER 109-93
Page 17
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ER 109-9 3
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE S
& MONITORING PROGRAM
In conformance with AB 3180,the following mitigation measures will be monitored as
indicated below :
1 .Vehicular access, other than for emergency vehicles, to the portion of the projec t
site currently addressed as 1250 Iris Street, shall be prohibited .
Monitoring :
The restriction on access shall become a condition of the use permit approvin g
the master plan .
2.Consistency with Professional Office Policy C .3.b .(6.) could be achieved by :
a.Denying the request to rezone the property at 1615 Fairview Street from R -0 2-S to 0-S and eliminating the need for the street connection from th e
site to Fairview Street ; o r
b.Reducing commercial traffic on residential streets to insignificant levels b y
adopting mitigation measures to restrict traffic .
3 .The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the proposal i s
consistent with LUE policy by finding that :
a.Access to the site is from an arterial street, rather than a local residentia l
street, given the project's proposed internal connection fro m
Fairview/Breck Street to the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenu e
and Lizzie Street . This would include the determination that commercia l
traffic on Breck Street will be insignificant because most vehicles will fin d
that the signalized intersection is more direct and easier to access .
b.Proposed mitigation measures restricting traffic on Breck Street outline d
in Mitigation Measures 10 and 11 will reduce traffic impacts to a level o f
insignificance.
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-124
ER 109-93
Page 18
Monitoring :
The Planning Commission and City Council will need to weigh the pros and con s
of the proposed driveway access through the site from Johnson Avenue t o
Fairview/Breck Street in terms of general plan policy and adopt appropriat e
mitigation measures and conditions to assure consistency .
4.
The applicant shall mark Ella Street for through-left and right lanes at Johnso n
Avenue .
5.
The applicant shall deposit a letter of credit with the City for the cost of the
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ell a
Street. The letter of credit shall be held for a period of up to five years fro m
complete campus build-out . The applicant shall provide annual reports to th e
City Engineer, prepared by a Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer, during the tim e
that the letter of credit is held, evaluating the need for installation of a traffi c
signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street . The traffic signa l
shall be designed to include an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) an d
interconnect with the intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street .
6.
The applicant shall install an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) at th e
intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Streets .
Monitoring :
The City Engineer shall confirm that all traffic mitigations have been successfull y
fulfilled and/or completed prior to building permit issuance for Phase I
development (Building E).
7.
The applicant shall submit a plan for the review and approval of the Fir e
Marshal indicating how minimum access requirements for emergency vehicles wil l
be met without compromising other requirements for parking and landscaping .
Monitoring:
The Fire Marshal, by reviewing project plans during architectural review and
building permit plan check, will confirm that access complies with City standards .
8.
With review of a future use permit for development of the site at 1615 Fairvie w
Street, the Planning Commission shall restrict office uses to those related to th e
hospital where minimal public access is required thereby decreasing traffi c
impacts .
•
•
•
•
/-7
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-125
ER 109-93
Page 19
Monitoring :
•
With the proposed 0-S zoning of the site, a Planning Commission use permi t
would be processed prior to any uses being established at the site . If the rezonin g
is supported, then this mitigation measure would also become a condition o f
master plan approval .
9.With development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, street access shall either b e
closed off entirely at the intersection of Breck Street and Johnson Avenue or
limited to entry only to the satisfaction of the City Engineer .
Monitoring:
Specific measures to limit access from Johnson Avenue to Breck Street woul d
become part of use permit conditions for the development of the property at 161 5
Fairview Street .
10.The applicant shall submit precise plans and calculations for how individua l
buildings will be sewered to the approval of the Public Works and Utilitie s
Directors . Improvements to the capacity of existing sewer mains may be needed .
Monitoring :
Each new building proposed on the master plan will require processing of a
Planning Commission use permit and architectural review . The Public Works an d
Utilities Directors will review plans submitted with applications for thes e
entitlements and establish specific requirements for sewer service .
11.Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15 .44 .270, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upo n
any adjoining property or street . The following measures shall constitute th e
project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases o f
that project's construction :
a.Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily wit h
complete coverage of all active areas);
b.Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph ;
c.Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph ;
d.Direct application of water on material being excavated and/o r
transported on-site or off-site ;
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-126
•
ER 109-9 3
Page 20
e.Watering material stockpiles ;
f.Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of streets in the vicinit y
of the construction site ; an d
g.
Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work .
h .
Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduc e
peak hour emissions .
Monitoring:
Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Developmen t
Department staff through field inspections during project construction .
12 .
The applicant shall update the approved parking management plan to provide a
trip reduction program that contains a comprehensive list of actions to reduc e
auto use to the Community Development Director for review and approval . Th e
plan shall include the following additional measures :
a.Provide lockable bicycle storage for the office portions of the propose d
medical facilities consistent with the office standards specified in th e
Bicycle Transportation Plan (June 1993).
b.Include showers and lockers in the project to encourage employees to rid e
bicycles or walk to work .
c.Provide preferential parking places (closer to building entries) fo r
employees who carpool .
d.Expand incentive program to include employees who bicycle or walk t o
work .
Monitoring :
City Community Development Department, or Public Works Traffic Division, staf f
would monitor the trip reduction program annually until the County APCD set s
up an independent monitoring program .
13 .
Protective fencing shall be installed prior to, and maintained in place unti l
conclusion of, grading and development of parking lot areas to prevent excess soi l
from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site .
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-127
ER 109-93
•Page 21
Monitoring :
Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Developmen t
Department staff through field inspections during project construction .
14.
To insure maintenance of the mature trees on the site, the heavily woode d
portions not to be used for parking and/or building pads should be maintaine d
as permanent open space easements .
Monitoring :
The requirement for the open space easements shall become a condition o f
master plan approval .
15.
Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glar e
onto adjacent properties . The specific design of lighting shall be to the approva l
of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review th e
height and type of lighting fixtures .
Monitoring :
O The ARC shall review specific proposals for parking lot lighting as part of specifi c
plans for each proposed building and associated parking .
16.
If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigatio n
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify th e
mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures .
•
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-128
Meeting Date: November 21, 2016
Item Number: 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of four new single-family dwellings within a Common Interest Subdivision
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2881 Broad St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
Email: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2264-2015 VIA: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft resolution (Attachment 1) approving the project, based on findings and subject to
conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Dustin Pires
Property Owner California Coastal Investments,
LLC; Vista da Praia, LP
Submittal Date October 4, 2016
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Zoning Med. Density Residential (R-2)
Special Considerations Overlay (S)
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt per
CEQA Guidelines §15332 (Infill
Development)
BACKGROUND
The applicant has filed applications to subdivide a parcel into four lots and to construct a single
family dwelling on each of the resulting lots. Architectural review of the project is required because
the property is proposed to be subdivided with a vesting tentative map (application
SBDV-1988-2015) resulting in a common interest subdivision.1
1 Subdivision Regulations § 16.12.020 (B) (1) and § 16.17.020 (A)
ARC2 - 1
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 2
On February 16, 2016, the City Council approved a property exchange agreement under which the
applicant will acquire property along Stoneridge Drive from the City in exchange for dedication
of property for street purposes along Perkins Lane. The exchange will be executed during the
review and finalization of the related minor subdivision. Plans submitted with this application
show the property as it will be configured after the exchange and dedication.
On June 20, 2016, the Commission reviewed plans for the project and provided several directional
items to guide project modifications that would help the project achieve greater consistency with
Community Design Guidelines by addressing several areas of concern: the integration of the
project into its surroundings; its compatibility with the existing neighborhood character; reduction
of paved area; privacy; and visual interest and variety (Attachment 4).
The proposed minor subdivision of the property will be considered by the Subdivision Hearing
Officer at a public hearing. A tentative hearing date for the subdivision will be determined after
the Commission reviews and takes action on the project.
1.0 COMMISSION PURVIEW
The Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the City’s General Plan,
Zoning Regulations and Community Design Guidelines.
2.0 SITE INFORMATION/SETTING
The project site is a moderately sloping parcel at the southwest corner of Broad Street and
Stoneridge Drive, in a Medium-Density Residential (R-2) and Special Considerations Overlay (S)
Zone. Special considerations for the area that are relevant to this project include substandard street
width and drainage concerns. The project design responds to these considerations, which are more
fully addressed by action on the proposed minor subdivision.2
The area is characterized by commercial and residential development along Broad Street to the
north, south, and east, and by lower-density residential development to the west, along Stoneridge
Drive and Perkins Lane. Natural features on the site are limited to several tall palm trees along the
2 As provided in Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.56 , related to establishing use of land within an (S) Zone
Table 1: Site Information
Site Area ± 19,775 sq. ft.
Present Use & Development Vacant (single-family residence demolished)
Topography Moderate slope: ± 9% cross slope
Access From Perkins Drive
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Low- (R-1) and Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Zones
South: Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
East: Retail-Commercial (C-R-SF); Grange Hall, car wash
West: Medium Density Residential (R-2-S)
ARC2 - 2
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 3
north side of the property.3 The site was developed with a brick Craftsman-style single-family
residence, which was demolished.4
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Project Description
The project includes subdivision of the existing parcel into four lots, oriented roughly north-south
(parallel to Broad Street), and development of each resulting parcel with a two-story single-family
dwelling accessed by a driveway from Perkins Drive, leading to a single-car garage and a carport.
The size of each dwelling is described in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Proposed Dwellings
Parcel # BR Floor Area Height Lot Area Density
Living Other Proposed Max
1 3 2,187 sf 173 sf (2nd fl. deck)
478 sf (Roof deck)
256 sf (Garage)
31’ – 3” 5,465 1.50 1.51
2 2 1,963 sf 478 sf (Roof deck)
256 sf (Garage)
29’ – 9” 3,674 1.00 1.01
3 2 1,963 sf 478 sf (Roof deck)
256 sf (Garage)
31’ – 2” 3,674 1.00 1.01
4 2 2,187 sf 173 sf (2nd fl. deck)
478 sf (Roof deck)
256 sf (Garage)
30’ – 5” 4,233 1.00 1.17
4.0 PROJECT EVALUATION
Plans for the revised project have been reviewed for consistency with development standards in
the City’s Zoning Regulations, and guidance provided in the City’s Community Design
3 Several trees removed under a Tree Removal Permit (Request 2923, approved June, 2015)
4 The property was considered, but not designated for, listing as an historic resource under application HIST-0554-
2015, decided by City Council on March 31, 2015
Figure 1: Four proposed dwellings, Stoneridge Drive frontage
ARC2 - 3
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 4
Guidelines. As proposed, the project is generally consistent with applicable standards and
guidelines. Exceptions are required for the project to allow encroachment of limited portions of
the buildings into Other Yards, as discussed below (see 4.2: Development Standards).
4.1 Response to Directional Items
At their June 20th meeting, the Commission provided direction to the applicant about design
modifications that would enhance conformance to development standards and consistency with
Community Design Guidelines. The ARC Agenda Report for the hearing5 gives a full description
of the direction provided. Changes in response to that direction are discussed below:
Elimination of “Bonus Room / Attic Loft” and gable roof forms at the third level
Replacement of common driveway along Stoneridge with common pedestrian access
Relocation of driveways and garages to Perkins frontage
Elimination of uncovered tandem parking in driveways
Addition of carport parking adjacent to each dwelling
Removal of fencing from Perkins and Broad frontages
Building height; Density (Items 1 and 2)
The “Bonus Room / Attic Loft” was eliminated from the plan of each dwelling, reducing building
height to a level more consistent with that of surrounding development6 and to keep project density
within allowed limits. The buildings are topped by a tower element enclosing the roof access
stairway and a pergola on the roof deck to provide shading. Railing and deck areas have been set
further back from the edges of the structure to contain activities on the roof deck within the
building envelope. While the maximum building height, at the tower elements, has been only
slightly reduced from the original design, massing at the upper level of the buildings has been
reduced and the roof deck area no longer includes habitable floor space.
5 The June 20, 2016 Agenda Report is included in Commissioner packets and available online at www.slocity.org
(Government / Advisory Bodies)
6 See Community Design Guidelines § 5.3 (A) (1)
Figure 2: Elimination of third level (left); prior design (right)
ARC2 - 4
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 5
Nevertheless, opportunity may exist to minimize upper-level massing by eliminating the stair
towers or further reducing their mass to the minimum necessary to provide access to the roof deck,
and employing “lighter” screening methods that provide privacy without using building forms and
mass for screening. For example, semi-open horizontal screening elements could be integrated into
the design to provide privacy without excessive building mass. Similarly, elimination of the trellis
shading structures, or use of a lighter-weight trellis design can further reduce upper-level massing.
Table 3: Other Yard Encroachments
Parcel Yard @Height Yard Depth Encroachment Note Provided Standard
2
E
23’ 7’ 10’ 3 ft.
28’ 8.5’ 12’ 1 ft. Pergola, arch. feature (30”
allowed)
W 23’ 5’ 10’ 5 ft.
29’ 5’ 12.5’ 7.5 ft. Stair tower (13’ wide)
3
E
24’ 7’ 10’ 3 ft.
29’ 8.5’ 12.5’ 1.5 ft. Pergola, arch. feature (30”
allowed)
W 24’ 5’ 10’ 5 ft.
29’ 5’ 12.5’ 7.5 ft. Stair tower (13’ wide)
4 E 24’ 5’ 10’ 5 ft.
29 5’ 12.5’ 7.5 ft. Stair tower (13’ wide)
Other Yard encroachment (Item 3)
The elimination of the “Bonus Room / Attic Loft” from each building has reduced the amount of
building form that encroaches into Other Yards. The proposed dwelling on Parcel 1 (Broad Street
frontage) has been brought further away from the interior property line, to provide the required
Other Yard setback (except for a small, allowed, projection of the pergola feature). Yard depth
along the west side of Parcel 2 has been increased by a foot, and along the east side of P arcel 3,
yard depth has been increased by 1 ½ feet. Several encroachments into Other Yards remain, as
described in Table 3 above. Encroachments only occur in the interior yards between the proposed
Figure 3: Site Cross-Section, with setback lines
ARC2 - 5
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 6
dwellings (see Site Cross Section, Sheet AR5 of the project plans), and are largest where the stair
towers on each building rise to access the roof decks.
Roof decks and privacy (Item 7)
During ARC review of the original project design, attention was drawn to the roof decks to address
the potential for privacy and noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, in keeping with
General Plan policies for compatible development.7 Decks are set back further from the edges of
the structure, reducing the potential for activities from the roof deck to impact neighboring
properties. Elimination of living area from the third level has reduced the building mass screening
the roof decks, but increased their exposure to neighboring properties. As noted earlier, further
consideration should be given to eliminating or lightening the mass of structures used on the roof
deck to provide access and screening, to properly balance massing and privacy.
Driveway; Paving; Garages; Tandem parking (Items 4, 8, 9, & 10)
Driveways and garages for the dwellings have been relocated to the Perkins Lane frontage, carports
are proposed adjacent to each garage, and the common access way and uncovered tandem parking
along Stoneridge has been eliminated, reducing the visibility of parked vehicles from the street
and avoiding a “garage- and driveway-dominated” appearance. Driveway paving has been reduced
to that necessary to access parking, and visitor parking can be accommodated on driveways, which
7 See General Plan Land Use Element, Policy 2.3.9 (F)
Figure 4: Roof decks
Figure 5: Driveways, garages, parking
ARC2 - 6
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 7
are 20 feet deep. Garages and proposed carports are located behind the building setback line,
making them visually more subordinate to the dwellings when viewed from along the street
frontage. However, as discussed below (Section 4.2 – Development Standards), Other Yard
setbacks cannot be reduced to accommodate the carport structures, and so the parking provided in
these locations will need to remain uncovered. Condition #3 of the draft resolution addresses these
spaces.
Project plans were reviewed by Public Works, who commented that driveways should be
consolidated to reduce the number of driveway openings along the Perkins Lane frontage. The
orientation of parking spaces on Parcels 1 and 2 are conducive to this consolidation, but parking
spaces for Parcels 3 and 4 would need to be relocated to enable consolidation.
Site fencing; Transition to street (Items 5 & 6)
Fencing has been removed from the Broad and Perkins Street frontages, and reduced along
Stoneridge. Two pedestrian connections have been provided to Stoneridge, one at each end of the
site, continuing along a common walkway area connecting the formal entry to each dwelling. The
project no longer appears “walled-off” from the surrounding neighborhood and is better integrated
into it, consistent with General Plan policy and Community Design Guidelines 8. Fencing is used
sparingly to delineate private yard areas and to provide screening for privacy, consistent with
§ 5.2 (C). Formal entry to each of the dwellings is now connected to the street frontage and open
to it, rather than recessed behind a garage.
Visual interest; Variety (Items 11 & 12)
The original project design consisted of four nearly identical dwellings rigidly placed in the same
location on each lot, resulting in an appearance devoid of variety, particularly as experienced from
the Perkins Lane frontage. In addition, the design did not exhibit consistent application of detail
and articulation, as the east and west elevations of the dwellings had notably less visual interest
and articulation than the north and south elevations.
8 See General Plan Housing Element Policy 7.5, and Community Design Guidelines § 5.2 (A) & § 2.1 (D)
Figure 6: Integration into surroundings
ARC2 - 7
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 8
Design changes include a more consistent application of siding materials and an appropriate
amount of articulation, shadow, and texture interest on sides of the buildings, including the east
and west elevations. Placement and detailing of each dwelling is still similar, but the middle
dwellings (Parcels 2 and 3) have been differentiated a bit in form and massing from the two “end”
units, to avoid a “cookie cutter” appearance.9 Cementitious fiberboard siding and stucco continue
to be primary materials for the proposed dwellings, used along with material changes at shifts in
wall planes to achieve a varied and interesting pattern and texture on building elevations visible
from the street. Building elevations have been revised, and materials and articulation are applied
consistently across all four sides of the buildings, as encouraged by Community Design
Guidelines.10 The new design exhibits enough variety in detailing, and arrangement of massing
and forms within the site to avoid the sense of monotonous repetition present in the original design.
4.2 Development Standards
Table 4: Project statistics – Overall Project
Proposed (1) Ordinance Standard (2)
Density (density units) 4.5 4.70 max
Street Yards
Broad St 20 ft. 20 ft.
Stoneridge Dr 20 ft. 20 ft.
Perkins Ln 20 ft. 20 ft.
Other Yard (West P/L)
1st level (to 12’ height) 10 ft 5 ft.
2nd level (to 22’ height) 10.5 ft. 9 ft.
3rd level (to 29’ height) 14 ft. 12.5 ft.
Building Height (maximum) 31 ft. – 3 in. 35 ft.
Building Coverage 26% 50%
Parking Spaces 2 ea. 2 ea.
Notes: (1) Project plans; (2) Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations
The overall project conforms to applicable development standards (see Table 4), including
conforming yards at the project perimeter. Within the project, portions of three of the dwellings
encroach into interior Other Yards between the dwellings. Minor exceptions to yard depth
standards have been requested to allow for these encroachments, as discussed below
Other Yards
Buildings. Encroachments into Other Yards occur in the interior yards between the proposed
dwellings on Parcels 2, 3, and 4 (see Table 3 above). At the second level of the buildings, setbacks
of 5 to 7 feet are provided, where yard standards require 10 feet. At the roof deck level, the stair
9 CDG § 5.5 (A) (1)
10 CDG § 5.2 (F) & § 2.2 (B)
ARC2 - 8
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 9
towers on each building are set back 5 feet, where yard standards call for setbacks of up to 12.5
feet. The stair towers extend about 13 feet along the length of each building, which is a only a
small portion of the building length (25% or less), and less than 13% of the lot depth. Each of the
dwellings within the project is placed at least 5 feet from the interior property line separating it
from its neighbor, providing at least 10 feet of building separation between dwellings within the
project.
Zoning Regulations allow for exceptions to standards for Other Yards under certain
circumstances.11 Such exceptions can be made when they are of a minor nature and if the
development will comply with Policy 4.5.1 12 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space
Element regarding reasonable solar access. As the longest dimension of each of the proposed lots
is oriented within 30 degrees of south, and the southerly walls of each dwelling are adjacent to the
Perkins Lane street frontage, those walls will be mostly unshaded. Furthermore, as each dwelling
is similar in height, and the lot is of moderate slope, the roof areas will also remain unshaded.
Carports. Uncovered tandem parking spaces in driveways that were proposed in the original
project design were eliminated by moving the spaces out of the street yard, to a location adjacent
to each garage, under a carport. The proposed carports are located within Other Yards between
Parcels 1, 2, and 3, and consist of a wood trellis structure with a standing seam metal roof. Zoning
Regulations, however, do not allow for the reduction of Other Yard depth to accommodate these
carports, but do allow uncovered parking spaces to occupy Other Yards.13 Condition #3 in the draft
resolution addresses conversion of the carport spaces to uncovered parking spaces.
Driveways and Paving
Driveways are proposed along the Perkins Lane frontage of each lot, to provide vehicle access to
the parking for each dwelling. Due to the narrower lot width, the driveway paving may slightly
exceed 50% of the front yard area.14 Standards for Front yard paving (Zoning § 17.17.050) limit
impervious paved surfaces to 50%. Paved areas can be adjusted as necessary, or permeable
surfaces can be incorporated into the driveway design to conform to the limitations on impervious
surfaces. The draft resolution for this project includes a Code Compliance note addressing
conformance to these standards.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The original design was found to be inconsistent with many of the guidelines for the relation of a
residential project to its context and to the street, the manner in which vehicle access and parking
are provided, and details related to building architecture and variety. Changes made with the
modified design have substantially improved these inconsistencies. Notwithstanding further
opportunity to reduce upper-level massing and consolidate driveways, as discussed in this report,
11 Zoning Regulations § § 17.16.020 (E) (2) (c) and (e)
12 Solar access standards for COSE Policy 4.5.1 provide that “nearly all south walls and all roof areas should be
unshaded between 10 am and 3 pm on the winter solstice.
13 Zoning Regulations § 17.16.020 (D) (8)
14 Front Yard: The area of a residential lot that lies between the street property line and the wall of any residences
that face the street… (Zoning, § 17.100 (F))
ARC2 - 9
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Page 10
staff finds that the project conforms to applicable development standards and is consistent with the
City’s Community Design Guidelines, as set out in the attached draft resolution.
6.0 CONCURRENCES
Project plans have been reviewed by the Building & Safety Division, and the Fire, Publ ic Works,
and Utilities Departments. Comments from these departments have been incorporated into the draft
resolution as conditions of approval and code compliance notes.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Plans (reduced size)
4. Meeting Minutes and Directional Items (ARC June 20, 2016)
Included in Commission member portfolio: Project Plans; ARC Agenda Report, June 20, 2016
ARC2 - 10
RESOLUTION NO. ####-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
FOUR NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, INCLUDING MINOR
EXCEPTIONS ALLOWING OTHER YARD BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS, AT
2881 BROAD STREET (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) AND SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS (S) ZONE; FILE #ARCH-2264-2015)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on June 20, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
application ARCH-2264-2015, Dustin Pires, applicant, to consider the construction of four single-
family dwellings within a Common Interest Development, and continued consideration of the
project to a future date, providing direction about modifications necessary to conform to applicable
development standards and to achieve consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on November 21, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the revised project design,
including Other Yard building height exceptions allowing encroachments into interior Other
Yards; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval to
application ARCH-2264-2015, based on the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the policies of the City’s General Plan applicable
to development in a Medium Density Residential area. The proposed dwellings have been
designed to: be integrated with the existing neighborhood and to be compatible with its
character, consistent with Policies 2.3.5 and 2.3.9 of the Land Use Element of the City’s
General Plan for Neighborhood Pattern and Compatible Development; to conform to
applicable development standards; and to be consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines. Minor exceptions allowing encroachments into Other Yards internal to the project
facilitate development of individual dwellings on narrower lots while preserving reasonable
solar access, consistent with Policy 4.5.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 11
Resolution No. ARC ####-16 Page 2
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
2. As conditioned, and with minor exceptions allowing Other Yard building height exceptions,
as provided in Zoning Regulations § 17.16.020 (E) (2) (e), the project conforms to the
standards and limitations set forth in the City’s Zoning Regulations. The density of
development is within the allowable limit, the structures are set back from property lines in a
manner that provides adequate separation, air circulation, and solar exposure, and required
parking is provided in an appropriate location on the site and in conformance to minimum
dimensions. Special considerations related to substandard street width and drainage concerns
are addressed by street frontage and drainage improvements incorporated into the project
design. The requirement for a use permit to establish residential use of the property, which is
within a Special Considerations (S) Overlay Zone, is waived, as provided by § 17.56.040, as
the property is the subject of a subdivision map application (SBDV-1988-2015).
3. Other Yard Building Height Exceptions, as provided in Zoning Regulations
§ 17.16.020 (E) (2) (e), allowing for projections of portions of three buildings into Other Yards
are appropriate. Encroachments are limited to interior yards between dwellings within the
project, on Parcels 2, 3, and 4, ranging between 1 and 5 feet for building walls at the second
level, and up to 7.5 feet for the stair towers at the roof deck level. These encroachments involve
an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. No significant fire protection,
emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely to result from the exception.
Consistent with Policy 4.5.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan,
southerly building walls will remain mostly unshaded, as the longest dimension of each of the
proposed lots is oriented within 30 degrees of south, and the southerly walls of each dwelling
are adjacent to the Perkins Lane street frontage. Roof areas will also remain unshaded as each
dwelling is similar in height, and the lot is of moderate slope.
4. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines
(CDG) applicable to residential development. At two stories in height, and using smooth stucco
and cementitious fiber-board as predominant surface materials, the dwellings have been
designed to be compatible in scale and character with existing adjacent buildings and those in
the immediate neighborhood, consistent with guidelines applicable to Infill Development
(CDG § 5.3).
5. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It involves construction of four single-family residences, consistent with
policies and standards applicable to development within a Medium-Density Residential area,
on a site less than 5 acres in area with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened
species, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15332 (Infill Development). The site is within
City limits and is served by City utilities and public services. As conditioned, approval of the
project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality.
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval to
application ARCH-2264-2015, with incorporation of the following conditions and code
compliance notes:
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 12
Resolution No. ARC ####-16 Page 3
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Conditions
Planning
1. Conformance to approved plans. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for
a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the
ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included, as Sheet Number 2, in working drawings
submitted for a building permit, listing all conditions and code requirements of project
approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in the plans each
condition and code requirement is addressed. Any change to the approved design, colors,
materials, landscaping, or conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or
Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. Noise reduction – Interior noise levels: Plans submitted for construction permits to complete
the project will clearly indicate and describe the noise reduction measures, techniques, and
materials used to reduce noise levels for the portion of the project along Broad Street that is
exposed to elevated noise levels, as indicated in Figures 4 and 5 of the Noise Element of the
General Plan, to acceptable levels, as described in Figure 1 of the Noise Element. Measures,
techniques, and materials used to reduce noise levels shall be as described in the Standard
Noise Package for achieving a noise level reduction of 25 dB, from the City’s Noise
Guidebook, or equivalent alternative measures, techniques, and materials.
3. Carports. The carports depicted adjacent to the garage of each dwelling shall be eliminated, as
they cannot be permitted within Other Yards. Parking spaces provided in these locations shall
be uncovered.
4. Other Yard Building Height Exceptions. Exceptions from minimum standards for Other Yard
depth are limited to the areas of building encroachment, ranging between 1 and 5 feet for
building walls at the second level, and up to 7.5 feet for the stair towers at the roof deck level,
into interior Other Yards on Parcels 2, 3, and 4, as depicted on the Site Cross Section drawing
(Sheet AR5) of the approved plans. Final plans submitted for construction permits to complete
the project shall include a similar cross-section drawing depicting yard depth building setback
lines, to facilitate evaluation of conformance to this limitation.
Public Works
5. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard
(SLOMC § 12.16.050).
6. The building plan submittal shall show any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter &
sidewalk or driveway approach to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 13
Resolution No. ARC ####-16 Page 4
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
7. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed public or private
easements for reference. Any required on-site or off-site easements shall be recorded prior to
building permit issuance.
8. The development plan requires a property exchange with the City. The property exchange
shall be finalized prior to building permit issuance.
9. The parcel map improvement plans shall include complete details of the required Perkins Lane
expansion, frontage improvements, and intersection improvements in accordance with the City
Engineering Standards in effect at the time of improvement plan submittal and/or
encroachment permit issuance. The plans shall also show compliance with applicable
Streetscape Standards set forth in Chapter 6.0 of the South Broad Street Corridor Plan. Any
conflicts between the City Engineering Standards and intent of the corridor plan shall be
reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development
Director.
10. The subdivision improvement plans/public improvement plans shall include all public utility
installations, upgrades, and/or relocations per City Engineering Standards. Final line and grade
for the street improvements and utilities shall be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo.
11. The development and/or subdivision improvement plans shall be approved prior to building
permit issuance. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Development
Review Division along with a completed improvement plan application, engineer’s estimate
of probable cost, and the required improvement plan review fee. A separate Public Works
Department inspection fee will be required prior to improvement plan approval and
encroachment permit issuance.
12. The existing Cal Trans high-speed driveway approach at the intersection of Perkins Lane and
Broad Street shall be modified to abandon the existing driveway approach not proposed with
the development. The driveway approach shall comply with current city engineering standards
and ADA standards.
13. The proposed new driveway approaches shall be in accordance with current standards. The
current city and ADA standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp.
14. The City will support the design exception as requested for a reduction in sidewalk width from
the standard 6’ integral sidewalk to a 5’ integral sidewalk in accordance with ADA minimum
requirements. The reduced sidewalk width shall maintain a free and clear width of 4’ to any
sign post, hydrant or other obstruction.
15. Development of the driveways and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area
of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the
dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 14
Resolution No. ARC ####-16 Page 5
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
16. The building plan submittal shall show all parking spaces that are adjacent to a post, column,
or wall shall be one additional foot in width per City Engineering Standard 2220.
17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed
utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead
services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new
structures shall be underground. The undergrounding of utilities shall be completed without a
net increase in the number of required wood utility poles. All work in the public right-of-way
shall be shown or noted.
18. The new water services and water meters shall be sized in accordance with the approv ed fire
sprinkler plans.
19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The
grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the
property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider any historic
offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the
improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff
from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across
adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing
waterways.
20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report in compliance with the
Post Construction Stormwater Requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The drainage report shall include the treatment of the new impervious area in Perkins Lane and
associated run-on.
21. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites.
Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the
City’s Website.
22. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater
improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and
shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater
conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals.
23. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter
of 3" or greater. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Offsite trees along the adjoining
property lines with canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown
for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and clearly indicate any trees that
are proposed to be removed. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference.
No trees may be removed except by approval by the City Arborist or Tree Committee, as
appropriate.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 15
Resolution No. ARC ####-16 Page 6
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
24. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are
generally required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The
City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements in accordance with City
Engineering Standards.
25. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve
any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A
city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures
shall be shown or noted on the building plans.
Transportation
26. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be responsible for paying current
transportation impact fees (TIF) plus a "fair share" mitigation fee for the percentage of new
trips generated by the project that will travel through the Broad/South/Santa Barbara
intersection as determined by the Public Works Director, and based on the intersection
improvement cost.
27. The South Broad Street Corridor Plan and previous traffic studies indicate the need for traffic
controls and circulation improvements along the corridor. Prior to the issuance of building
permits, the applicant shall be responsible for a "fair share" mitigation fee for the percentage
of new trips generated by the project that will travel through the corridor intersections
identified for improvements as determined by the Public Works Director, and based on the
estimated intersection improvement cost.
28. The proposed new driveway approaches on Perkins Lane shall be consolidated into common
driveways to reduce the number of driveways along the Perkins Lane frontage of the project.
The consolidated design shall not result in more than three driveway curb cuts along the
Perkins Lane frontage of the project. New driveway approaches shall be in accordance with
current City standards, notwithstanding any exceptions deemed appropriate by the Public
Works Director. Easements for common driveways shall be shown on the final map.
29. The existing Cal Trans high-speed driveway approach at the intersection of Perkins Lane and
Broad Street shall be modified to abandon the existing driveway approach not proposed with
the development. The Perkins Lane approach shall be reconstructed as a standard public street
connection per current City Engineering Standards.
30. The building plan submittal shall include the proposed street cross section for Perkins Lane
and detailed exhibit of the proposed Perkins Lane street entry improvements.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 16
Resolution No. ARC ####-16 Page 7
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
Utilities
31. Existing sewer laterals planned for the proposed development shall be inspected from the point
of connection up to the City sewer main. The rehabilitation shall be based on visual inspection
of the pipeline interior, and shall include repair or replacement as part of the project. The
pipeline video inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for
review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Additional information is provided below related to this requirement:
a. The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted on USB drive and shall be in color.
b. The inspection shall be of adequate resolution in order to display pipe.
c. Material submitted shall include the project address and a scaled plan of the building and
the lateral location to the connection at the City sewer main.
d. The inspection shall include tracking of the pipeline length (in feet) from the start of the
inspection to the connection at the City sewer main.
e. It is optional to provide audio on the report to explain the location, date of inspection, and
pipeline condition observations.
32. All residential units are to be individually metered per the latest engineering design standards.
33. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared drought
emergency conditions. The estimated total water use (ETWU) shall not exceed 50 percent of
maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) (Resolution 10628 (2015)).
Indemnification
34. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers
or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and
all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified
Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim u pon being
presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defens e against an
Indemnified Claim.
Code Compliance Notes
Planning
1. Colors and Materials. Plans submitted for construction permits must clearly indicate the colors
and materials of all building surfaces, trim, and detail on building elevation drawings.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 17
Resolution No. ARC ####-16 Page 8
ARCH-2264-2015 (2881 Broad)
2. Front Yard Paving. Driveway areas must be designed in conformance with Front Yard Paving
regulations (Zoning Regulations § 17.17.050) limiting concrete and impervious paving in
residential front yards. Incorporation of permeable paving materials to stay within these limits
is encouraged.
3. Landscape Plan. Plans submitted for construction permits will include a landscaping plan
indicating the extent of landscaped area, hardscape, plant selection, and method of irrigation,
consistent with Community Design Guidelines and Engineering Standards, as applicable.
4. Exterior lighting. Plans submitted for construction permits must clearly depict exterior lighting
and include sufficient information to demonstrate that exterior lighting fixtures will be
designed, installed, and maintained in compliance with Night Sky Preservation Regulations
(Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.23).
5. Mechanical and utility equipment. Plans submitted for construction permits must clearly depict
the location and appearance of mechanical utility equipment (HVAC, electric and gas meters,
electrical panels, junction boxes, pool equipment, etc.). Details about the equipment must be
included, sufficient to evaluate the consistency of its placement with standards related to
concealment and screening, noise insulation, and other requirements, as described in § 6.1 (D)
of the City's Community Design Guidelines.
On motion by Commissioner ______, seconded by Commissioner ______, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of November, 2016.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 18
R-2-S
R-2-S
R-2
C-R-SF
R-1 C-R-SF
R-1-PD
C-S-S
C-R-SF
R-3-PD
VICINITY MAP ARCH-2264-20152881 Broad ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC2 - 19
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
AR
1
T
I
T
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
DI
R
E
C
T
O
R
Y
SI
T
E
AG
E
N
C
I
E
S
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
O
A
S
T
A
L
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
S
,
L
L
C
DU
S
T
I
N
@
F
O
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
B
U
I
L
D
.
C
O
M
EM
A
I
L
:
TE
L
:
8
0
5
.
4
4
0
.
5
9
0
3
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
.
9
3
4
0
1
TE
L
:
80
5
.
4
2
3
.
3
1
7
2
DE
S
I
G
N
E
R
:
OW
N
E
R
:
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
RE
P
:
ER
I
C
N
E
W
T
O
N
ER
I
C
@
N
E
W
T
O
N
C
O
N
T
I
O
N
.
C
O
M
EM
A
I
L
:
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
T
I
T
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
AR
1SH
E
E
T
I
N
D
E
X
TO
T
A
L
:
1
1
S
H
E
E
T
S
75
0
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
W
A
Y
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
TH
E
G
A
S
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
80
0
-
4
2
7
-
2
0
0
0
80
0
-
6
4
2
-
2
4
4
4
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
80
0
-
7
4
3
-
5
0
0
0
CH
A
R
T
E
R
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
27
0
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
80
0
-
6
4
0
-
6
9
5
9
PA
C
I
F
I
C
G
A
S
&
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
40
6
S
.
H
I
G
U
E
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
CI
T
Y
P
O
L
I
C
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
(8
0
5
)
7
8
1
-
7
3
1
7
10
4
2
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
(8
0
5
)
7
8
1
-
7
2
1
0
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
21
9
1
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
(8
0
5
)
7
8
1
-
5
5
0
0
CO
U
N
T
Y
H
E
A
L
T
H
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
21
6
0
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
CI
T
Y
F
I
R
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
CI
T
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
CI
T
Y
P
U
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
(8
0
5
)
7
8
1
-
7
3
8
0
(8
0
5
)
7
8
1
-
7
1
8
0
91
9
P
a
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
91
9
P
a
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
19
6
S
U
B
U
R
B
A
N
R
D
.
PA
C
I
F
I
C
B
E
L
L
T
E
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
(8
0
5
)
5
4
6
-
7
4
6
2
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
:
NE
W
T
O
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
.
9
3
4
0
1
TE
L
:
80
5
.
4
2
3
.
3
1
7
2
RE
P
:
ER
I
C
N
E
W
T
O
N
ER
I
C
@
N
E
W
T
O
N
C
O
N
T
I
O
N
.
C
O
M
EM
A
I
L
:
SU
R
V
E
Y
O
R
:
TW
I
N
C
I
T
I
E
S
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
I
N
C
.
61
5
-
C
M
A
I
N
S
T
.
TE
M
P
L
E
T
O
N
,
C
A
.
9
3
4
6
5
TE
L
:
80
5
.
4
3
4
.
1
8
3
4
RE
P
:
SK
I
P
T
O
U
C
H
O
N
ST
O
U
C
H
O
N
@
T
W
I
N
C
I
T
I
E
S
S
U
R
V
E
Y
.
C
O
M
EM
A
I
L
:
A
M
I
N
O
R
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
V
I
E
W
&
MI
N
O
R
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
F
O
R
:
TH
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
28
8
1
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
TY
P
E
,
F
I
R
E
S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
E
D
(
D
E
S
I
G
N
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
)
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
U
S
E
:
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
S
E
:
2
S
T
O
R
Y
2,
1
8
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
SQ
.
F
T
.
2,
1
8
7
3
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
H
O
U
S
E
:
TO
T
A
L
H
A
B
I
T
A
B
L
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
G
T
C
A
L
C
S
:
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
Y
P
E
:
V
B
PL
A
N
'
A
'
(
3
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
H
O
U
S
E
)
RE
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
5
47
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
:
25
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
:
TY
P
E
,
F
I
R
E
S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
E
D
(
D
E
S
I
G
N
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
)
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
U
S
E
:
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
S
E
:
2
S
T
O
R
Y
1,
9
6
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
SQ
.
F
T
.
1,
9
6
3
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
H
O
U
S
E
:
TO
T
A
L
H
A
B
I
T
A
B
L
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
G
T
C
A
L
C
S
:
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
Y
P
E
:
V
B
PL
A
N
'
B
'
(
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
H
O
U
S
E
)
RE
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
5
47
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
:
25
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
:
17
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
D
E
C
K
:
TY
P
E
,
F
I
R
E
S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
E
D
(
D
E
S
I
G
N
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
)
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
U
S
E
:
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
S
E
:
2
S
T
O
R
Y
2,
1
8
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
SQ
.
F
T
.
2,
1
8
7
3
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
H
O
U
S
E
:
TO
T
A
L
H
A
B
I
T
A
B
L
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
G
T
C
A
L
C
S
:
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
Y
P
E
:
V
B
PL
A
N
'
C
'
(
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
H
O
U
S
E
)
RE
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
5
47
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
:
25
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
:
17
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
D
E
C
K
:
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
GR
O
S
S
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
:
LO
C
A
L
Z
O
N
I
N
G
:
AP
N
:
LE
G
A
L
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
:
5,
4
6
5
S
Q
.
F
T
.
/
0
.
1
2
5
A
C
R
E
S
00
4
-
5
8
4
-
0
0
1
R-
2
-
S
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
U
S
E
:
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
NO
R
T
H
SO
U
T
H
EA
S
T
WE
S
T
66
0
P
E
R
K
I
N
S
L
A
N
E
PE
R
K
I
N
S
L
A
N
E
ST
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
S
E
:
MI
N
O
R
S
U
B
-
D
I
V
I
S
O
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
U
S
E
:
VA
C
A
N
T
L
A
N
D
A
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
L
O
T
1
,
O
F
T
H
E
Y
O
A
K
U
M
P
O
U
L
T
R
Y
U
N
I
T
S
TR
A
C
T
A
S
F
I
L
E
D
I
N
B
O
O
K
3
,
P
A
G
E
8
9
,
O
F
M
A
P
S
A
N
D
A
S
DE
S
C
R
I
B
E
D
I
N
D
E
E
D
R
E
C
O
R
D
E
D
I
N
B
O
O
K
6
0
7
,
P
A
G
E
3
7
3
AN
D
L
O
T
A
O
F
T
R
A
C
T
1
1
5
0
A
S
F
I
L
E
D
I
N
B
O
O
K
1
3
,
P
A
G
E
4
8
O
F
MA
P
S
I
N
T
H
E
O
F
F
I
C
E
O
F
T
H
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
E
C
O
R
D
E
R
,
C
O
U
N
T
Y
OF
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
.
DE
N
S
I
T
Y
:
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
T
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
R
C
E
L
1
(
3
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
S
E
:
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
U
S
E
:
VA
C
A
N
T
L
A
N
D
0.
1
2
5
A
C
R
E
S
(
1
2
)
=
1
.
5
0
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
U
N
I
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
:
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
1,
2
9
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
/
5
,
4
6
5
S
Q
.
F
T
.
=
2
4
%
(
M
A
X
.
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
:
5
0
%
)
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
V
A
R
Y
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
GR
O
S
S
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
:
LO
T
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
:
17
,
1
4
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
:
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
GR
O
S
S
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
:
3,
6
7
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
/
0
.
0
8
4
A
C
R
E
S
DE
N
S
I
T
Y
:
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
R
C
E
L
S
2
&
3
(
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
S
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
S
E
:
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
U
S
E
:
VA
C
A
N
T
L
A
N
D
0.
0
8
4
A
C
R
E
S
(
1
2
)
=
1
.
0
0
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
U
N
I
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
:
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
1,
0
5
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
/
3
,
6
7
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
=
2
9
%
(
M
A
X
.
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
:
5
0
%
)
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
V
A
R
Y
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
LO
T
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
:
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
:
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
ST
U
D
I
O
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
,
0
.
5
0
U
N
I
T
ON
E
-
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
,
0
.
6
6
U
N
I
T
TW
O
-
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
,
1
.
0
0
U
N
I
T
TH
R
E
E
-
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
,
1
.
5
0
U
N
I
T
S
FO
U
R
O
R
M
O
R
E
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
,
2
.
0
0
U
N
I
T
S
SL
O
C
I
T
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
U
N
I
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
R
C
E
L
4
(
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
)
GR
O
S
S
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
:
4,
2
3
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
/
0
.
0
9
7
A
C
R
E
S
DE
N
S
I
T
Y
:
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
S
E
:
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
H
O
M
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
U
S
E
:
VA
C
A
N
T
L
A
N
D
0.
0
9
7
A
C
R
E
S
(
1
2
)
=
1
.
1
6
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
U
N
I
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
:
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
1,
2
9
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
/
4
,
2
3
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
=
3
0
%
(
M
A
X
.
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
:
5
0
%
)
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
V
A
R
Y
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
LO
T
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
:
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
:
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
&
V
I
S
T
A
D
A
P
R
A
I
A
,
L
P
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
AR
2
TP
M
-
1
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
(
V
E
S
T
I
N
G
)
P
A
R
C
E
L
M
A
P
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
U
R
V
E
Y
AR
3
P
L
A
N
'
A
'
-
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
3
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
AR
3
.
1
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
-
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
AR
4
P
L
A
N
'
A
&
C
'
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
AR
4
.
1
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
AR
5
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
,
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
,
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
T
Y
P
L
A
N
C1
SU
B
D
I
V
I
D
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
A
R
C
E
L
A
P
N
#
0
0
4
-
5
8
1
-
0
0
1
I
N
T
O
A
(
4
P
A
R
C
E
L
)
P
L
A
N
N
E
D
U
N
I
T
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
C
O
N
S
I
S
T
I
N
G
O
F
(
3
)
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
U
N
I
T
S
A
N
D
(
1
)
3
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
U
N
I
T
S
.
T
H
E
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
T
I
M
E
O
F
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
I
O
N
W
O
U
L
D
B
E
S
P
R
I
N
G
O
F
2
0
1
7
.
F
O
R
B
O
T
H
P
A
R
C
E
L
S
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
A
N
D
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
W
O
U
L
D
B
E
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
PR
O
J
E
C
T
A
N
D
W
O
U
L
D
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
T
H
E
U
S
E
O
F
D
R
O
U
G
H
T
T
O
L
E
R
A
T
E
A
N
D
N
A
T
I
V
E
P
L
A
N
T
S
.
FU
R
T
H
E
R
M
O
R
E
,
T
H
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
W
O
U
L
D
A
L
S
O
B
E
I
N
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
I
N
T
O
T
H
E
L
O
W
I
M
P
A
C
T
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
T
O
R
E
D
U
C
E
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
R
U
N
-
O
F
F
.
IN
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
T
O
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
T
H
E
R
E
W
I
L
L
B
E
A
R
E
A
L
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
E
X
C
H
A
N
G
E
BE
T
W
E
E
N
U
S
T
H
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
A
N
D
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
T
H
A
T
A
S
B
E
E
N
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
Y
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
B
Y
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
O
N
2
/
1
6
/
1
6
.
AR
6
SI
T
E
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
AR
3
.
2
P
L
A
N
'
C
'
-
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
D
P
1
T
I
T
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
1
:
4
3
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
0
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
1
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
2
TRU
E
NOR
T
H
R
E
F
.
PE
R
K
I
N
S
L
A
N
E
ST
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
I
V
E
BROAD STREET
S
S
S S S S
G
R
G
R
G
S S S S
S S S S
T
G
T
T
R
R
T
SD SD
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
C
'
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
TO
W
N
H
O
M
E
W/
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
26
0
.
3
F
F
1
6
'
-
0
"
R
.
O
.
W
.
PA
R
C
E
L
4
4,
2
3
3
S
Q
.
F
T
PA
R
C
E
L
2
3,
6
7
4
S
Q
.
F
T
PA
R
C
E
L
1
5,
4
6
5
S
Q
.
F
T
PA
R
C
E
L
3
3,
6
7
4
S
Q
.
F
T
25
7
.
7
F
F
25
4
.
5
F
F
25
1
.
5
F
F
11
'
-
3
"
24
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
1
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
6'
-
6
"
5'
-
1
"
24
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
1 2 "
24
'
-
0
"
1
5
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
7
1
2
"
3
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
9
"
8
'
-
3
"
1
5
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
7
1
2
"
3
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
9
"
8
'
-
3
"
16
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
6
"
1
8
'
-
6
"
1
8
'
-
6
"
16
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
6
"
5
'
-
0
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
1
3
'
-
3
"
3
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
9
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
1
1 2 "
37
'
-
5
1 2 "
3
'
-
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
2
2
'
-
1
1
2
"
9'
-
0
"
2
2
'
-
1
1
2
"
9'
-
0
"
2
2
'
-
1
1
2
"
9'
-
0
"
2
2
'
-
1
1
2
"
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
TO
W
N
H
O
M
E
W/
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
TO
W
N
H
O
M
E
W/
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
A
'
3
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
TO
W
N
H
O
M
E
W/
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
AR
5A
SI
T
E
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
N
O
T
E
S
1.
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
T
O
D
E
D
I
C
A
T
E
6
'
-
0
"
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
T
O
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
L
O
F
O
R
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
PA
R
C
E
L
M
A
P
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
T
P
M
-
1
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
2.
N
E
W
A
D
A
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
R
A
M
P
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
SL
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
2
1
1
1
A
N
D
2
1
3
0
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
I
V
I
L
FO
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
3.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
T
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
4.
N
E
W
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
MO
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
5.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
O
F
C
I
T
Y
-
O
W
N
E
D
L
O
T
(
A
)
T
O
B
E
AD
J
U
S
T
E
D
P
E
R
R
E
A
L
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
E
X
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
TE
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
P
A
R
C
E
L
M
A
P
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
T
P
M
-
1
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
6.
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
L
E
P
A
V
E
R
S
7.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
U
R
B
A
N
D
G
U
T
T
E
R
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
8.
N
O
T
U
S
E
D
9.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
G
N
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
W
I
T
H
S
I
G
N
A
N
D
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
P
A
R
C
E
L
MA
P
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
T
P
M
-
1
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
10
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
D
A
C
U
R
B
C
U
T
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
.
11
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
2
0
"
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
T
R
E
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
.
12
.
N
E
W
6
'
T
A
L
L
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
I
N
G
13
.
N
O
T
U
S
E
D
14
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
7
0
D
B
N
O
I
S
E
C
O
N
T
O
U
R
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
NO
I
S
E
N
O
T
E
S
O
N
T
H
I
S
S
H
E
E
T
.
15
.
N
E
W
5
G
A
L
T
R
E
E
S
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
L
E
G
E
N
D
O
N
TH
I
S
S
H
E
E
T
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
16
.
N
E
W
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
,
C
U
R
B
,
A
N
D
1
8
"
G
U
T
T
E
R
A
L
O
N
G
P
E
R
K
I
N
S
TO
B
E
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
L
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
40
3
0
A
N
D
4
1
1
0
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
17
.
N
E
W
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
H
A
R
D
S
C
A
P
E
.
18
.
N
O
T
U
S
E
D
19
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
P
A
R
C
E
L
MA
P
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
20
.
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
21
.
U
N
-
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
22
.
T
R
A
S
H
B
I
N
A
R
E
A
S
T
Y
P
.
F
O
R
E
A
C
H
P
A
R
C
E
L
23
.
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
F
O
R
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
E
N
T
R
Y
.
24
.
N
E
W
1
"
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
MO
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
25
.
N
E
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
T
R
E
E
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
L
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
.
CO
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
L
O
A
R
B
O
R
I
S
T
R
O
N
C
O
M
B
S
PR
I
O
R
T
O
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
.
26
.
N
O
T
U
S
E
D
.
27
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
5 8 "
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
T
O
S
E
R
V
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
.
28
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
I
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
29
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
O
W
E
R
P
O
L
E
T
O
B
E
R
E
M
O
V
E
D
.
30
.
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
N
E
W
4
"
S
D
R
3
5
S
E
W
E
R
L
A
T
E
R
A
L
T
O
S
E
R
V
E
PA
R
C
E
L
2
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
P
A
R
C
E
L
M
A
P
F
O
R
BL
A
N
K
E
T
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
CI
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
31
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
E
W
E
R
L
A
T
E
R
A
L
T
O
B
E
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
D
T
O
S
E
R
V
E
PA
R
C
E
L
1
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
.
32
.
N
O
T
U
S
E
D
.
33
.
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
T
O
D
E
D
I
C
A
T
E
1
6
'
-
0
"
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
TO
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
L
O
F
O
R
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
PA
R
C
E
L
M
A
P
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
T
P
M
-
1
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
34
.
N
O
T
U
S
E
D
35
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
.
36
.
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
A
L
T
R
A
N
S
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
A
N
D
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
T
O
B
E
M
O
D
I
F
I
E
D
T
O
A
L
I
G
N
W
I
T
H
N
E
W
P
E
R
K
I
N
S
LA
N
E
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
37
.
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
.
38
.
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
U
N
D
E
R
D
R
A
I
N
W
I
T
H
P
I
P
E
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
3
4
1
5
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
I
V
I
L
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
39
.
N
E
W
G
A
S
M
E
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
.
40
.
N
E
W
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
T
O
T
I
E
I
N
T
O
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
V
A
U
L
T
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
AR
B
U
T
U
S
U
N
E
D
O
'
S
T
D
'
ST
R
A
W
B
E
R
R
Y
T
R
E
E
OL
E
A
'
M
A
J
E
S
T
I
C
B
E
A
U
T
Y
'
-
S
T
D
F
R
U
I
T
L
E
S
S
O
L
I
V
E
CE
A
N
O
T
H
U
S
'
C
A
R
M
E
L
C
R
E
E
P
E
R
'
W
I
L
D
L
I
L
A
C
CI
S
T
U
S
X
.
'
S
U
N
S
E
T
'
RO
C
K
R
O
S
E
KN
I
P
H
O
F
I
A
G
A
L
P
I
N
I
I
'
O
R
A
N
G
E
F
L
A
M
E
'
O
R
A
N
G
E
F
L
A
M
E
P
O
K
E
R
P
L
A
N
T
PE
N
N
E
S
I
T
U
M
S
.
'
R
U
B
R
U
M
'
P
U
R
P
L
E
F
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
G
R
A
S
S
PH
O
R
M
I
U
M
'
C
R
E
A
M
D
E
L
I
G
H
T
'
CR
E
A
M
D
E
L
I
G
H
T
F
L
A
X
SA
L
V
I
A
L
E
U
C
A
N
T
H
A
"
S
A
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
'
D
W
A
R
F
M
E
X
I
C
A
N
S
A
G
E
TR
E
E
S
SH
R
U
B
S
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
T
S
WO
O
D
C
H
I
P
S
PE
A
G
R
A
V
E
L
SO
F
T
S
C
A
P
E
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
A.
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
A
R
E
A
S
F
O
R
(
P
A
R
C
E
L
1
)
H
A
V
E
B
E
E
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
T
O
M
I
N
I
M
I
Z
E
S
O
U
N
D
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
F
R
O
M
B
R
O
A
D
ST
.
T
H
I
S
H
A
S
B
E
E
N
A
R
C
H
I
V
E
D
B
Y
U
S
I
N
G
T
H
E
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
,
FE
N
C
I
N
G
,
A
N
D
V
E
G
E
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
O
S
H
I
E
L
D
T
H
E
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
SP
A
C
E
S
F
R
O
M
N
O
I
S
E
.
S
E
E
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
S
H
E
E
T
F
O
R
MO
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
B.
F
O
R
I
N
D
O
O
R
N
O
I
S
E
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
T
H
E
F
O
L
L
O
W
I
N
G
N
O
I
S
E
RE
D
U
C
I
N
G
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
'
S
W
I
L
L
B
E
U
S
E
D
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
E
A
S
T
FA
C
A
D
E
O
F
P
A
R
C
E
L
1
T
O
R
E
D
U
C
E
N
O
I
S
E
L
E
V
E
L
S
B
Y
2
5
d
b
.
x
PR
O
V
I
D
E
A
I
R
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
G
O
R
A
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
VE
N
T
I
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
,
S
O
W
I
N
D
O
W
S
A
N
D
D
O
O
R
S
M
A
Y
RE
M
A
I
N
C
L
O
S
E
D
.
x
MO
U
N
T
W
I
N
D
O
W
S
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
I
N
G
G
L
A
S
S
D
O
O
R
S
I
N
L
O
W
A
I
R
IN
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
A
T
E
F
R
A
M
E
S
(
0
.
5
C
F
M
O
R
L
E
S
S
,
P
E
R
A
N
S
I
SP
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
)
x
PR
O
V
I
D
E
S
O
I
L
D
C
O
R
E
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
D
O
O
R
S
W
I
T
H
P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
WA
E
T
H
E
R
S
T
R
I
P
P
I
N
G
A
N
D
T
H
R
E
A
S
H
O
L
D
S
E
A
L
S
.
x
CO
V
E
R
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
A
L
L
S
W
I
T
H
S
T
U
C
C
O
O
R
B
R
I
C
K
V
E
N
E
E
R
,
OR
W
O
O
D
S
I
D
I
N
G
O
V
E
R
1 2 "
M
I
N
,
T
H
I
C
K
N
E
S
S
F
I
B
E
R
B
O
A
R
D
("
S
O
U
N
D
B
O
A
R
D
"
)
x
KE
E
P
G
L
A
S
S
A
R
E
A
I
N
W
I
N
D
O
W
S
A
N
D
D
O
O
R
S
B
E
L
O
W
2
0
%
OF
T
H
E
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
I
N
A
R
O
O
M
.
x
PR
O
V
I
D
E
B
A
F
F
L
E
S
F
O
R
R
O
O
F
O
R
A
T
T
I
C
V
E
N
T
S
F
A
C
I
N
G
T
H
E
NO
I
S
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
.
1.
R
E
D
U
C
E
D
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
D
I
S
M
I
S
S
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
(
5
'
-
0
"
)
B
E
T
W
E
E
N
NE
W
L
Y
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
N
I
T
S
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
SH
E
E
T
A
N
D
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
R
4
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
2.
R
E
D
U
C
E
D
F
E
N
C
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
A
L
O
N
G
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
(
1
5
'
-
0
"
)
3.
R
E
D
U
C
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
F
O
R
C
A
R
P
O
R
T
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
R
4
&
A
R
4
.
1
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
EX
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
S
GE
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
I
S
E
RE
Q
U
E
S
T
E
D
Z
O
N
I
N
G
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
5'
1
0
'
0
2
0
'
AR
2
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
D
P
2
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
2
:
0
2
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
3
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
12
'
-
0
"
6"
24
'
-
0
"
6"
8'
-
6
1 2 "
3
0
'
-
5
1
2
"
9
'
-
2
"
6
'
-
0
1
2
"
6
2
'
-
6
"
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
2
'
-
0
"
2
2
'
-
1
1
2
"
1
6
'
-
0
"
6
2
'
-
6
"
6
'
-
0
"
1
5
'
-
0
1
2
"
3
'
-
4
"
6'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
6"
24
'
-
0
"
RE
A
R
EN
T
R
Y
FO
R
M
A
L
EN
T
R
Y
BE
D
R
O
O
M
#
2
FA
M
I
L
Y
BA
T
H
LI
N
.
CL
S
T
.
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
2'
-
5
1 2 "
15
'
-
0
"
23
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
1
3
'
-
1
"
1
'
-
6
"
5
2
'
-
6
"
6"
6'
-
0
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
0
"
5
2
'
-
6
"
23
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
1
9
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
9
'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
1
2
'
-
0
"
2
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
ST
A
I
R
S
DN
FL
A
T
R
O
O
F
DN
14
'
-
7
"
23
'
-
0
"
8'
-
5
"
2
4
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
1
1
'
-
3
1
2
"
1
0
'
-
6
1
2
"
6
5
'
-
0
1
2
"
8
'
-
5
1
2
"
6
5
'
-
0
1
2
"
2
6
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
8
'
-
2
1
2
"
5
'
-
1
0
1
2
"
19
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
23
'
-
0
"
1
4
'
-
1
"
4
'
-
2
"
1
5
'
-
6
1
2
"
3'
-
0
"
1
'
-
6
"
MA
S
T
E
R
BE
D
R
O
O
M
MA
S
T
E
R
CL
O
S
E
T
MA
S
T
E
R
BA
T
H
ST
A
I
R
S
KI
T
C
H
E
N
/
GR
E
A
T
R
O
O
M
OU
T
D
O
O
R
DE
C
K
6"
2'
-
0
"
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
AR
3
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
A
'
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
A
'
-
3
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
|
S
C
A
L
E
:
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
RE
F
.
NO
R
T
H
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
/
A
T
T
I
C
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
A
R
3
L
O
T
1
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
2
:
2
2
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
4
17
'
-
0
"
6"
24
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
6
"
1
6
'
-
9
"
2
1
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
0
"
5
0
'
-
5
"
2
'
-
8
"
6"
6'
-
0
"
2
7
'
-
1
0
"
2
2
'
-
7
"
5
0
'
-
5
"
6"
7'
-
1
1
1 2 "
12
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
RE
A
R
EN
T
R
Y
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
PW
D
.
FO
R
M
A
L
EN
T
R
Y
LI
V
I
N
G
KI
T
C
H
E
N
DI
N
I
N
G
3'
-
0
1 2 "6"
17
'
-
0
"
23
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
1
3
'
-
1
"
1
'
-
6
"
5
2
'
-
6
"
6"
6'
-
0
"
1
4
'
-
7
"
1
2
'
-
0
"
5
2
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
3
"
7'
-
9
"
23
'
-
0
"
MA
S
T
E
R
BE
D
R
O
O
M
DE
N
/
2
N
D
LI
V
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
BE
D
R
O
O
M
#
2
W.
I
.
C
.
1
4
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
5
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
5
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
9
'
-
6
1
2
"
4
'
-
5
1
2
"
MA
S
T
E
R
BA
T
H
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
FA
M
I
L
Y
BA
T
H
ST
A
I
R
S
DNUP
15
'
-
0
"
23
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
1
3
'
-
1
"
1
'
-
6
"
5
2
'
-
6
"
6"
6'
-
0
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
0
"
5
2
'
-
6
"
23
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
1
9
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
9
'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
1
2
'
-
0
"
2
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
ST
A
I
R
S
DN
FL
A
T
R
O
O
F
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
AR
3
.
1
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
'
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
-
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
|
S
C
A
L
E
:
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
RE
F
.
NO
R
T
H
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
/
A
T
T
I
C
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
A
R
3
.
1
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
'
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
2
:
3
6
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
5
1
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
12
'
-
0
"
6"
24
'
-
0
"
6"
8'
-
6
1 2 "
3
0
'
-
5
1
2
"
9
'
-
2
"
6
'
-
0
1
2
"
6
2
'
-
6
"
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
2
'
-
0
"
2
2
'
-
1
1
2
"
1
6
'
-
0
"
6
2
'
-
6
"
6
'
-
0
"
1
5
'
-
0
1
2
"
3
'
-
4
"
6'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
6"
24
'
-
0
"
RE
A
R
EN
T
R
Y
FO
R
M
A
L
EN
T
R
Y
BE
D
R
O
O
M
#
2
FA
M
I
L
Y
BA
T
H
DE
N
/
FA
M
I
L
Y
R
O
O
M
LI
N
.
CL
S
T
.
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
2'
-
5
1 2 "
15
'
-
0
"
23
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
1
3
'
-
1
"
1
'
-
6
"
5
2
'
-
6
"
6"
6'
-
0
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
0
"
5
2
'
-
6
"
23
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
1
9
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
9
'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
1
2
'
-
0
"
2
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
ST
A
I
R
S
DN
FL
A
T
R
O
O
F
DN
14
'
-
7
"
23
'
-
0
"
8'
-
5
"
2
4
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
1
1
'
-
3
1
2
"
1
0
'
-
6
1
2
"
6
5
'
-
0
1
2
"
8
'
-
5
1
2
"
6
5
'
-
0
1
2
"
2
6
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
8
'
-
2
1
2
"
5
'
-
1
0
1
2
"
19
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
23
'
-
0
"
1
4
'
-
1
"
4
'
-
2
"
1
5
'
-
6
1
2
"
3'
-
0
"
1
'
-
6
"
MA
S
T
E
R
BE
D
R
O
O
M
MA
S
T
E
R
CL
O
S
E
T
MA
S
T
E
R
BA
T
H
ST
A
I
R
S
KI
T
C
H
E
N
/
GR
E
A
T
R
O
O
M
OU
T
D
O
O
R
DE
C
K
6"
2'
-
0
"
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
AR
3
.
2
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
C
'
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
C
'
-
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
|
S
C
A
L
E
:
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
RE
F
.
NO
R
T
H
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
/
A
T
T
I
C
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
A
R
3
.
2
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
'
C
'
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
2
:
5
0
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
6
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
0'-
0
"
2N
D
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
1
0
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
0
'
-
0
"
DE
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
ST
E
E
L
C
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
42
"
T
A
L
L
A
F
F
(
T
Y
P
)
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
GR
A
Y
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
S
E
A
M
ME
T
A
L
S
I
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
DA
R
K
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
F
R
A
M
E
WI
N
D
O
W
S
&
D
O
O
R
S
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
CA
R
P
O
R
T
W
I
T
H
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
SE
A
M
M
E
T
A
L
R
O
O
F
.
DE
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
ST
E
E
L
C
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
42
"
T
A
L
L
A
F
F
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
ST
A
I
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
E
R
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
9
'
-
6
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
6
1
2
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
0'-
0
"
2N
D
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
1
0
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
0
'
-
0
"
ST
A
I
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
E
R
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
9
'
-
6
"
GR
A
Y
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
S
E
A
M
ME
T
A
L
S
I
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
DE
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
ST
E
E
L
C
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
42
"
T
A
L
L
A
F
F
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
DE
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
ST
E
E
L
C
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
42
"
T
A
L
L
A
F
F
(
T
Y
P
)
DA
R
K
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
F
R
A
M
E
WI
N
D
O
W
S
&
D
O
O
R
S
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
HA
R
D
I
S
I
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
EA
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
SO
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
0'-
0
"
2N
D
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
1
0
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
0
'
-
0
"
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
GR
A
Y
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
S
E
A
M
ME
T
A
L
S
I
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
DA
R
K
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
F
R
A
M
E
WI
N
D
O
W
S
&
D
O
O
R
S
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
CA
R
P
O
R
T
W
I
T
H
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
SE
A
M
M
E
T
A
L
R
O
O
F
.
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
ST
A
I
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
E
R
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
9
'
-
6
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
6
1
2
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
6
1
2
"
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
DA
R
K
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
F
R
A
M
E
WI
N
D
O
W
S
&
D
O
O
R
S
(
T
Y
P
)
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
0'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
1
0
'
-
0
"
ST
A
I
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
E
R
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
9
'
-
6
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
0
'
-
0
"
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
DE
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
ST
E
E
L
C
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
42
"
T
A
L
L
A
F
F
(
T
Y
P
)
DE
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
ST
E
E
L
C
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
42
"
T
A
L
L
A
F
F
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
WE
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
PL
A
N
'
A
&
C
'
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
AR
4
P
L
A
N
'
A
&
C
'
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
GE
N
E
R
A
L
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
A.
A
L
L
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
SH
I
E
L
D
E
D
A
N
D
D
I
R
E
C
T
E
D
D
O
W
N
W
A
R
D
S
I
N
T
O
T
H
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
,
F
U
L
L
Y
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
D
I
R
E
C
T
G
L
A
R
E
O
N
SI
T
E
,
A
N
D
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
H
O
O
D
E
D
A
N
D
S
H
I
E
L
D
E
D
,
AC
C
O
R
D
I
N
G
L
Y
.
B.
T
H
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
N
O
H
I
G
H
E
R
TH
A
N
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
A
B
S
O
L
U
T
E
L
Y
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
F
O
R
IT
S
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
C.
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
T
E
N
S
I
T
Y
S
H
A
L
L
.
B
E
N
O
M
O
R
E
T
H
A
N
DE
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
F
O
R
S
A
F
E
T
Y
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
D.
L
I
G
H
T
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
O
F
E
N
E
R
G
Y
E
F
F
I
C
I
E
N
T
DE
S
I
G
N
(
E
.
G
.
S
O
D
I
U
M
-
B
A
S
E
D
,
M
E
T
A
L
H
A
L
I
D
E
,
L
E
D
,
ET
C
.
.
)
E.
N
O
N
-
G
L
A
R
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
U
S
E
D
TH
R
O
U
G
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
F.
A
N
Y
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
S
H
A
L
L
.
B
E
S
C
R
E
E
N
E
D
SU
C
H
T
H
A
T
L
I
G
H
T
S
A
R
E
N
O
T
V
I
S
I
B
L
E
A
T
A
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
OF
3
0
F
E
E
T
.
A.
T
H
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
O
F
A
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
S
T
H
E
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
FR
O
M
T
H
E
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
L
E
V
E
L
O
F
T
H
E
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
N
D
E
R
TH
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
T
H
E
T
O
P
M
O
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
R
O
O
F
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
S
.
T
H
E
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
L
E
V
E
L
O
F
T
H
E
GR
O
U
N
D
I
S
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
B
Y
A
D
D
I
N
G
T
H
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
OF
T
H
E
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
L
O
T
CO
V
E
R
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
T
H
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
L
O
T
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
B
Y
TH
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
,
A
N
D
D
I
V
I
D
I
N
G
B
Y
T
W
O
.
(
S
E
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
8
.
)
HE
I
G
H
T
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
,
B
E
F
O
R
E
GR
A
D
I
N
G
F
O
R
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
O
N
-
S
I
T
E
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
(O
R
D
.
1
3
6
5
(
2
0
0
0
S
E
R
I
E
S
)
(
P
A
R
T
)
)
B.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
R
-
5
F
O
R
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
IN
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
T
O
A
.
N
.
G
.
C.
R
-
2
Z
O
N
I
N
G
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
SH
A
L
L
N
O
T
E
X
C
E
E
D
3
5
'
-
0
"
D.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
.
E.
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
TH
E
I
G
N
I
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
I
N
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
C
O
D
E
R
3
2
7
.
F.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
H
E
E
T
A
R
-
2
F
O
R
S
O
U
N
D
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
SC
A
L
E
:
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
A
R
4
P
L
A
N
'
A
&
C
'
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
3
:
0
3
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
7
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
0'-
0
"
2N
D
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
1
0
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
0
'
-
0
"
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
GR
A
Y
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
S
E
A
M
ME
T
A
L
S
I
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
DA
R
K
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
F
R
A
M
E
WI
N
D
O
W
S
&
D
O
O
R
S
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
CA
R
P
O
R
T
W
I
T
H
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
SE
A
M
M
E
T
A
L
R
O
O
F
.
DE
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
ST
E
E
L
C
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
42
"
T
A
L
L
A
F
F
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
ST
A
I
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
E
R
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
9
'
-
6
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
6
1
2
"
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
CA
R
P
O
R
T
W
I
T
H
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
SE
A
M
M
E
T
A
L
R
O
O
F
.
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
0'-
0
"
2N
D
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
1
0
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
0
'
-
0
"
ST
A
I
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
E
R
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
8
'
-
6
"
DE
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
ST
E
E
L
C
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
42
"
T
A
L
L
A
F
F
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
DA
R
K
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
F
R
A
M
E
WI
N
D
O
W
S
&
D
O
O
R
S
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
HA
R
D
I
S
I
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
EA
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
0
'
-
6
1
2
"
1
0
'
-
6
1
2
"
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
SO
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
0'-
0
"
2N
D
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
1
0
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
0
'
-
0
"
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
DA
R
K
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
F
R
A
M
E
WI
N
D
O
W
S
&
D
O
O
R
S
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
CA
R
P
O
R
T
W
I
T
H
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
SE
A
M
M
E
T
A
L
R
O
O
F
.
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
WO
O
D
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
ST
A
I
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
E
R
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
8
'
-
6
"
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
3
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
0
"
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
DA
R
K
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
F
R
A
M
E
WI
N
D
O
W
S
&
D
O
O
R
S
(
T
Y
P
)
FI
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
0'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
1
0
'
-
0
"
ST
A
I
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
E
R
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
8
'
-
6
"
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
F
F
AB
O
V
E
(
F
G
)
2
0
'
-
0
"
SM
O
O
T
H
W
H
I
T
E
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
PA
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
H
A
R
D
I
SI
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
WE
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
BL
A
C
K
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
SM
O
O
T
H
G
R
A
Y
ST
U
C
C
O
(
T
Y
P
)
GR
A
Y
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
S
E
A
M
ME
T
A
L
S
I
D
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
)
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
PL
A
N
'
B
'
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
AR
4
.
1
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
GE
N
E
R
A
L
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
A.
A
L
L
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
SH
I
E
L
D
E
D
A
N
D
D
I
R
E
C
T
E
D
D
O
W
N
W
A
R
D
S
I
N
T
O
T
H
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
,
F
U
L
L
Y
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
D
I
R
E
C
T
G
L
A
R
E
O
N
SI
T
E
,
A
N
D
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
H
O
O
D
E
D
A
N
D
S
H
I
E
L
D
E
D
,
AC
C
O
R
D
I
N
G
L
Y
.
B.
T
H
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
N
O
H
I
G
H
E
R
TH
A
N
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
A
B
S
O
L
U
T
E
L
Y
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
F
O
R
IT
S
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
C.
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
T
E
N
S
I
T
Y
S
H
A
L
L
.
B
E
N
O
M
O
R
E
T
H
A
N
DE
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
F
O
R
S
A
F
E
T
Y
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
D.
L
I
G
H
T
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
O
F
E
N
E
R
G
Y
E
F
F
I
C
I
E
N
T
DE
S
I
G
N
(
E
.
G
.
S
O
D
I
U
M
-
B
A
S
E
D
,
M
E
T
A
L
H
A
L
I
D
E
,
L
E
D
,
ET
C
.
.
)
E.
N
O
N
-
G
L
A
R
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
U
S
E
D
TH
R
O
U
G
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
F.
A
N
Y
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
S
H
A
L
L
.
B
E
S
C
R
E
E
N
E
D
SU
C
H
T
H
A
T
L
I
G
H
T
S
A
R
E
N
O
T
V
I
S
I
B
L
E
A
T
A
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
OF
3
0
F
E
E
T
.
A.
T
H
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
O
F
A
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
S
T
H
E
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
FR
O
M
T
H
E
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
L
E
V
E
L
O
F
T
H
E
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
N
D
E
R
TH
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
T
H
E
T
O
P
M
O
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
R
O
O
F
,
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
S
.
T
H
E
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
L
E
V
E
L
O
F
T
H
E
GR
O
U
N
D
I
S
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
B
Y
A
D
D
I
N
G
T
H
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
OF
T
H
E
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
L
O
T
CO
V
E
R
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
T
H
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
HI
G
H
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
L
O
T
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
B
Y
TH
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
,
A
N
D
D
I
V
I
D
I
N
G
B
Y
T
W
O
.
(
S
E
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
8
.
)
HE
I
G
H
T
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
,
B
E
F
O
R
E
GR
A
D
I
N
G
F
O
R
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
O
N
-
S
I
T
E
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
(O
R
D
.
1
3
6
5
(
2
0
0
0
S
E
R
I
E
S
)
(
P
A
R
T
)
)
B.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
R
-
5
F
O
R
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
IN
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
T
O
A
.
N
.
G
.
C.
R
-
2
Z
O
N
I
N
G
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
SH
A
L
L
N
O
T
E
X
C
E
E
D
3
5
'
-
0
"
D.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
.
E.
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
TH
E
I
G
N
I
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
I
N
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
C
O
D
E
R
3
2
7
.
F.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
H
E
E
T
A
R
-
2
F
O
R
S
O
U
N
D
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
SC
A
L
E
:
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
A
R
4
.
1
P
L
A
N
'
B
'
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
3
:
1
9
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
8
BR
O
A
D
S
T
.
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PA
R
C
E
L
4
MA
X
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
(
A
N
G
)
3
5
'
-
0
"
PA
R
C
E
L
3
MA
X
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
(
A
N
G
)
3
5
'
-
0
"
PA
R
C
E
L
2
MA
X
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
(
A
N
G
)
3
5
'
-
0
"
PA
R
C
E
L
1
MA
X
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
(
A
N
G
)
3
5
'
-
0
"
FF
=
2
5
1
'
-
6
"
+2
'
-
6
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
TO
P
O
F
R
O
O
F
=
2
8
0
'
-
3
"
+3
1
'
-
3
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
PA
R
A
P
E
T
=
2
7
3
'
-
6
"
+2
4
'
-
6
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
A.
N
.
G
.
=
2
4
9
'
-
0
"
T.
O
.
W
.
=
2
4
8
'
-
0
"
(E
)
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
=
2
4
5
'
-
0
"
+1
'
-
0
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
+1
3
'
-
4
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
TR
A
N
S
.
=
2
6
6
'
-
1
0
"
+2
3
'
-
0
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
PA
R
A
P
E
T
=
2
7
6
-
6
"
+2
9
'
-
9
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
RO
O
F
=
2
8
3
'
-
6
"
F.
F
.
=
2
5
4
'
-
6
"
+1
'
-
3
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
F.
F
.
=
2
5
7
'
-
9
"
A.
N
.
G
.
=
2
5
6
'
-
3
"
TR
A
N
S
.
=
2
7
0
'
-
0
"
+1
3
'
-
9
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
PA
R
A
P
E
T
.
=
2
7
9
'
-
9
"
+2
3
'
-
6
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
RO
O
F
=
2
8
7
'
-
5
"
+3
1
'
-
2
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
F.
F
.
=
2
6
0
'
-
2
"
+1
'
-
8
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
A.
N
.
G
.
=
2
5
8
'
-
6
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
=
2
8
2
'
-
2
"
+2
3
'
-
8
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
RO
O
F
=
2
8
8
'
-
1
1
"
+3
0
'
-
5
"
A
.
A
.
N
.
G
.
A.
N
.
G
.
=
2
5
3
'
-
6
"
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
AR
5
S
I
T
E
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
SI
T
E
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2'
4
'08
'
A.
T
H
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
O
F
A
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
S
T
H
E
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
F
R
O
M
T
H
E
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
LE
V
E
L
O
F
T
H
E
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
T
H
E
T
O
P
M
O
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
RO
O
F
,
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
S
.
T
H
E
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
L
E
V
E
L
O
F
T
H
E
G
R
O
U
N
D
I
S
DE
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
B
Y
A
D
D
I
N
G
T
H
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
L
O
W
E
S
T
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
A
R
T
OF
T
H
E
L
O
T
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
T
H
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
H
I
G
H
E
S
T
PO
I
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
L
O
T
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
,
A
N
D
D
I
V
I
D
I
N
G
B
Y
TW
O
.
(
S
E
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
8
.
)
H
E
I
G
H
T
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
TO
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
,
B
E
F
O
R
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
F
O
R
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
O
N
-
S
I
T
E
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
(
O
R
D
.
1
3
6
5
(
2
0
0
0
S
E
R
I
E
S
)
(
P
A
R
T
)
)
B.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
F
O
R
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
C.
R
-
2
Z
O
N
I
N
G
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
S
H
A
L
L
N
O
T
E
X
C
E
E
D
3
5
'
-
0
"
D.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
.
E.
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
I
G
N
I
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
I
N
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
C
O
D
E
R
3
2
7
.
F.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
H
E
E
T
A
R
-
2
F
O
R
S
O
U
N
D
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
SE
T
B
A
C
K
T
A
B
L
E
PA
R
C
E
L
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
HE
I
G
H
T
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
E
X
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
S
(I
N
F
E
E
T
)
AB
O
V
E
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
(I
N
F
E
E
T
)
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
RE
Q
U
E
S
T
E
D
1
(M
O
D
E
L
A
)
NO
R
T
H
(
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
35
.
0
10
.
5
20
.
0
20
.
0
EA
S
T
(
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
35
.
0
31
.
5
20
.
0
20
.
0
SO
U
T
H
35
.
0
24
.
5
1
8
.
5
T
O
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
1
8
.
5
T
O
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
WE
S
T
24
.
5
24
.
5
10
.
0
5.
0
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
2
(M
O
D
E
L
B
)
NO
R
T
H
(
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
35
.
0
10
.
5
20
.
0
20
.
0
EA
S
T
12
.
0
-
2
2
.
0
1
2
.
2
5
-
2
2
.
0
5.
0
-
9
.
0
5.
0
-
6
.
5
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
SO
U
T
H
35
.
0
22
.
0
1
8
.
5
T
O
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
1
8
.
5
T
O
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
WE
S
T
29
.
0
28
.
8
12
.
5
5.
0
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
3
(M
O
D
E
L
B
)
NO
R
T
H
(
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
35
.
0
10
.
5
20
.
0
20
.
0
EA
S
T
12
.
0
-
2
2
.
0
20
.
7
5
5.
0
-
8
.
5
6.
5
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
SO
U
T
H
35
.
0
20
.
7
5
1
8
.
5
T
O
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
1
8
.
5
T
O
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
WE
S
T
12
.
0
27
.
5
11
.
5
5.
0
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
4
(M
O
D
E
L
C
)
NO
R
T
H
(
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
35
.
0
10
.
5
20
.
0
20
.
0
EA
S
T
12
.
0
0
28
.
3
12
.
0
5.
0
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
SO
U
T
H
35
.
0
21
.
5
1
8
.
5
T
O
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
1
8
.
5
T
O
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
WE
S
T
26
.
0
21
.
5
11
.
5
6.
5
-
1
0
.
0
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
A
R
4
.
4
L
O
T
S
2
-
4
P
U
D
-
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
3
:
3
2
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
9
JO
B
T
I
T
L
E
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
AR
6
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
BR
O
A
D
A
N
D
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
C
O
R
N
E
R
ST
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
I
V
E
PE
R
K
I
N
S
L
A
N
E
RO
O
F
D
E
C
K
S
15
-
0
1
6
10
.
0
4
.
1
6
--
T
H
E
L
O
F
T
S
O
N
S
T
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
FO
R
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
80
5
.
5
4
7
.
2
3
4
4
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
\
\
A
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
\
A
r
c
h
i
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
1
4
\
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
o
c
s
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
\
4
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
\
1
5
-
0
1
6
-
2
8
8
1
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
\
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
\
A
R
4
.
5
L
O
T
S
2
-
4
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
.
d
w
g
,
1
0
/
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
:
5
3
:
4
3
A
M
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
2
-
3
0
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, June 20, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
June 20, 2016 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Greg Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan
Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn
Absent: Commissioner Patricia Andreen
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Consultant Planner
Shawna Scott, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and
Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
AMENDMENT: Page 2, insert new paragraph appropriately situated below “–-End of Public
Comments---to read: “Commissioner Curtis expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts at Los
Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin, including cumulative impacts; expressed concerns
regarding visual impacts of the project on views of the mountains both to the West and to the
North from Highway 101; and expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of water supply in the
long-term, given drought conditions.”
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ROOT, the ARC Minutes of May 2, 2016 were approved as amended on the
following 5:0:1:1 vote:
AYES: Nemcik, Root, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Curtis
ABSENT: Andreen
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 31
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1301 Calle Joaquin. ARCH-1098-2015; Continued review of a four-story, 114-unit
extended stay hotel, associated hotel amenities, and Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental review; C-T-SF zone; Intermountain Management, LLC, applicant.
Deputy Director Davidson introduced Consultant Scott who presented re-introductory
overview of hotel project and discussed Applicant’s response to three (3) directional
items from ARC Hearing of May 2nd, 2016.
Deputy Director Davidson informed that City Council approved 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan at their most recent Hearing.
Chair Wynn proposed that discussion on Condition #11 be held for final consideration
at end of Commission Comment period.
Project Architect Philip L. Stewart provided process-to-date information and additional
explanation supplementing his response letter of May 17th. Tim Walters, Principal of
RRM Design Group, broadened the commentary in discussing the constrained nature
of the site from a floodplain and stormwater standpoint.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Wendy Brown, San Luis Obispo, representing Board of Central Coast Grown (CCG), voiced
approval of Staff’s recommendation for project except for the section regarding the project not
returning to ARC; voiced that Commission has been very understanding of onsite conditions and
agricultural constraints of the area.
Victor Montgomery, San Luis Obispo, provided historical perspective of remaining four lots of
property of which half was dedicated to open space and on which City Farm resides; sh ared that
project’s process began with adoption of LUCE that identified space as available for hotel use
and, because it complies with regulations without exceptions, should be approved.
Steven Marx, San Luis Obispo, informed that CCG was not noticed about this project until
shortly before October 5th ARC Hearing, so previous history of project is not relevant to CCG
concerns.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiry, Consultant Scott provided background on the creation of
the four lots and the City Council’s eventual adoption of land use designation change to C-T.
Consultant Scott verified for Commissioner Root that the Code height -restriction is 45-feet;
verified for Vice-Chair Ehdaie that the project as currently proposed complies with zoning
ordinances and is consistent with General Plan land use designation.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 32
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 6
Commissioners Root, Soll, Curtis and Nemcik discussed their respective stances on the addition
and height of third floor, the prominence of entryway, and the aesthetics of the separation wall.
The Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.
2881 Broad Street. ARCH-2264-2015: Conceptual review of four new single-family dwellings;
R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant.
Assistant Planner Oetzell provided Staff Report, detailing a City Council-approved property
exchange agreement and the Staff Recommendation’s twelve (12) Directional Items.
Applicant Representatives, Dustin Pires and Eric Newton, presented the project, pointing out that
it had undergone multiple iterations, prior to discussing each Directional Item. In response to
Vice-Chair Ehdaie’s inquiry, Applicant Pires noted that the tightly constrained property had been
subdivided in such a manner in order to meet technical drainage and grading plans.
Commissioner Root and Vice-Chair Ehdaie asked questions of Applicant pertaining to street
yards and driveways.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Loretta Ramseyer, Rusée Parvin, David Helmholz, Robert Elke, Mary Gibbs and Laurah Lee
Waldorf, San Luis Obispo, spoke as residents of Stoneridge community with concerns relating to
vehicular traffic access onto Broad Street, the need for solid red curbs to limit parking in
neighborhood, the project failing to reflect the design guidelines to which neighborhood was
subject, and not being properly notified about the project.
Eric Newton, San Luis Obispo, addressed Stoneridge community comments; informed that
Perkins is a non-conforming street.
Rodessa Newton, San Luis Obispo, indicated primary goal of project is to meet City’s infill
housing needs; opined that project’s intention is not to mimic Stoneridge’s existing
Mediterranean design.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIR
EHDAIE, the Commission continued Hearing past 9:00 p.m., on the following 6:0:0:1 vote:
AYES: Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Soll, Root, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Andreen
Chair Wynn allowed the Applicant to respond to Public Comment. Applicant Pires discussed the
widening of Perkins and the development of a right-hand turn lane on Stoneridge Drive being
part of land exchange agreement; commented on existing No Parking signs and number of
contextual differences between project and Stoneridge neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 33
Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2016 – DRAFT Page 7
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Vice-Chair Ehdaie shared concern about paved driveways per Directional Item #3;
Commissioner Curtis indicated monotonous design warranted variety in site plan per Directional
Item #11; Commissioner Soll called attention to Perkins being a substandard right-of-way per
Directional Item #5.
Commissioner Root and Chair Wynn concurred in their estimation of Other Yard setbacks being
half of what code requires and each voiced lack of support for project as proposed.
Commissioner Nemcik stated that adherence to Community Design Guidelines would suggest
making the site plan’s garages consistently subordinate to living spaces.
Chair Wynn assessed that each of the twelve (12) Directional Items were all on track for
Applicant to follow, specifically citing #3 as their primary focal point.
The Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.
Agenda Forecast:
July 11th: Long-Bonetti Ranch at Tank Farm Road and South Higuera, recently reviewed by the
Cultural Heritage Committee; Ford/VW dealership’s significant remodel and expansion on Los
Osos Valley Road
July 18th: The Creamery’s remodel at 570 Higuera; 71 Palomar
Discussion ensued regarding the conversion to Action Minutes and the City Clerk Office’s audio
recordings of Commission proceedings as additional & alternative original material resource.
Deputy Director Davidson informed Commission about the movement to Action Minutes for
Advisory Body meetings being consistent with City Council proceedings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Approved by Architectural Review Commission: XX/XX/2016
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 34
DIRECTIONAL ITEMS (ARC REVIEW JUNE 20, 2016)
Staff recommended that the Commission provide direction to the applicant about design
modifications that could help the project better integrate into its surroundings and fit the
neighborhood character, achieve compatibility and avoid visually dominating the neighborhood,
reduce paved area, maximize privacy, enhance the visual interest of the East and North elevations,
and provide more variety, for better consistency with Community Design Guidelines. The
following directional items were prepared to address consistency with applicable development
standards and design guidelines:
Directional Item 1 – Reduce building height
Eliminate the third level of each dwelling to reduce the height of the proposed buildings to a height
that is consistent with surrounding one- and two-story residential structures adjacent to, and in the
vicinity of, the project, consistent with Community Design Guidelines § 5.3 (A.1).
Directional Item 2 – Eliminate Bonus Room / Attic Loft
Eliminate the Bonus Room / Attic Loft from each dwelling, to keep the density of the project
within the maximum density permitted by Zoning Regulations. This will also facilitate the
reduction of overall building height and massing to a level consistent with adjacent and nearby
residential structures.
Directional Item 3 – Reduce Other Yard encroachment
Modify building walls and roof forms to reduce the encroachment of the buildings into required
yard areas, particularly into Other Yards at the upper levels of the buildings. Include setback lines,
as specified in (Other Yard table) on elevation drawings to facilitate evaluation of yard depth at
upper levels. If shallower yards are desired, provide clear justification for their use. Proposals for
yards that do not meet minimum depth requirements should be justified by superior design and
greater consistency with applicable standards and guidelines.
Directional Item 4 – Reduce front yard paving
Reduce the paved area in the front yard of each dwelling to conform to the Front Yard Paving
restrictions set out in Zoning Regulations § 17.17.050.
Directional Item 5 – Apply creative design to site fencing
Apply creative design to site fencing that varies the height and length of fence segments, develops
breaks and variations in relief, and incorporate landscaping to achieve screening for privacy in
yard areas while providing visual interest, as described in Community Design Guidelines § 5.2 (C).
Comply with fence height limitations to the maximum extent possible, while considering the need
for privacy in back yard areas. Where taller fencing is necessary to provide privacy, employ
creative fencing design and materials, such as semi-open features along upper portions of fencing,
to provide visual interest and relief, and reduce the apparent height of fencing.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 35
Directional Item 6 – Provide better transition between the street and the project
Provide additional points of pedestrian entry and walkways, connecting each dwelling to the
sidewalk. Provide a more visually prominent building entry, connected to the sidewalk, along the
Broad Street frontage. Provide connections to the Perkins Lane sidewalk through, for example,
gates and arbors connecting to yard areas.
Directional Item 7 – Maximize privacy from roof decks
Set deck railing back from the edges of the structure, in a manner consistent with the building’s
design, and recess deck areas into the building form so that roof decks do not overlook neighboring
buildings and outdoor areas. Include sight line drawings in final plans, demonstrating that the
privacy of neighboring properties has been maximized consistent with Land Use Element policy
2.3.9(F).
Directional Item 8 – Minimize paved driveway area
Redesign the common area and common driveway so that the paved area is the minimum necessary
to provide vehicle access to required parking. Consider additional access points from Perkins Lane.
Consider the placement of each dwelling on its lot and the location of the garage on each building,
and how they might be altered to facilitate more efficient access to parking.
Directional Item 9 – Make garages subordinate to living space
For consistency with Community Design Guidelines § 5.5 (A.4), modify the design of the
proposed dwellings so that the garage is visually subordinate to the living space within the
dwelling, rather projecting in front of it.
Directional Item 9 – Eliminate uncovered tandem parking
Eliminate the uncovered tandem parking in front of the garages. Provide both required vehicle
parking spaces for each dwelling within a garage, to reduce the visual dominance of the
automobile, consistent with the intent of Community Design Guidelines § 5.1, and to make
additional space available for visitor parking when needed.
Directional Item 10 – Provide additional interest to East and West Elevations
Apply the combination of siding materials consistently across building elevations, extending the
mix of materials to the East and West Elevations. Provide additional articulation in these wall
surfaces to provide shadow and texture interest.
Directional Item 11 – Provide variety
Provide variety in detailing, and in the form and massing of each dwelling, to lend them some
individuality, as encouraged by Community Design Guidelines § 5.5 (A.1). Consider altering the
placement of each dwelling on its lot and varying their alignment along the block, including vehicle
and pedestrian access points.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 36