The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-17-2017 Item 12 Appeal filed by Donna Duerk & Ursula Bishop of the ARC's decision to approve a mixed-use project that includes 18 residential units 560 Higuera St Meeting Date: 1/17/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY DONNA DUERK & URSULA BISHOP) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A COMMERCIAL SPACE AND PARKING WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE (560 HIGUERA STREET). RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of the mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a commercial space within the Downtown Commercial zone. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant submitted a project for a new four-story mixed-use project that includes 18 residential units, a small 68 square-foot commercial space and 20 parking spaces, located within the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone. The project also includes a request for a one space parking reduction and tandem parking, as allowed with architectural review and approval. New commercial projects within the City require review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) (Community Design Guidelines Section 1.2). Staff provided early feedback to the applicant during the initial staff review regarding architecture. The applicant responded to the comments with revisions to the project design and the project proceeded to the ARC. On August 15, 2016 the ARC reviewed the proposed project and voted 3:1 to continue review of the project to a later date and provided specific changes they wanted to see made in the project Applicant/ Representative Creekside Lofts, LP / Damien Mavis Appellants Donna Duerk / Ursula Bishop Zoning C-D (Downtown Commercial) General Plan General Retail Site Area 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres) Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Packet Pg. 135 12 (Attachment F, ARC Minutes). On October 17, 2016 the project returned to the ARC for review. The ARC reviewed the proje ct based on the direction they had provided to the applicant and the ARC unanimously approved the modified project design (Attachment H, ARC Minutes). On October 27, 2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project (Attachment I, ARC Appeal). The appeal states that the ARC did not adhere to the Community Design Guidelines for Downtown and that the project does not fit the surrounding neighborhood. The scope of this review is to provide an evaluation of the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines and other applicable City policies and standards. The Council is being asked to review the proposed project, the concerns of the appeal and provide a final determination on the proposed project. Staff is recommending the Council deny the appeal and uphold the ARC’s approval of the project (Attachment A, Resolution A). If the Council approves the project, the project will then move on to be reviewed for the proposed airsp ace subdivision. If approved, the project will have all necessary entitlements needed to move forward for building permits. The following report provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project and the appeal. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting Site Size 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres) Present Use & Development Vacant Land Use Designation Downtown Commercial (C-D) Topography Relatively flat Current Access From Higuera Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-3-H (Medium High Density Housing within the Downtown Historic District) and San Luis Obispo Creek East: C-D-H (Downtown Commercial within the Downtown Historic District) West: C-R/C-D (Retail Commercial and Downtown Commercial) South: C-D (Downtown Commercial) Project Description The project proposes to construct a new, four-story mixed-use project that includes:  18 residential units, ranging in size as follows: nine studios (428-450 s.f.), and six one- bedroom (780-958 s.f.) and three two-bedroom (1,059-1,128 s.f.) multi-story townhouse units. The applicant has not included affordable units as part of the project and will pay the optional affordable housing in-lieu fees which will be used to fund affordable housing elsewhere in the City consistent with Housing Element Appendix N, Table 2;  68 square feet of commercial space; and  A parking garage with 20 parking spaces (four spaces in tandem) (Attachment D, Project Plans). Packet Pg. 136 12 The project also includes a separate application for an airspace subdivision. The airspace subdivision allows for the individual ownership of each of the residential and commercial units and maintenance of the building and common shared spaces. As proposed, the project is consistent with the City’s Subdivision Regulations which requires that each of the residential units provide private open space, a common open space area, lockable storage areas for each unit and an area in each unit for laundry facilities. The proposed subdivision will be reviewed at a public hearing with the City’s Hearing Officer at a later date if the architectural component of the project is approved. Figure 1: Perspective view of the project from Higuera Street Project Statistics Item Proposed Zoning Standards Setback Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 5 feet 0 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 47 feet 50 feet Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43.7% 100% Density Units (DU) 11.46 14.04 (36 DU per acre) Parking Spaces Vehicle 20 12 Bicycle (long-term) 37 37 Bicycle (short-term) 1 1 DISCUSSION Policy Guidance The areas discussed below provide background information on the policy and regulatory environment that shaped the review of the project. Although approval of the proposed project would result in a building that is taller than adjacent development, staff’s analysis of the project Packet Pg. 137 12 shows that it is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. 1. Downtown Development The Land Use Element (LUE) has an entire chapter1 that discusses the vision and development of Downtown. Part of the Downtown’s Role is described as the preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces.2 In regards to design, projects in the downtown should have street level activities, contain upper floor dwellings3, continuous storefronts, new buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing development and not exceed 50 feet in height4, and have sidewalk appeal. This is a project that does not have street frontage due to the configuration of the lots (a deep lot subdivision with an existing parking lot at the front of the property, i.e a “flag lot”). As a result, some of these policies can’t be applied without lot consolidation or other changes to property ownership and configuration that have not been proposed or are within the scope of the City to require. Instead, the developer configured the proposed development for the policies which are applicable to this unique lot. 2. Housing The Land Use Element (LUE) discusses that “Downtown is not only a commercial district, but also a neighborhood. Its residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour presence which enhances security and help the balance between jobs and h ousing in the community.”5 As such, projects within the Downtown are encouraged and regulated to include residential units. Housing Element Policy 6.2 states “New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) shall include housing, unless the City makes one of the following findings: A) Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of residents or employees; or B) The property’s shape, size, topography or other physical factor makes construction of new dwellings infeasible.” Further “higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the 1 General Plan, LUE Chapter 4. 2 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.1: Downtown is the community’s urban center serving as the cultural, social, entertainment, and political center of the City for its residents, as well as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its urban core to be economi cally healthy, and realizes that private and public investments in the Downtown support each other. Downtown should also provide a wide variety of professional and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is a preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and commercial portions of Downtown should be a major tourist destination. Downtown's visitor appeal should be based on natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, entertainment and numerous and varied visitor accommodations. 3 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.20.2: Upper Floor Dwellings – existing residential uses shall be preserved and new ones encouraged above the street level. This new housing will include a range of options and affordability levels. 4 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.20.4: Building Height. New buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing development, shall respect views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development. Generally, new buildings should not exceed 50 feet in height. 5 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.2. Packet Pg. 138 12 Downtown Core.”6 The Housing Accountability Act applies to “housing development projects” which includes mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses in which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of the building. The project is a housing development project under the Act. Section 65589.5(j) of the Act states that: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. 3. Downtown Parking The Zoning Regulations identify that the Downtown Core has different parking standards than other areas of the City.7 The main difference is that a project and/or use located in the Downtown can pay an in-lieu fee rather than provide parking on-site. LUE Policy 4.14 states that the City shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people can walk rather than drive between points within the core. Additionally, the Circulation Element (CE) includes goals and objectives to increase multi-modal transportation within the City. The CE includes the following Transportation Goals (Section 1.6.1.): 1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality. 2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as 6 General Plan, HE Policy 7.2. 7 Zoning Regulations 17.16.060.H. Packet Pg. 139 12 walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. The use of public transit, walking and biking are specifically supported by numerous policies in Chapters 3 through 6 of the CE. Project Review Background The subject property is a very unique situation in the downtown. The site is a legally subdivided L- shaped flag lot that does not have frontage along Higuera Street and the pole of the flag is subject to an easement for parking by the neighboring property (see Figure 2). The applicant submitted their proposed project in April of 2016. Staff provided early feedback to the applicant regarding the architecture, colors and use of materials. The applicant responded to the comments and resubmitted a modified project in June 2016. On August 15, 2016 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project and voted to continue review of the project to a later date and provided specific changes they wanted to see made to the project. The direction included: 1) Reducing the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project, 2) Incorporating horizontal elements in the building facade, particularly on the vertical towers, 3) Providing better transition between height of the project and The Creamery, and 4) Providing a holistic parking calculation for the project and the adjacent property (Attachment G, 8-15-2016 ARC Staff Report). On October 17, 2016 the ARC held a meeting to review the changes to the project. The ARC considered the applicant’s responses to their direction and determined the project was consistent with the direction provided, the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. The ARC unanimously approved the project 4:0 with a modified condition of approval that requires the project to provide additional screening at the parking garage to reduce any impacts of light trespass toward the residents (see below). The final landscape building plans shall include additional shrubs and/or a low fence in screening in front of the parking facing the creek to reduce the potential of light trespass into the creek and residential areas north of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Figure 2: The subject site is outlined above; the crosshatched portion of the site is under a parking easement for the property fronting Higuera Street. Packet Pg. 140 12 Development Director. Appeal On October 27, 2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project (Attachment I, ARC Appeal). The appeal states that the ARC did not adhere to the Community Design Guidelines for Downtown and that the project does not fit the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the appeal lists the following issues/concerns:  Overall Design  Scale/Height  Landscaping  Lighting and light trespass  Privacy and overlook  Noise  Parking not enclosed  Lack of Parking Staff Analysis Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines for Downtown (Chapter 4) and Multi -Family Housing Design (Chapter 5, Section 5.4). Overall Design The Community Design Guidelines outline a series of characteristics that define downtown materials and architecture details. 8 After review by staff and the ARC, the applicant modified the design of the project to better complement the adjacent buildings which are composed of stucco and tile roofing (to the west) and smooth stucco, corrugated metal roofing, wood siding and terra cotta brick (to the east) (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A5.0). The project proposes to utilize a smooth stucco finish, CMU, and terra cotta brick as exterior finishes. Terra cotta is one of the original materials used on the Creamery (utilized on the east wall of Goshi’s restaurant). The design was also modified to include more horizontal lines and variable roof heights to better reflect architectural characteristics of Downtown. Height and Scale: The Community Design Guidelines state that multi-story buildings are desirable in the downtown because they provide upper-floor residential units. Additionally, multi-story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at 8 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 D.1 Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several aspects including color, texture, and materials. Materials with integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are encouraged. If the building's exterior design is complicated, with many design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However, if the building design is simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's overall character. Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings… Packet Pg. 141 12 the sidewalk edge.9 The Community Design Guidelines also state that new buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions10 and should provide upper story setbacks along the street. As noted previously, the site is a very unusual property within the Downtown and does not face any streets. The project site is set approximately 150 feet from the sidewalk along Higuera Street, through a parking lot. As such, the overall form of the structure is unlike the traditional historic façade of Downtown. The applicant has proposed a project that provides 18 upper -floor residential units with parking and a small commercial space on the ground floor in place of traditional storefronts (Attachment D, Project Plans, Sheets 3.0-3.4). In addition to the unusual property location, the project is located in a neighborhood that varies in form, scale and height. Along Higuera Street the neighborhood contains mainly single story and two-story structures with three story structures located within 500 feet of the site (Patrick James Building located at Higuera and Nipomo Streets and the Children’s Museum at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets). South of the site is the San Luis Obispo Creek and residential neighborhood zoned medium-high density (R-3-H) which contains a variety of mostly one and two-story residential units. The proposed project is a four story building with a maximum height of 47 feet that steps down eight feet along the east side of the structure to provide a transition into the adjacent structures at the Creamery (Attachment D, Project Plans, Sheet A4.0). This is consistent with the Land Use Element which states that generally, new buildings should not exceed 50 feet in height.11 The design includes varying wall planes, articulation on all four sides, setbacks along portions of the 4th floor, and uses various materials and colors to complement the adjacent structures. Consistent with infill development and multi-family design guidelines, the project includes outdoor living space in the form of balconies and a landscaped common area along the creek side of the project (Attachment D, Project Plans).12 Additionally, the project appears to be smaller in scale from the street due to the large setback of the building from the street and location behind existing structures. The closest adjacent structures are to east and west of the site and are each two stories. 9 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 B: Height, scale. Multi -story buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upper floor offices and residential units, and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses, which assists in maintaining their viability. Multi -story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge. 10 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 B.1b 11 General Plan, LUE Policy 4.20.4: Building Height. New buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing development, shall respect views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development. Generally, new buildings should not exceed 50 feet in height. 12 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 5.3 D: Outdoor living areas. The use of balconies, verandas, porches and courtyards within the building form is strongly encouraged. Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 5.4 C(3): Balconies, porches, and patios. The use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi-family structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These elements should be used to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures. Packet Pg. 142 12 Privacy and Overlook The Land Use Element states that new buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.13 The Housing Element and the Community Design Guidelines encourage multi-family housing designs that include open space for the residence such as patios, porches, and balconies.14 The proposed design includes several balconies on the second and third floors that face towards San Luis Creek (Attachment D, Project Plans). The proposed building minimum setback from the centerline of the creek is approximately 50 feet and residential units along Dana street have a minimum setback of approximately 25 feet. Combined, the proposed project will be at least 75 feet from the nearest structure on Dana Street. Views towards these residences are largely blocked by trees located within San Luis Creek (see Figure 3). The applicant has provided a shade analysis that shows the project does not shade the adjacent properties during the hours of 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. during the winter solstice which is consistent with Table 2 of the Conservation Open Space Element.15 Noise All uses within the City are to comply with the City’s Noise Regulations found in Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code. The occupants of the proposed project are not anticipated to create excessive noise as the project is designed as small residential units (studios, 1-bedrooms and 2- 13 General Plan, LUE Policy 2.3.9 (F) Compatible Development: Privacy and Solar Access - New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multi story buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. 14 General Plan, HE Policy 7.2: Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed -use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 5.4 C(3): Balconies, porches, and patios. The use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi-family structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These elements should be used to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to s tructures. 15 General Plan C/OS Element Solar Access Standards Table 2: Most roof areas and some south walls on upper floors should be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice. Figure 3: (Left) View from the site towards the residences on Dana Street; (Right) View from the second story of the Creamery at the edge of the site facing northwest. Packet Pg. 143 12 bedrooms) with the largest balcony of 176 square feet being attached to one of the studio units. Noise from the parking garage shall be minimized with additional screening that is required as a part of Condition No. 9. This condition is further discussed in the Lighting and Light Trespass section below. Landscaping The Community Design Guidelines state that planting areas should be integrated with the building design, enhance the appearance and enjoyment of the project and soften the visual impact of buildings and paving. Landscaping should use a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Project plantings should blend with vegetation on nearby property if the neighboring greenery is healthy and appropriate. The City encourages innovation in planting design and choice of landscape materials.16 Conceptual landscaping plans are included in the project proposal (Attachment D, Project Plans, Sheet L-1). The project proposes to plant a drought tolerant landscape within the top of the creek bank that includes four large canopy shade trees, smaller accent trees, shrubs and other perennials and groundcover. A path in decomposed granite leads to outdoor seating areas within the plan. The remainder of the parcel will remain natural with the existing species that grow within the San Luis Creek. The rendering in the project plans also show the inclusion of climbing vines along the front façade and around the walls of the parking area on the first floor to soften the impact of the building (Attachment D, Project Plans, Sheets A5.0 to A5.3). Lighting and Light Trespass The City’s Zoning Regulations include Night Sky Preservation development standards. These standards outline appropriate light fixtures, require that lighting shall be fully shielded, and appropriate in height, intensity and scale for the project they are serving.17 Condition of approval No. 5 states: The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. This condition ensures that during the building plan review and final insp ection that all exterior lighting, including landscape lighting, will match what is shown on plans and comply with the City’s ordinance. Concerns were raised during the ARC hearing and in the appeal regarding light trespass from vehicles (as they enter and leave the parking area) and from security lighting since the parking 16 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6, Section 6.2 B(1). 17 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23 Night Sky Preservation. Section 17.23.050: New Development Standards. Packet Pg. 144 12 garage is not fully enclosed. Staff identified this as an issue and recommended a condition that required additional landscape screening along the north wall of the parking garage. The ARC refined the condition to read as follows: 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. This condition has been included as a part of draft resolution to deny the appeal (Attachment A). As conditioned, the project complies with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Parking: The Downtown-Commercial zone has its own parking standards that allow new development to provide parking at a specific rate (based on the use) or pay in-lieu fees in place of providing parking for a project on-site. These parking requirements are provided in Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060(H) (Attachment J). Based on these standards the project is required to have twelve (12) parking spaces. The project provides twenty (20) parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a reduction of one (1) parking space for the project consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 H.7f (Attachment J). Staff is supportive of this reduction since the site is located near public transportation and within walking distance to various services and employment. With the reduction, the project has eleven (11) spaces for the residential and commercial uses. Of these, the ARC also approved that four of the parking spaces could be parked in tandem per Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060 L.1.18 The nine (9) additional parking spaces not used for the project will be used as off-site parking for the Creamery. The proposed off-site parking allows for customer parking to be available for the Creamery in a consolidated area and eliminates the need for a surface parking area which the General Plan discourages in the Downtown. Parking off-site on a different parcel than the use is allowed if the site that provides the parking is within 300 feet of the use and can be safely accessed by the users.19 The ARC considered and approved this request on July 18, 2016 as part of their review of the renovation and new construction at the Creamery that includes the removal of an existing surface parking lot. NOTICING Various notices were provided for the project consistent with the City’s Municipal Code for each ARC hearing (August 15, 2016 and October 17, 2016) and the City Council hearing (January 17, 2017). Notices for each of these hearings included a poster with the project description posted at the site, a newspaper notice in the Tribune and postcards were sent to both tenants and owners of property located within 300 feet of the site. The notices were provided ten days prior to the scheduled hearing dates, including the City Council meeting. 18 Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060 L.1: When parking spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem subject to the approval of the Community Development Director 19 Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060 F: Such off-site parking shall be within a zone where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed, or within an office, commercial or manufacturing zone. It shall be within 300 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. Packet Pg. 145 12 CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these departments support the project if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects, Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property and is served by required utilities and public services. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations and policies (Attachment B, Resolution B). Attachments: a - Resolution A - Appeal denied b - Resolution B - Appeal upheld c - Vicinity Map d - Project Plans e - 8-15-2016 Staff Report & Continuance letter f - 08-15-2016 ARC Minutes g - 10-17-2016 Staff Report & Resolution h - 10-17-2016 ARC Minutes i - ARC Appeal j - Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060(H) Packet Pg. 146 12 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY DONNA DUERK & URSULA BISHOP) THEREBY APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 17, 2017 (560 HIGUERA STREET, APPL-4063-2016) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 15, 2016, with a three-one vote to continue the project, with direction; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 17, 2016, with a four-zero vote approving the project, subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-3020-2016, Creekside Lofts, LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop, the appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on October 17, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a pub lic hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 7, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4063-2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop, the appellants; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-4063-2016) of the Architectural Review Commission decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-3020-2016): 1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or Packet Pg. 147 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. That the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.2 (Downtown Residential) because it provides new residential uses, allowing 24-hour presence and balance between jobs and housing in the community. 3. That the project is consistent with the Housing Element Policy 5.3 and 5.4 because the project provides housing above ground-level commercial, is located close to activity centers in the downtown and provides variety of residential types, sizes, and styles of dwellings. 4. That the project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element policy 4.4.3 because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use of public facilities and services and to improve the City’s jobs/housing balance. 5. The project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines by providing architectural interest and style which complements the character and scale of the existing neighborhood. 6. That the 10% parking reduction is consistent with the Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 H.7f because the project provides residential units within the Downtown Commercial District. 7. That, as conditioned, the tandem parking is consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 L.1 because the parking will be identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project, thereby granting final approval of the application APPL-4063-2016 for a new mixed-use project that includes 18 residential units, a commercial space and parking within the Downtown Commercial zone, subject to the following conditions: Conditions Planning 1. 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 Packet Pg. 148 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. 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 in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall note the use of smooth finished stucco on the exterior of the building. 5. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building el evations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. 6. 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 any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate screening. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building modifications and improvements. 7. Tandem parking spaces shall be identified on plans submitted for a building permit as being assigned to specific dwelling units within the project. 8. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with Packet Pg. 149 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 4 R ______ corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Any proposed signs are subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department and subject to a sign permit. The Community Development Director shall refer signage to the ARC if signs need an exception or appear to be excessive in size or out of character with the project. Engineering Division – Public Works/ Community Development 12. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 13. The project is located in the Mission Style Sidewalk District of downtown. Any replaced sections of sidewalk or driveway approach shall be constructed in the Mission Style per city standards #4220. 14. The building plan submittal shall show and note that any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, or sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced per City Engineering Standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 15. The building plan submittal shall show the existing driveway approach to be upgraded or replaced to comply with City and ADA standards. Current city and ADA standards require a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. 16. Development of the driveway 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 Packet Pg. 150 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 5 R ______ dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 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. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage 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 historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site or adjoining sites. 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. 19. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include a final hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report in accordance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The report shall include, as a minimum, a response or discussion of the bullet items in Section 2.3.1 of the Drainage Design Manual. 20. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the city’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. 21. This property is located in an AE and AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone. The proposed structure is located in the AE floodzone. The structure shall be floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE. Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 22. Any new building service equipment shall be protected or elevated above the BFE in accordance with the Floodplain Management Regulations and adopted Building Code. The elevator, design, and equipment room shall be designed in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 4 / November 2010. 23. 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 final Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. Packet Pg. 151 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 6 R ______ 24. 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 building permit issuance or final inspection approvals. 25. The building plan shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements for reference. 26. A quit claim agreement or other acceptable documentation shall be recorded and/or provided for the removal of the existing 6’ PG&E easement per PM 54-90 prior to building permit issuance. 27. A new creek access easement shall be provided to the City the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Community Development Department, and Natural Resources Manager prior to building permit issuance. The easement shall provide for a reasonable staging area along the creek. 28. The building plan submittal shall include final details of the creek patio area improvements including the proposed landscaping. The final site improvement plan and landscape plan shall honor the proposed new access, staging area, and creek easement to the satisfaction of the City. The patio improvement shall be designed to accommodate maintenance vehicles and/or shall include readily moveable patio furniture/fixtures. The final planting/tree placement plan shall honor the access requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Community Development Department, and Natural Resources Manager. 29. A creek maintenance agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City and approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the City’s Natural Resource Manager prior to building permit issuance. 30. The developer shall exhaust reasonable efforts to eradicate and control the expansion of any known non-native and invasive species within the creek corridor to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. These plants may require treatment in advance and prior to commencing with ground disturbing activities and grading. 31. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the creek corridor and 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 which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals and/or pruning may require approval by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Packet Pg. 152 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 7 R ______ Utilities Department 32. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a pipeline video inspection (visual inspection of the interior of the pipeline), including 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:  The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted on USB drive and shall be in color.  The inspection shall be of adequate resolution in order to display pipe.  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.  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.  It is optional to provide audio on the report to explain the location, date of inspection, and pipeline condition observations. 33. The project’s commercial and residential uses shall be metered separately. All residential units are to be individually metered. Privately owned sub-meters may be provided for residential condominiums upon approval of the Utilities Director or her/his designee. The CCR’s for the property/homeowner association shall require that the sub-meters be read by the association (or P/HOA contracted service) and each condominium billed according to water use. Fire Department 34. Due to the lack of two Fire Department aerial fire apparatus access roads to the proposed building (2013 California Fire Code, Appendix D), the project will require either Type V-A or Type II-B construction throughout, along with a full NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. Code Requirements Building Division 35. New buildings citywide shall incorporate the following construction methods and materials: Ignition resistant exterior wall coverings; Fire sprinkler protection in attic areas (at least one “pilot head”); Ember resistant vent systems for attics and under floor areas, protected eaves, and Class ‘A’ roof coverings as identified in the California Building Code Chapter 7A. Utilities Department 36. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer. Packet Pg. 153 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 8 R ______ 37. 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) (Resolution 10628 (2015)). 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. Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017. ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ______________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ________________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Packet Pg. 154 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 9 R ______ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 155 12 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AN APPEAL THEREBY DENYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 17, 2017 (560 HIGUERA STREET, APPL-4063-2016) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 15, 2016, with a three-one vote to continue the project, with direction; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 17, 2016, with a four-zero vote approving the project, subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-3020-2016, Creekside Lofts, LP, applicant; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop, the appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on October 17, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 7, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-4063-2016, Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop, the appellants; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-4063-2016) of the Architectural Review Commission decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-3020-2016), based on the following findings [NOTE: THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FINDINGS TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND DENY THE PROJECT MUST BE Packet Pg. 156 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT CODE § 65589.5(J)]: 1. The project design is inconsistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the architectural style, character, and scale are incompatible with the neighborhood and adjacent development. 2. That the proposed project height is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines because the project’s height and scale does not provide a smooth transition between the immediate neighborhood of one and two story buildings and the proposed development would create an abrupt discrepancy in height and massing and overwhelm the neighboring properties. 3. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will negatively impact the neighboring properties because the project does not respect the privacy of neighboring buildings and protect solar access. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). SECTION 3. Action. Based on the above findings and evidence submitted in support thereof, the City Council does hereby uphold the appeal thereby denying the application of APPL- 4063-2016. Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017. ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ______________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 157 12 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ APPROVED AS TO FORM ________________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 158 12 C-R C-D C-D R-3-H O-HO-H R-3-H O-H-PD C-R R-3-S R-3-H PF-H C-D C-D-S-H C-D-H R-2-S R-3 C-D-H-PDR-1-PD DANAHIGUERANI P O M O VICINITY MAP APPL-4278-2016560 Higuera St ¯ Packet Pg. 159 12 DateScaleSheetA0.008/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CACOVER SHEET(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEENSAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPacket Pg. 16012 Packet Pg. 16112 DateScaleSheet08/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)VICINITY MAPA1.0PROJECT STATISTICSCONTINUEDALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO: (A) THE MINIMUM STANDARDSOF THE LATEST EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODEAND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED BY THE I.C.C. WHICHHAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCY; (B)ALL REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES OF ALL LOCALGOVERNING AGENCIES; (C) ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONSREQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCIES; AND (D) ALLCALIFORNIA STATE CODE AMENDMENTS (BUILDING STANDARDSCODE) TITLE 24.ALL CODES REFERENCED SHALL BE CALIFORNIA EDITIONS. THECODES REFERENCED IN THESE PLANS ARE AS FOLLOWS:1. 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC).2. 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC).3. 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC).4. 2013 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC).5. 2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC).6. 2013 CALIFORNIA STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION STDS.(TITLE 24).7. 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC).8. 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CGBC).9. 2013 BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.10. NATIONAL FIRE CODES (NFPA).11. SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE (SLOMC).MAXIMUM AREA OF OPENINGS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION(CBC TABLE 705.8)FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE PROTECTED ALLOWABLEAREAO TO LESS THAN 3' YES/NO NOTPERMITTED3' TO LESS THAN 5'NO15%3' TO LESS THAN 5'YES15%5' TO LESS THAN 10'NO25%5' TO LESS THAN 10'YES25%10' TO LESS THAN 15'*NO45%10' TO LESS THAN 15'*YES45%15' TO LESS THAN 20'*NO75%15' TO LESS THAN 20'*YES75%20' OR GREATER YES/NO NO LIMIT* THE AREA OF OPENINGS IN AN OPEN PARKING STRUCTUREWITH A FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE OF 10 FEET OR GREATERSHALL NOT BE LIMITED PER CBC TABLE 705.8, FOOTNOTE GBUILDING COMPONENT PROTECTIONNOTE: INCIDENTAL ACCESSORY OCCUPANCIES PER CBC 508.2ARE MITIGATED BY PROPOSED AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHINGSYSTEM.EXTERIOR WALLS: NON-RATEDINTERIOR WALLS WITHIN A SINGLE OCCUPANCY: NON-RATEDINTERIOR WALLS BETWEENDWELLING UNITS: 1-HR FIRE PARTITIONINTERIOR WALLS BETWEENR-2 & S-2 OCCUPANCIES: 1-HR FIRE BARRIERSTAIR EXIT ENCLOSURE WALLS: 1-HR FIRE BARRIERFLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES WITHINA SINGLE DWELLING UNIT: NON-RATEDFLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES BETWEEN DWELLING UNITS: 1-HRNORTHSITEFLOOD GATE INFORMATIONTHIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AE FLOODZONE.THE GROUND FLOOR, CONSISTING OF PARKING, COMMERCIALSPACE, LOBBY AND EXIT STAIRWAY, SHALL BE A MIX OF "WET" AND"DRY" FLOODPROOFED. THE COMMERCIAL SPACE AND LOBBYSHALL BE DRY FLOODPROOFED WHILE THE GARAGE AND EXITSTAIR ENCLOSURE SHALL BE WET FLOODPROOF TO ALLOW FLOODWATERS TO CARRY TO THE CREEK.DETAILS FOR THESE ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OFBUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.Packet Pg. 16212 Packet Pg. 16312 DateScaleSheet08/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)A1.3GREENPOINT CHECKLISTGREENPOINT CHECKLISTPacket Pg. 16412 /,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(7232)%$1.7232)%$1.'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6$5&+,7(&76-2+1621$9(18(6$1/8,62%,632&$3)7+20$6(-(66$5&+, 7(&7&[[55,678',2$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6,7($(5,$/9,(:+,*8(5$675((71,3202675((7'$1$675((7(;,67,1*02%,/(+20(7+(&5($0(5< 6287+72:1&5((.Packet Pg. 16512 AA6.0BA6.07+(&5($0(5<3$5.,1**$5$*($'-$&(17&200(5&,$/+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(63,.(6(;,67,1*02%,/(+20($'-$&(17&200(5&,$/($'-$&(173$5.,1* )/2:(56+23'225352326('6($7,1*$5($),5(5,6(5&/26(787,/,7<5220%,.(/2&.(5%,.(5$&.75$6+(1&/2685((75$6+(1&/2685( $332;/2&$7,212)(),5(+<'5$171A6.1'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$&21&(378$/6,7(3/$1)250$//<+20(72:1/2)7629(5$//$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1 127(1232/(02817('/,*+76$5(352326('$///,*+766+$//%(02817('72%8,/',1* 6+$//%('$5.6.<&203/,$17Packet Pg. 16612 3$5.,1**$5$*(AA6.0BA6.0/2%%<75$6+ 3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1( 67$,5 )/2:(56+23(/(& /,0,72)%8,/',1*$5($%,.(5$&.%,.(/2&.(5 1A6.13523(57</,1( 02725&<&/(3$5.,1*'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$)/2253/$1)250$//<+20(72:1/2)76&21&(378$/),567)/2253/$1 Packet Pg. 16712 AA6.0BA6.01A6.1)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&. 3523(57</,1(675*675*75$6+675*675*675*6)6)6)6) 6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6)6) 23(1,1*672%(3527(&7('/,0,72)%8,/',1*$5($ 675*&29(5(':$/.:$<)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.67$,5)/$7678',2/2%%<(/(9675*675*675*)/$7678',2'(&.'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$)/2253/$1)250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 %,.(5$&.6725$*(&21&(378$/6(&21')/2253/$1Packet Pg. 16812 AA6.07+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+BA6.0&29(5(':$/.:$</2%%<(/(9'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&. 67$,56)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)67)/6)1')/6)%('6)6)6)6)6)6)6) 23(1,1*672%(3527(&7('1A6.1/,0,72)%8,/',1*$5($75$6+'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$)/2253/$1)250$//<+20(72:1/2)76&21&(378$/7+,5'3/$1 Packet Pg. 16912 AA6.0BA6.07+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+'(&. 5RRIEHORZ5RRIEHORZ2)),&('(&.6)6)67$,56/($',1*727+(522)1A6.1/,0,72)%8,/',1*$5($5RRIEHORZ'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$)/2253/$1)250$//<+20(72:1/2)76&21&(378$/)2857+)/2253/$1 Packet Pg. 17012 67$,56/($',1*727+(522)0(&+$1,&$/81,7667$,572:(5522)3$5$3(7:$//7<3(/(9$72572:(5522)6&5((1/2:(5522)'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$522)3/$1)250$//<+20(72:1/2)76&21&(378$/522)3/$1 Packet Pg. 17112 FIRST FLOOR0"LOWER ROOF43'-11"SECOND FLOOR12'-0"THIRD FLOOR23'-5"4TH FLOOR34'-10"DASH STUCCOFINISHTERRACOTTA BRICK TOCOMPLIMENT CREAMERYBRICK WALL NEARGOSHI'SDASH STUCCO FINISHCMU BLOCKALUMINUMWINDOWSPROPOSED HEIGHT47'-0"SCREENEDMECHANICAL UNITSWOOD GUARDRAILORIGINAL SUBMITTALDEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINECLIMBING VINEADJ. BLDGSHOWN TRANSPARENTFOR CLARITYGROWING BUSHESHEDGEREMOVED PERFORATEDCORTEN STEELREDUCEDPROPOSED HEIGHTREDUCEDHEIGHTVISIBILITYOBSTRUCTIONWINDOWSUBSTITUTIONMATERIAL COLORCHANGEREMOVEDTOWER ELEMENTSIGNAGEREMOVEDPROPOSED ELEVATIONPROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN - FOR REFERENCE ONLYORIGINAL SUBMITTALCREAMERY APPROX. HEIGHEXISTING CREAMERYBUILDING28'-5"8'-0"2'-2"METAL CANOPY5'-0"2'-2"HORIZONTAL BANDING AT FLOORLEVEL. CONTINUES THROUGH MULTIPLEMATERIALS TO ACCENTUATESHORIZONTAL ELEMENTS33'-5"APPROX. 42'-0"8'-1"STRGSTRGTRASHSTRGSTRGSTRGCOVEREDWALKWAYFLAT 9STUDIODECKSTRGSTAIR 2FLAT 1STUDIOLOBBYELEV.STRGSTRGDateScaleSheetA4.008/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN1/16" = 1'-0"560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAELEVATIONS(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)FRONT PRESENTATION ELEVATION0'4'8'16'32'ORIGINAL SUBMITTALDEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINEPacket Pg. 17212 FIRST FLOOR0"LOWER ROOF43'-11"SECOND FLOOR12'-0"THIRD FLOOR23'-5"4TH FLOOR34'-10"DASH STUCCO FINISH (TYP.)TERRACOTTA BRICK TOCOMPLIMENT CREAMERYBRICK WALL NEAR GOSHI'SWOODGUARDRAILALUMINUMWINDOWSPROPOSED HEIGHT47'-0"SCREENEDMECHANICAL UNITS3'-1"9'-1"11'-5"11'-5"12'-0"OPENINGS TO BEPROTECTEDADJ. BLDGSHOWN TRANSPARENTFOR CLARITYADJ. BLDGSHOWN TRANSPARENTFOR CLARITYREMOVED PERFORATEDCORTEN STEELREDUCEDPROPOSED HEIGHTMATERIALCHANGEMATERIAL COLORCHANGEREDUCEDHEIGHTFUTURE SIGNAGE TBD.METAL CANOPYADDITIONMETAL CANOPYPROPOSED ELEVATIONPROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN - FOR REFERENCE ONLYORIGINAL SUBMITTALEXISTING CREAMERYBUILDINGBUILDING SHOWNSEMI-OPAQUEFOR DEPTH CLARITY8'-0"ORIGINAL SUBMITTALDEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINEORIGINAL SUBMITTALDEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINE2'-2"REDUCEDELEMENT HEIGHTAPPROX. 28'-5"STEPPEDELEMENT BACKFLAT 1STUDIOCOVEREDWALKWAYELEV.FLAT 3STUDIOFLAT 2STUDIODECKDECKDECKLOBBYDateScaleSheetA4.108/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN1/16" = 1'-0"560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAELEVATIONS(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)EAST PRESENTATION ELEVATION0'4'8'16'32'Packet Pg. 17312 ),567)/225/2:(5522) 6(&21')/225 7+,5')/225 7+)/225 352326('+(,*+7 '$6+678&&2'$6+678&&2),1,6+&08%/2&.$/80,180:,1'2:60(7$/&$123<*52:,1*%86+(6+('*( 6&5((1('0(&+$1,&$/81,76'$6+678&&2),1,6+7(55$&277$%5,&.72&203/,0(17&5($0(5<%5,&.:$//1($5*26+, 6:22'*8$5'5$,/5(029('3(5)25$7('&257(167((/5('8&('352326('+(,*+70$7(5,$/&+$1*(0$7(5,$/&+$1*(0$7(5,$/&2/25&+$1*(9,6,%,/,7<2%6758&7,210$7(5,$/&+$1*(5('8&('+(,*+7352326('(/(9$7,21352326('1')/2253/$1)255()(5(1&(21/<25,*,1$/68%0,77$/(;,67,1*&5($0(5<%8,/',1*$3352; &/,0%,1*9,1(25,*,1$/68%0,77$/'(3,&7('%<%2/'5('/,1(%8,/',1*6+2:16(0,23$48()25'(37+&/$5,7<25,*,1$/68%0,77$/'(3,&7('%<%2/'5('/,1( 67(33('%$&.(/(0(17)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.'(&.)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.)/$7678',2&29(5(':$/.:$<675*'(&.675*'(&.'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$(/(9$7,216)250$//<+20(72:1/2)761257+35(6(17$7,21(/(9$7,21 Packet Pg. 17412 ),567)/225/2:(5522) 6(&21')/225 7+,5')/225 7+)/225 352326('+(,*+7 '$6+678&&2),1,6+7<3:22'*8$5'5$,/$/80,180:,1'2:60(7$/&$123<)(1&(&/,0%,1*9,1( $'-%/'*6+2:175$163$5(17)25&/$5,7<&08%/2&.7(55$&277$%5,&.72&203/,0(17&5($0(5<%5,&.:$//1($5*26+, 65(029('3(5)25$7('&257(167((/5('8&('352326('+(,*+75('8&('+(,*+70$7(5,$/&+$1*(0$7(5,$/&2/25&+$1*(352326('(/(9$7,21352326('1')/2253/$1)255()(5(1&(21/<25,*,1$/68%0,77$/25,*,1$/68%0,77$/'(3,&7('%<%2/'5('/,1(+25,=217$/%$1',1*$7)/225/(9(/&217,18(67+528*+08/7,3/(0$7(5,$/672$&&(178$7(6+25,=217$/(/(0(176 25,*,1$/68%0,77$/$3352; )/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',2'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.67$,5675*675*675*&29(5(':$/.:$<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$(/(9$7,216)250$//<+20(72:1/2)76:(6735(6(17$7,21(/(9$7,21 Packet Pg. 17512 1DateScaleSheetA5.008/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEENNTS560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPERSPECTIVE 1(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)PERSPECTIVE VIEW 1Packet Pg. 17612 'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1176+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$3(563(&7,9()250$//<+20(72:1/2)763(563(&7,9(9,(:Packet Pg. 17712 'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1176+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$3(563(&7,9()250$//<+20(72:1/2)763(563(&7,9(9,(:Packet Pg. 17812 'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1176+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$3(563(&7,9()250$//<+20(72:1/2)763(563(&7,9(Packet Pg. 17912 'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$3(563(&7,9()250$//<+20(72:1/2)763(563(&7,9(9,(:Packet Pg. 18012 DateScaleSheetA5.508/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPERSPECTIVE 6(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)PERSPECTIVE - CREAMERY CORRIDOR VIEWPacket Pg. 18112 EXISTING PALM TREETO REMAIN6DateScaleSheetA5.608/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPHOTO VISUALIZATION(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)PHOTO VISUALIZATION - FROM HIGUERA STREETPacket Pg. 18212 LINE OFPREVIOUSLY APPROVED2-STORY FARMERS BUILDINGDateScaleSheetA5.708/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPHOTO VISUALIZATION(FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS)PHOTO VISUALIZATION - FROM CREAMERYPacket Pg. 18312 ),567)/225/2:(5522) 6(&21')/225 7+,5')/225 7+)/225 )/$7678',27+7+3$5.,1**$5$*('(&.3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(7232)%$1.%8,/',1*6(7%$&.$'-$&(17&200(5&,$/352326('+(,*+7 6&5((1('0(&+$1,&$/81,76&5((.),567)/225/2:(5522) 6(&21')/225 7+,5')/225 7+)/225 7+7+)/$7678',23$5.,1**$5$*(7+7+7+7+7+7+)/$7678',2)/$7678',2)/$7678',23523(57</,1(7+(&5($0(5<75$,/(53$5.352326('+(,*+7 2)),&(3523(57</,1(7+)/$7678',2675*675*6&5((1('0(&+$1,&$/81,76'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1 +,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6(&7,216)250$//<+20(72:1/2)76 &21&(378$/%8,/',1*6(&7,21$&21&(378$/%8,/',1*6(&7,21% Packet Pg. 18412 ),567)/225/2:(5522) 6(&21')/225 7+,5')/225 7+)/225 352326('+(,*+7 '$1$67 (67,0$7('&5((.'(37+ 50$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7%8,/',1*/,0,7/,1(7232)%$1.72+,*8(5$67&85% $3352;,0$7(' &'0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+73523(57</,1( (67,0$7('75((+(,*+73523(57</,1(+,*8(5$67(67,0$7('+(,*+73(5&,7<67$1'$5' 'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6$5&+,7(&76-2+1621$9(18(6$1/8,62%,632&$3)7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&[[55,678',2$6287+72:1(,*+7((1+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6,7(6(&7,21$Packet Pg. 18512 7+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(307+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(307+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1($0'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6+$',1*678'<)250$//<+20(72:1/2)766800(562/67,&(6+$',1*678'<Packet Pg. 18612 7+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1($07+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(307+(&5($0(5<+,*8(5$675((7/,0,72)%8,/',1*3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(30'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$6287+72:1(,*+7((1+,*8(5$6$1/8,62%,632&$6+$',1*678'<)250$//<+20(72:1/2)76:,17(562/67,&(6+$',1*678'<Packet Pg. 18712 Packet Pg. 18812 Packet Pg. 18912 Packet Pg. 19012 Packet Pg. 19112 Packet Pg. 19212 Packet Pg. 19312 Packet Pg. 19412 DateScaleSheet07/28/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAFORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTSL-1LANDSCAPE PLANWATER CONSERVATION NOTESLARGE CANOPY SHADE TREESarbutus 'marina' / 'MARINA' ARBUTUSLcassia leptophylla / GOLDEN MEDALLION TREELlagerstroemia indica 'nachez / CRAPE MYRTLE (WHITE)Lmagnolia grandiflora 'majestic beauty' / SOUTHERN MAGNOLIAMmaytenus boarla / MAYTEN TREEMmelaleuca quinquinervia / CAJEPUT TREELSMALL ACCENT TREESacer palmatum 'bloodgood' / 'BLOODGOOD' JAPANESE MAPLE Meriobotrya deflexa / BRONZE LOQUATLmagnolia soulangeana / SAUCER MAGNOLIA (MULTI)MSHRUBS PERENNIALScallistemon 'little john' / DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH Lchondropetalum tectorum / CAPE RUSH Lcordyline australis 'red sensation' / NEW ZEALAND CABBAGE TREE Lcuphea hyssopifolia / FALSE HEATHER Mescallonia 'newport dwarf' / NEWPORT DWARF ESCALLONIA Mliriope muscari / BIG BLUE LILY TURF Mliriope muscari 'evergreen giant' / 'EVERGREEN GIANT' LILY TURF Mliriope 'silvery sunproof' / VARIEGATED LILY TURFMnandina domestica 'fire power' / HEAVENLY BAMBOOMrumohra adiantiformis / LEATHERLEAF FERNMstrelitzia reginae / BIRD OF PARADISEMGROUNDCOVERcoprosma 'tequila sunrise' / MIRROR PLANT Ldianella revoluta 'little rev / BLUE FLAX LILY Lerigeron karvinskianus / FLEABANE Lfestuca malrei / ATLAS FESCUE Lheuchera 'electric lime' / FANCY-LEAF CORAL BELLSMheuchera 'southern comfort' / SOUTHERN COMFORT CORAL BELLSMhosta sp. / VARIEGATED PLAINTAIN LILYMlysimachia nummularia 'aurea' / CREEPING JENNY SHADE--thymus serpyllum / MOTHER-OF-THYMEMverbena tapien 'blue violet' / (NO COMMON NAME)--MULCHMULCH ALL GROUND COVER AND PLANTER AREAS WI TH 3" MINIMUM LAYER 'WALK-ON' BARK OR DECORATIVE BEACH PEBBLE.WATER-USE EVALUATION OF PLANT MATERIALSWATER USE OF PROPOSED PLANTS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED USING THE "WATER USECLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPETHE FOLLOWING WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THIS PROJECT:xWATER CONSERVING PLANTS, DEFINED AS "LOW" IN THE "WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OFLANDSCAPE SPECIES" (WUCOLS III, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION),SHALL BE UTILIZED IN 75% OF THE TOTAL PLANT AREA.xIRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE SEPARATED INTO DISTINCT HYDROZONES BASED ON PLANTMATERIAL TYPES, EXPOSURE AND ORIENTATION.xSOIL AMENDMENTS AND MULCH SHALL BE UTILIZED TO IMPROVE WATER HOLDINGCAPACITY OF SOIL.xAUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL UTILIZE "SMART CONTROLLER" TECHNOLOGY WITHWATER BUDGETING FEATURE TO ADJUST WATER APPLICATION BASED ON SOIL MOISTUREAND/OR LOCAL WEATHER DATA.xLAWN IS LIMITED TO ACTIVE-USE AREAS.STATEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING IRRIGATION DESIGNTHE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF IRRIGATION DESIGN UTILIZED ON THIS PROJECT ARE DIRECTEDSPECIFICALLY AS CONSERVING WATER AND IMPROVING THEEFFICIENCY OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM:xALL IRRIGATION SHALL BE DRIP OR DRIPLINE EMITTERS. NO OVERHEAD SPRAY HEADS WILLBE USED.xIRRIGATION HYDROZONES SHALL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO WATER NEEDS ANDWEATHER.xUTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM MASTER VALVE.xUTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM "SMART" CONTROLLER WITH WATER BUDGETINGFEATURE.xUTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM FLOW SENSOR.xUTILIZATION OF RAIN SHUT-OFF DEVICE CONNECTED TO IRRIGATION CONTROLLER.TO HELP MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY AS INTENDED IN THE DESIGN, IRRIGATIONSYSTEM SHALL BE TESTED AND MAINTAINED ON A REGULARBASIS BY THE MAINTENANCE STAFF.PLANT LISTLANDSCAPE WATER USE SUMMARYGROUND COVERDG PATHWAYSHRUBSSMALL ACCENT TREESLARGE CANOPY TREEOUTDOOR SEATING AREADG PATHWAY570 HIGUERASTAIRSTRASHLOBBYPARKING AREAREFER TO CIVIL PLANSFOR DRAINAGE INFO.20200100100611x17 SHEET SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"TRUENORTHSAN LUIS CREEKTHE CREAMERYFARMERS BLD GTHECREAMERYPacket Pg. 19512 Packet Pg. 19612 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: A mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a commercial space with the Downtown Commercial zone. PROJECT ADDRESS: 560 Higuera BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3020-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Creekside Lofts, LP Representative Steve Rigor, Architect Submittal Date 4/8/2016 Complete Date 7/7/2016 Zoning C-D (Downtown Commercial) General Plan General Retail Site Area 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres) Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a new, four story mixed-use building with 68 square feet of commercial/retail space, 18 residential units, and 20 parking spaces within the Downtown Commercial Zone. The applicant is also requesting a 10% parking reduction and 4 tandem parking spaces. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. Meeting Date: August 15, 2016 Item Number: 2 ARC2 - 1Packet Pg. 197 12 ARCH-3020-2016 560 Higuera Street Page 2 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting: Site Size 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres) Present Use & Development Vacant Land Use Designation Downtown Commercial (C-D) Topography Relatively flat Current Access From Higuera Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-3-H (Medium High Density Housing within the Downtown Historic District) and San Luis Obispo Creek East: C-D-H (Downtown Commercial within the Downtown Historic District) West: C-R/C-D (Retail Commercial and Downtown Commercial) South: C-D (Downtown Commercial) 2.2 Project Description The project proposes to construct a new, four-story mixed-use project that includes: • 18 residential units: 9 studios, and 6 one-bedroom and 3 two-bedroom multi-story townhouse units; • 68 square feet of commercial space; and • A parking garage with 20 parking spaces (four spaces in tandem) (Attachment 3, Project Plans). The project also includes a separate application for an airspace subdivision that will be reviewed at a later date once the project has been approved by the ARC. 2.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed 1 Standard 2 Setback Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 5 feet 0 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) ~49 feet 50 feet Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43.7% 100% Density Units (DU) 11.46 14.04 (36 DU per acre) Parking Spaces Vehicle 20 12 Bicycle (long-term) 37 37 Bicycle (short-term) 1 1 Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 6/7/2016 2. Zoning Regulations 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for Downtown (Chapter 4), Infill Development and Multi-family Housing Design. ARC2 - 2Packet Pg. 198 12 ARCH-3020-2016 560 Higuera Street Page 3 3.1 Street Orientation 1: The subject property is a very unique situation in the downtown. The site is an L-shaped flag lot that does not have frontage along Higuera Street. The pole of the flag lot is utilized for parking by the neighboring property (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A2.0). As such the proposed structure cannot be located at the back of sidewalk. 3.2 Height and Scale 2: The CDG state that multi-story buildings are desirable in the downtown because they provide upper-floor residential units. Additionally multi-story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge. The CDG also states that new buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions 3 and should provide upper story setbacks along the street. Consistent with the CDG, the project provides 18 upper-floor residential units, however due to the location of the site, the applicant has located parking and a small commercial space on the first floor of the structure in place of storefronts. The project site is set approximately 150 feet from the sidewalk, through a parking lot, and providing a street façade is not practical for the project. Instead the project takes advantage of its proximity to the Creamery and provides pedestrian access to and from the proposed project and the Creamery (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet 2.0). The surrounding development pattern varies in scale and height. Along Higuera Street the neighborhood contains single story and two-story structures. The site is also located south of San Luis Obispo Creek and a medium-high density residential zone (R-3-H) which contains a variety of mostly one and two-story residential units. The applicant has provided a rendering that illustrates the project as viewed from Higuera Street (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A5.5). The closest adjacent structures are to east and west of the site and are each two stories. The project is four-stories with a maximum height of 49 feet, 2 inches. The applicant has designed the project with varying wall planes, articulation on all four sides, setbacks along portions of the 4th floor, and uses various materials and colors to complement the adjacent structures. The project also includes outdoor living space in the form of balconies and a landscaped common area along the creek side of the project.4 Additionally, the project appears to be diminished in scale due to the large setback of the building from the street and location behind existing structures and trees. ARC Discussion Item: As discussed above, the project includes many of the elements described in the CDG related to scale and massing in the Downtown. Due to the site’s unique location and the character of the surrounding neighborhood the ARC should discuss if the project provides appropriate transition with the neighborhood and adjacent buildings. 1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 A 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 B 3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 B.1b 4 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 5.3 D: Outdoor living areas. The use of balconies, verandas, porches and courtyards within the building form is strongly encouraged. ARC2 - 3Packet Pg. 199 12 ARCH-3020-2016 560 Higuera Street Page 4 3.3 Façade Design 5: The CDG discusses that new structures should provide storefront windows, doors, entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features that complement existing structures. As noted in Section 3.2, the proposed structure is not located along a street and does not provide storefronts as part of the project. 3.4 Materials and Architectural Details: The CDG outlines a series of characteristics that define downtown materials and architecture details. The CDG also notes that materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings.6 After discussion with staff, the applicant modified the materials and colors of the project to better complement the adjacent buildings which are composed of stucco and tile roofing (to the west) and smooth stucco, corrugated metal roofing, wood siding and terra cotta brick (to the east) (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A7.0). The project proposes to utilize a dash stucco finish, CMU, and perforated corten metal panels as exterior finishes. Staff recommends Condition No. 3 that states that the project shall use smooth finished stucco. ARC Discussion Item: The ARC should discuss the use of the perforated corten metal siding on the project within the downtown. The CDG considers the use of corrugated sheet metal in the downtown as inappropriate,7 however the project is adjacent to the Creamery that utilizes corrugated metal roofing and proposes to include metal siding as part of the renovations of the site. Figure 1: View from Higuera Street towards the project 5 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 C 6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 D.1 Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several aspects including color, texture, and materials. Materials with integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are encouraged. If the building's exterior design is complicated, with many design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However, if the building design is simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's overall character. Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings… 7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section 4.2 D.1 ARC2 - 4Packet Pg. 200 12 ARCH-3020-2016 560 Higuera Street Page 5 3.5 Parking: The project provides all the parking required for the project as well as additional spaces. The applicant is requesting a reduction of 1 parking space for the project as described in Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 H.7f; in order to facilitate housing development in the downtown, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for any residential element of a project in the CD district by 10% or one space. The project includes a total of 20 spaces with 11 spaces for residential use (1 less than required) and 9 spaces as off-site parking for the Creamery. On July 18, 2016 the ARC approved off-site parking for the Creamery consistent with Section 17.16.060 F of the Zoning Regulations (off-site parking shall be within a zone where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed, be within 300 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous). Four of the parking spaces will be provided in tandem. When parking spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem subject to the approval of the Community Development Director (Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060 L.1). Other downtown projects have been approved for residential tandem parking including Pacific Courtyards. The majority of the parking is for residential use and staff recommends the ARC support the tandem parking with Condition No. 7 that tandem spaces shall be identified on plans submitted for a building permit as being assigned to specific dwelling units. Staff also recommends Condition No. 9, which states that the final landscape plan shall include additional shrubs and/or a low fence in front of the parking facing the creek to reduce the potential of light trespass into the creek and residential areas north of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet L-1). 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property. 5.0 WATER AVAILABILITY Since the adoption of the 2014 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), the City acquired an additional annual allocation of 2,102 acre feet of water from Nacimiento Reservoir, bringing the total annual available to 5,482 acre feet per year. This brings the City’s total annual availability to 12,109 acre feet, previously 10,007. In addition to this, the City is currently expanding its groundwater program, while concurrently designing the upgrade to the Water Resource Recovery Facility to allow highly treated wastewater to become a potable water source. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan projected that the City’s total annual residential and non- residential water demand will be 7,496 acre feet at buildout (year 2035 with a population of 57,200) as evaluated under the 2014 LUE. This estimation uses 117 gallons per capita day consumption (gpcd), though the current usage is only 90 gpcd. As a baseline comparison, the total City annual water demand in 2015 was approximately 4,772 acre feet; 40% of the available water supply. ARC2 - 5Packet Pg. 201 12 ARCH-3020-2016 560 Higuera Street Page 6 The available annual water supply (12,109 acre feet) far exceeds the LUE projected annual buildout demand (7,496 acre feet). Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, water use and demand associated with the development is anticipated and included with LUE buildout projections. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements, where appropriate. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION 7.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 7.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced Project Plans Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board ARC2 - 6Packet Pg. 202 12 August 17, 2016 Sent via Email Damien Mavis Creekside Lofts, LP P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Nancy Hubbard Hubbard and Associates Development Consulting, LLC www.hubbarddevelopmentconsulting.com Subject: ARC Continuance with Direction regarding ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera) – a mixed-use project including 18 residential units and commercial space within the Downtown Commercial zone Dear Ms. Hubbard: On August 15, 2016, the ARC Advisory Body met to review the proposed mixed-use project at 560 Higuera Street. The ARC made a motion to continue the item to a date uncertain and return with a project that includes a) additional horizontal elements as shown within the Downtown Design Guidelines; and b) the plans for the Lofts at Nipomo project. Below is a list of directional items provided by the Commission: A. Reduce the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project B. Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers C. Provide a holistic parking calculation for The Creamery, Lofts at Nipomo & South Town Eighteen D. Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery Once the project has been re-submitted in response to the direction provided, we will be able to determine the next available date for ARC review. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (805) 781-7574. Sincerely, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Packet Pg. 203 12 Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, August 15, 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, August 15th, 2016 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Acting Chair Suzan Ehdaie. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, and Vice- Chair Suzan Ehdaie Absent: Chair Greg Wynn Staff: Deputy Director of Development Review Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Planning Technician Januar Saptono, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Consideration of Minutes for the ARC Re2ular Meeting of July 11, 2016: ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOLL, the ARC Minutes of July 11th, 2016 were approved as written, on the following 3:0:2: 1 vote: AYES: Andreen, Soll, Ehdaie NOES: None ABSTAIN: Nemcik, Root ABSENT: Wynn PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Sign ReguJations Update Study Session. OTHR-3466-2016: Discussion ofrecommendations on issue areas which should be addressed in draft regulations and guidelines as part of the Sign Packet Pg. 204 12 Regulations Update project; Discussion of this item is not subject to CEQA; Citywide; Community Development Department, applicant. Deputy Director Davidson introduced Vivian Kahn, F AICP, Associate Principal with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, to conduct the Study Session. Vivian Kahn provided Power Point presentation on the scoping and progress of the City's sign regulations and requested Commission feedback on fourteen (14) distinct policy issues. Noted that questions were raised through stakeholder meetings. PUBLIC COMMENT James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, addressed sign issues, particularly as they apply to multi-tenant properties such as sign spinners, roof and window signs, and digital signs. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Deputy Director Davidson indicated that the 14 key issue areas are summarized in agenda report; requested that Commission provide feedback toward specifically prompting further staff exploration. Commissioner Andreen suggested that comments by Commissioners be separated by each specific issue. Vivian Kahn led the input-gathering discussion by highlighting types, applicability, and purposes of signage, noted that those types of signage could be considered for exclusion. NO FORMAL ACTION TAKEN. The Commission provided feedback to Staff. 2. 560 Hi .guera Street. ARCH-3020-2016; Review of a mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a commercial space within the Downtown Commercial zone, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D zone; Creekside Loft, LP, applicant. Associate Planner Cohen provided the project description and analysis of the mixed-use project in the downtown commercial zone. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Nancy Hubbard, Project Manager for the Applicant, showed an aerial photo of project's neighborhood for the footprint perspective of the site's flag lot along the creek; discussed neighbor's concerns. Steve Rigor, Principal at Arris Studio Architects, displayed Power Point slides and discussed the project's exterior. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Andreen inquired whether steel in Creamery was visible from either Higuera or Dana Street. Minutes -Architectural Review Commission for August 15, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 205 12 Commissioner Root expressed concerns about adequate parking, inquired if it was under current regulations. In response to Commissioner Root, Associate Planner Cohen discussed the proposed parking structure at Nipomo & Palm. Commissioner Root inquired about a repeated pattern of perforated corten steel on the circulation towers and trash chute. In response, Commissioner Root and Applicant Damien Mavis stressed that the corten steel would be a preferred option over the terra cotta brick tiles. Commissioner Root inquired about the stair towers extending up above the third level; Commissioner Nemcik inquired about Public Art requirements throughout City; Acting Chair Ehdaie inquired about energy efficiency techniques or approaches on the project; Commissioner Andreen inquired about the corten steel elements in relationship to building structure and the guidelines that stipulate how they should appear as part of the structure. PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Snyder, San Luis Obispo, shared concerns concerning the project's size and height, indicating that it is out of character with the neighborhood. Mark Johnson, San Luis Obispo, encouraged tabling this item discussion until a simultaneous review of the Nipomo Street four-story parking structure could be heard; urged downscaling the project to two stories and the elimination of the balconies on the creekside. Ursula Bishop, San Luis Obispo, expressed recollection that at a previous ARC Meeting, this item was to be included along with Lofts at Nipomo; opined that hearing those items together would be more prudent. Dixie Cliff, San Luis Obispo, read a letter from an absent member of Save Our Downtown regarding the non-functionality of fourth floor towers, stated that the letter urged the continuance of the creek walk. Farid Shahid, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project and the City's need to attract young professionals with adequate housing. Donna Duerk, San Luis Obispo, spoke as a longtime resident of Dana Street, expressed concerns about a four-story building which is shading her fruit trees, corrupting her solar panels, and invading in her privacy if future tenants were to live there. Mary Mitchell, San Luis Obispo, owner of and businessperson in the Soda Water Works Building on comer of Nipomo and Dana Streets, spoke in objection to the project due to its massing and scale and its being situated on an infill flag lot abutted by low-impact homes. Damien Mavis, San Luis Obispo, discussed the General Plan Policy Housing Element Goal, Downtown Community Guidelines, and transitional zoning as addendum to the applicant presentation. Minutes -Architectural Review Commission for August 15, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 206 12 Angel Torres, San Luis Obispo, spoke as owner of a small business addressed at 560 Higuera, urged support of the project. Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, spoke in general support of infill housing. Associate Planner Cohen responded to the public comment question about dedicated parking at the existing commercial building in front of the flag lot. COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION Commissioner Root asked a clarification concerning in-lieu fees. Associate Planner Cohen responded that the Downtown parking calculation does not differentiate between commercial and residential in terms of fees, but the rates exacted are different. Commissioner Nemcik commented on the parking calculation of twelve (12) required spaces for eighteen ( 18) residential units. Commissioner Andreen cited the project's stark and jarring incompatibility with the neighborhood; indicated that the vertical elements accentuated by metal are troubling and that the exterior elevation should be reduced. Commissioner Nemcik clarified her preferences regarding materials and colors and the fa9ade's non-symmetrical rhythm; inquired about the scale of the steel's perforations. Commissioner Root opined that the project meets the majority of requirements in terms of both setbacks and not requesting exceptions, stated that the Commission is tasked with adhering to specific guidelines In response to Commissioner Root's inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen clarified the current parking scenario on the pending Creamery project that had been before ARC on July 1 gth_ Commissioner Soll commented on project being a creative concept on a problematic site; cited her experience with City Neighborhood Compatibility workshops to express project's lack of harmony with existing surroundings that would most likely set a negative precedent if approved. Commissioner Andreen discussed compatibility issue in terms of the Downtown Guideline's conceptualization of its buildings' horizontal elements which reinforce Downtown's traditional pattern. Acting Chair Ehdaie stated that the project meets all the requirements in the Community Design Guidelines; opined that the underground parking could mitigate height issues; commented that the project is a positive addition to the Downtown. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, requested that the Applicant modify the project and return it to Commission for Review on a date uncertain with the following amendments: A.) Reduce the Minutes -Architectural Review Commission for August 15, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 207 12 amount of corten steel used on the fa9ade of the project; B.) Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers as shown within the Downtown Design Guidelines; C.) Provide a holistic parking calculation for the Creamery, Lofts at Nipomo & South Town Eighteen; D.) Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery; on the following 4: 1:0:1 vote: AYES: Andreen , Root, Nemcik, Soll NOES: Ehdaie ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Wynn Acting Chair Ehdaie called for and provided a short recess. 3. 1259 Laurel Lane. ARCH-2862-2016; Review of a mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a commercial space, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-N zone; Laurel Lane Investment, LLC, applicant. Planning Technician Saptono provided the staff report on the three-story mixed-use project. In regards to the rooftop deck, Commissioner Andreen inquired whether the rooftop deck was part of a requirement for open space. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Joel Snyder, Vice-President of Ten Over Studios, discussed the infill project 's contextuality with the neighborhood and the revised language on Condition No. 34 regarding the rooftop deck. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Andreen requested parking location and designation details; Commissioner Soll inquired about location of trash enclosures; Commissioner Nemcik inquired about pathways to residences from parking areas. PUBLIC COMMENT Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, spoke as resident adjacent to the project; noted the improvement in the proposed plan from a prior proposal; stated that there is a lack of relationship between the current project and the Laurel Lane neighborhood; spoke on privacy impacts and regulations pertaining to the walls between the parking lots and off-site residences. Dorothy Graves, San Luis Obispo, spoke as resident who lives near the project; stated that there is a potential capacity for 164 people on proposed square-footage of the rooftop deck. Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, distributed recent photos of the parking situation along Laurel Lane and Southwood. Minutes -Architectural Review Commission for August 15, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 208 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Continued review mixed-use project including 18 residential units and a commercial space within the Downtown Commercial zone. PROJECT ADDRESS: 560 Higuera BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3020-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Creekside Lofts, LP Representative Damien Mavis Submittal Date 4/8/2016 Complete Date 7/7/2016 Zoning C-D (Downtown Commercial) General Plan General Retail Site Area 16,980 square feet (0.390 acres) Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a new, four story mixed-use building with 68 square feet of commercial/retail space, 18 residential units, and 20 parking spaces within the Downtown Commercial Zone. On August 15, 2016 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) continued the project with direction to the applicant for project revisions. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s resubmittal and finds the revisions consistent with ARC direction and the Community Design Guidelines. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. Meeting Date: October 17, 2016 Item Number: 1 Packet Pg. 209 12 ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing) 560 Higuera Street Page 2 2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW On August 15, 2016 the ARC reviewed the four story mixed-use building (Attachment 5, Draft ARC Minutes) and continued the project with the following direction to the applicant for project revisions: 1. Reduce the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project 2. Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers 3. Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery 4. Provide a holistic parking calculation for the Creamery, South Town Eighteen, and the Nipomo parking lot. 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The applicant and staff’s responses to ARC direction are highlighted in the following paragraphs. 3.1 ARC Direction #1: Reduce the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project. Staff Response: The applicant has removed the corten steel material from the project and replaced it with terra cotta brick. Terra cotta is one of the original materials used on the Creamery (utilized on the east wall of Goshi’s restaurant). The applicant has noted that the use of the material on South Town Eighteen will create a bookend effect with the Goshi’s wall on one side of the Creamery and South Town Eighteen on the other. The use of the terra cotta also ties into the tile roofing and the color of the commercial structure that is located in front of the proposed project. Although not a change in material, the color pallet has been changed to better complement the proposed brick. Colors include muted greens and grays in place of dark and light grays. The revised change in material is consistent with ARC direction. 3.2 ARC Direction #2: Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers. Staff Response: The applicant has modified the exterior of the project to have fewer vertical elements and enhance the horizontal lines. The trash chute has been pushed into the building eliminating the need for the central tower. Additionally, the remaining tower elements have been lowered and enhanced with horizontal banding that continues the horizontal lines of the railings. Figure 1: (Top) previous project proposal; (Bottom) Revised project proposal Packet Pg. 210 12 ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing) 560 Higuera Street Page 3 The revised design is consistent with ARC direction. 3.4 Commission Direction #3: Provide better transition between height of the project and the Creamery. Staff Response: The revised project includes various modifications to reduce the height of the structure in relation to the neighboring buildings (see Figure 2). The elevator and stair towers have been lowered by eight feet (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A4.0-4.3). Additionally, the parapets have either been eliminated or reduced by three feet to reduce the overall building height. Units 1 (a studio) and 10 (a one-bedroom) have been slightly reduced in size creating an increased setback of approximately 5 feet between the new structure and the existing Creamery building. Staff is supportive of the reduced height of the towers. The lower tower element along the southeast corner of the project is more in scale with the existing and proposed structures at the Creamery. The reduction of the parapets slightly reduces the height of the structure, but without the parapets, screened rooftop equipment will likely be visible from the street (Figure 2). The ARC should discuss whether rooftop equipment is best screened individually or by a parapet. 3.3 Commission Direction #4: Provide a holistic parking calculation for the Creamery, South Town Eighteen, and the Nipomo parking lot. Staff Response: Table 1 provides a breakdown of the parking required for the three parcels. Figure 2: The revised project includes lower tower and parapet heights. The red dashed line outlines where changes have been made from the previous project. The black outline highlights proposed location of screened rooftop equipment. Packet Pg. 211 12 ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing) 560 Higuera Street Page 4 Table 1: Parking calculation for the Creamery, South Town Eighteen and the Nipomo parking lot Currently on-site Total required with new project In-lieu fee Providing with new projects Creamery 15 26 17 91 off-site South Town 18 0 11 0 20 on-site Nipomo Parking Lot 26 - - - - The previous ARC staff report discussed that the South Town Eighteen would include 20 spaces with 11 spaces for residential use and 9 spaces as off-site parking for the Creamery. These parking calculations are consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060(H) reprinted below. The Downtown-Commercial zone has its own parking standards that allow new development to provide parking at a specific rate (based on the use) or pay in-lieu fees in place of providing parking for a project on-site. These parking standards are also consistent with the Land Use Element Policy 4.1 which describes the downtown’s role in part as the preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. Policy 4.14 states that the City shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people can walk rather than drive between points within the core. Downtown Core: Within the Downtown-Commercial (C-D) zone the following parking standards and incentives shall apply: 1. Parking space reductions noted in items B through E above shall not be applicable in the C - D zone, as the reduced parking rates established herein are intended to provide flexibility in meeting parking requirements and rely on the consolidation of parking. 2. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, night clubs, other food service or entertainment establishments, theaters, auditoriums, convention halls, and churches: One- half that required in Table 6; provided, however, that in no case the requirement shall exceed one space per three hundred fifty square feet gross floor area. 3. Dwellings, motels, hotels and bed and breakfast inns: One-half that required in Table 6. In order to support and encourage residential uses in the C-D zone, additional options for meeting parking requirements for residential uses are available as listed in subsection 7 below. 4. All other uses: One space per five hundred square feet gross floor area. 5. In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. Fractions of one-half or greater shall be rounded to one; fractions less than one-half shall be rounded to zero. 6. For existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto or for changes in 1 On July 18, 2016 the ARC approved off-site parking for the Creamery consistent with Section 17.16.060 F of the Zoning Regulations (off-site parking shall be within a zone where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed, be within 300 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous). Packet Pg. 212 12 ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing) 560 Higuera Street Page 5 occupancy which increase parking requirement relative to prior uses shall be required. 7. The parking space requirement may be met by: a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use; b. The director may, by approving an administrative use permit, allow some or all of the parking to be located on a site different from the use. Such off-site parking shall not be within a residential zone. It shall be within reasonable walking distance and no greater than 500 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. The site on which the parking is located shall be owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use. c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where other businesses maintain their required spaces; d. Participating in a parking district that provides parking spaces through a fee or assessment program. e. Participating in an in-lieu fee program as may be established by the city council. Any parking agreement approved prior to adoption of the parking standards contained in subsections (1) through (3) of this section may be adjusted to conform with those standards, subject to approval by the community development director and city attorney; f. In order to facilitate housing development in the downtown, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for any residential element of a project in the CD district by 10% or one space, whichever is greater. In allowing this reduction, the Director may require a vehicle trip reduction plan be submitted for approval and such other conditions deemed necessary to reduce parking demand. Requests for parking reductions greater than 10% shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and shall require a use permit. In granting such additional reduction, the Commission must find that the increased demand for parking in the Downtown resulting from the project is not significant due to such considerations as the project's design, location, size or other features. The Commission may require a trip reduction plan and other conditions deemed necessary to reduce parking demand. As noted in the previous staff report, the applicant is requesting a reduction of 1 parking space for South Town Eighteen because they are providing housing within the downtown as described Section 17.16.060(H)7f (see reference above). Four of the parking spaces will be provided in tandem.2 Other downtown projects have been approved for residential tandem parking including Pacific Courtyards. The majority of the parking is for residential use and staff recommends the ARC support the tandem parking with Condition No. 7 that tandem spaces shall be identified on plans submitted for a building permit as being assigned to specific dwelling units. As proposed, the project complies with the parking standards of the Downtown-Commercial zone. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use 2 Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060(L)1: When parking spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Packet Pg. 213 12 ARCH-3020-2016 (Continued Hearing) 560 Higuera Street Page 6 designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property. 5.0 WATER AVAILABILITY Since the adoption of the 2014 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), the City acquired an additional annual allocation of 2,102 acre feet of water from Nacimiento Reservoir, bringing the total annual available to 5,482 acre feet per year. This brings the City’s total annual availability to 12,109 acre feet, previously 10,007. In addition to this, the City is currently expanding its groundwater program, while concurrently designing the upgrade to the Water Resource Recovery Facility to allow highly treated wastewater to become a potable water source. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan projected that the City’s total annual residential and non - residential water demand will be 7,496 acre feet at buildout (year 2035 with a population of 57,200) as evaluated under the 2014 LUE. This estimation uses 117 gallons per capita day consumption (gpcd), though the current usage is only 90 gpcd. As a baseline comparison, the total City annual water demand in 2015 was approximately 4,772 acre feet; 40% of the available water supply. The available annual water supply (12,109 acre feet) far exceeds the LUE projected annual buildout demand (7,496 acre feet). Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, water use and demand associated with the development is anticipated and included with LUE buildout projections. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements, where appropriate. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION 7.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 7.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced Project Plans 4. Applicant Response Letter 5. Draft ARC Minutes – August 15, 2016 6. ARC Staff Report – August 15, 2016 Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board Packet Pg. 214 12 RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1022-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 17, 2016 560 HIGUERA STREET (ARCH-3020-2016) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 17, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-3020- 2016, Creekside Lofts, LP, applicant; 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, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing 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. F indings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (ARCH-3020-2016), based on the following findings: 1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. That the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.2 (Downtown Residential) because it provides new residential uses, allowing 24-hour presence and balance between jobs and housing in the community. 3. That the project is consistent with the Housing Element Policy 5.3 and 5.4 because the project provides housing above ground-level commercial, is located close to activity centers in the downtown and provides variety of residential types, sizes, and styles of dwellings. 4 . That the project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element policy 4.4.3 because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use of public facilities and services and to improve the City's jobs/housing balance. 5 . The project design maintains consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines by providing architectural interest and style which complements the character and scale of the Packet Pg. 215 12 Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street) Page 2 existing neighborhood. 6. That the 10% parking reduction is consistent with the Zoning Regulations Section 17 .16.060 H. 7fbecause the project provides residential units within the Downtown Commercial District. 7. That, as conditioned, the tandem parking is consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17 .16.060 L.1 because the parking will be identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final design approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review ("Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. 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 in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall note the use of smooth finished stucco on the exterior of the building. Packet Pg. 216 12 Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street) Page 3 5. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17 .23 of the Zoning Regulations. 6. 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 any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate screening. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building modifications and improvements. 7. Tandem parking spaces shall be identified on plans submitted for a building permit as being assigned to specific dwelling units within the project. 8. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Any proposed signs are subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department and subject to a sign permit. The Community Development Director shall refer Packet Pg. 217 12 Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street) Page 4 signage to the ARC if signs need an exception or appear to be excessive in size or out of character with the project. Engineering Division -Public Works 12. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 13. The project is located in the Mission Style Sidewalk District of downtown. Any replaced sections of sidewalk or driveway approach shall be constructed in the Mission Style per city standards #4220. 14. The building plan submittal shall show and note that any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, or sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced per City Engineering Standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 15. The building plan submittal shall show the existing driveway approach to be upgraded or replaced to comply with City and ADA standards. Current city and ADA standards require a 4' accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. 16. Development of the driveway 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. 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. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage 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 historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site or adjoining sites. 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. 19. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include a final hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report in accordance with the Packet Pg. 218 12 Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street) Page 5 Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The report shall include, as a minimum, a response or discussion of the bullet items in Section 2.3.1 of the Drainage Design Manual. 20. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the city's Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. 21. This property is located in an AE and AO (2' depth) Flood Zone. The proposed structure is located in the AE floodzone. The structure shall be floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE. Additional free board to 2' above the BFE may result in additional structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 22. Any new building service equipment shall be protected or elevated above the BFE in accordance with the Floodplain Management Regulations and adopted Building Code. The elevator, design, and equipment room shall be designed in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 4 I November 2010. 23. 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 final Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City's Website. 24. 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 building permit issuance or final inspection approvals. 25. The building plan shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements for reference. 26. A quit claim agreement or other acceptable documentation shall be recorded and/or provided for the removal of the existing 6' PG&E easement per PM 54-90 prior to building permit issuance. 27. A new creek access easement shall be provided to the City the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Community Development Department, and Natural Resources Manager prior to building permit issuance. The easement shall provide for a reasonable staging area along the creek. 28. The building plan submittal shall include final details of the creek patio area improvements including the proposed landscaping. The final site improvement plan and landscape plan shall Packet Pg. 219 12 Resolution No. ARC-I 022-16 ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street) Page 6 honor the proposed new access, staging area, and creek easement to the satisfaction of the City. The patio improvement shall be designed to accommodate maintenance vehicles and/or shall include readily moveable patio furniture/fixtures. The final planting/tree placement plan shall honor the access requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Community Development Department, and Natural Resources Manager. 29. A creek maintenance agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City and approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the City's Natural Resource Manager prior to building permit issuance. 30. The developer shall exhaust reasonable efforts to eradicate and control the expansion of any known non-native and invasive species within the creek corridor to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. These plants may require treatment in advance and prior to commencing with ground disturbing activities and grading. 31. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the creek corridor and 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 which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals and/or pruning may require approval by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Utilities Department 32. The property's existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a pipeline video inspection (visual inspection of the interior of the pipeline), including 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: • The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted on USB drive and shall be in color. • The inspection shall be of adequate resolution in order to display pipe. • 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. • 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. • It is optional to provide audio on the report to explain the location, date of inspection, and pipeline condition observations. 33. The project's commercial and residential uses shall be metered separately. All residential units are to be individually metered. Privately owned sub-meters may be provided for residential condominiums upon approval of the Utilities Director or her/his designee. The CCR's for the property/homeowner association shall require that the sub-meters be read by the association (or P/HOA contracted service) and each condominium billed according to water use. Packet Pg. 220 12 Resolution No. ARC-1022-16 ARCH-3020-2016 (560 Higuera Street) Page 7 Fire Department 34. Due to the lack of two Fire Department aerial fire apparatus access roads to the proposed building (2013 California Fire Code, Appendix D), the project will require either Type V-A or Type II-B construction throughout, along with a full NFP A 13 fire sprinkler system. Code Requirements Building Division 35. New buildings citywide shall incorporate the following construction methods and materials: Ignition resistant exterior wall coverings; Fire sprinkler protection in attic areas (at least one "pilot head"); Ember resistant vent systems for attics and under floor areas, protected eaves, and Class 'A' roof coverings as identified in the California Building Code Chapter 7 A. Utilities Department 36. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer. 37. 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) (Resolution 10628 (2015)). 38. 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 On motion by Commissioner Root, seconded by Commissioner Nemcik, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Root, Nemcik, Soll, and Vice-Chair Ehdaie None Chair Wynn The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of October, 2016. Doug Davids n , Secretary Architectural Review Commission Packet Pg. 221 12 Minutes y 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: Packet Pg. 222 12 AYES: Root, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie NOES: None ABSENT: Wynn PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 560 Hieuera 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 15`h 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 Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 223 12 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 architect, 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 Representative 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 Plexiglas 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, spoke as longtime owner of condominium at end of Dana Street and as Urban Design professor in Cal Poly's School of Architecture; commented that 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 overabundance of auto presence. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, criticized project through reading excerpts from Alan Cooper's public correspondence regarding the landscape plan; questioned why this project was untethered from Nipomo Lofts project in ARC hearing as intended. Mary Mitchell, San Luis Obispo, voiced objection to the project because it sets precedent for future four-story apartment complexes in Downtown which do not adequately address parking concerns. Donna Duerk, San Luis Obispo, spoke as resident of Dana Street directly across creek from project; indicated her belief that the directive for the proposed project to make height compatible with The Creamery has not been well served. Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 224 12 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 having been honored and further requested postponement of this Item's hearing; shared Creative Vision's suggestions for 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 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 as Dana Street resident on the ever -worsening street parking issues and how problems of light and noise from a parking garage will affect residents directly across creek. Nancy Hubbard, San Luis Obispo, spoke as South Town Eighteen's project manager on the adequacy on which Applicant responded to Commission's previous suggestions. COMMISSION DELIBERATION 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. Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 225 12 Standing Chair Ehdaie voiced support of project; voiced that 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. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY VICE -CHAIR 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 4:0:0:1 vote: AYES: Root, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie NOES: None ABSTAIN: 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 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 7`h: 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 update on Appeals as they pertained to 22 Chorro Street; Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 226 12 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. ADJOURNMENT: Standing Chair Ehdaie adjourned Meeting at 7:36 PM. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 11/21/2016 Minutes — Architectural Review Commission for October 17, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 227 12 Filing Fee Tree Appeal: $113.00 CMOF All Other Appeals: $281.00 Received by: ` S I ISS BISFD APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Received R'EC VIED OCT 272016 SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION 57 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code g0 5 - 70 /03 Z! Phone Fax SAN 14 a Name Mailing Address and Zip Code fOS Z35— Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL C2.ER K 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decisionof the: \ 142 ? 'TE a -TV 2A -,- sC If k 0 (! WL M > S S I Z)nJ Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: o — 1 - 7—moo/ G , 3. The application or project was entitled: a G a«vG 14 P 3 a.z v — . 016 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: Q on _ Staff ember's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL 10Z'.4 Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 228 12 Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of 281", which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be ex ected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal isXoeduled for a public hearing before the City Council. Signature of Appellant)(Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $113. 2) The above-named appellant has already paid the City $281 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) 07/16 update Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 229 12 This appeal is being filed because we, residents and friends of Dana Street, believe the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) did not adhere to the city's Community Design Guidelines for Downtown in considering the proposed four story apartment rental project at 560 Higuera. We feel there are unique characteristics to this part of downtown, and we ask that you reevaluate the decision of the ARC and find that the project, as approved, does not fit the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed 560 Higuera Street residential apartment complex is not a high quality alternative to the Community Design Guideline, nor an example of design excellence, and, as the Downtown Design Guidelines state: "Nowhere in the city is design more important." Specifically, we find the building to be in violation of: Design o We do not believe the building meets the Goals for Design Quality and Character, which include the ideal: `Keep San Luis Obispo architecturally distinctive, don't let it become anywhere USA."' Design issues we will specifically address include: Scale, Height Fagade design Materials and architectural details Infill development Landscaping and other miscellaneous design details such as lighting, parking not enclosed o No final landscaping plan was provided o Lighting. Increased lighting for safety reasons may be required on the creek side of development and that will directly impact residences across from development The ARC, at two meetings, did not give consideration to repeated neighborhood concerns despite correlation of concerns and comments to the Community Design Guidelines. Issues that were raised by neighbors not addressed in above bullets, included: Additional impact on the historical Dana Street residential neighborhood: o The four story building overlooks and impairs the privacy of both the outdoor and indoor living space of the existing homes across the creek. The immediately affected homes are one story o Four stories, no setbacks, directly facing neighboring residences o Parking area that will park cars facing directly into neighboring residences, at the same level, is not fully enclosed o Noise levels from decks and patios on the creek side affecting many neighbors on Dana Street. This negative impact of noise could be controlled in the design and development process o Parking impact on Dana Street and surrounding streets due to lack of parking provided by applicant The proposed project at 560 Higuera violates all the Goals for Design Quality and Character specified in the Community Design Guidelines for the City of San Luis Obispo. It is an institutional -looking four story building that dwarfs and conflicts architecturally with the nearby historic one story Creamery and the two story Soda Water Works. It a four story building that will change forever the historical, residential neighborhood that is Dana Street. We respectfully request that you support our appeal of the proposed 560 Higuera Street project. Packet Pg. 230 12 1. Gp f SAN LUIS OBISPO D»@:FINANCE CASHIER m«o0 7@s 7w ama G± 3a+ ymySDATE. 10& 7/5 REGISTER DAIE, 10/27/16 3+: 15:3 DEQ!& RIA AMOUNT q J:+»* 7 m( 7EL+ElgsRREVENUE XO TOTAL DUE, @Gm ZO RED $281.00 D«E: X10 281.00 OW : »q Packet Pg. 231 12 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060(H) Downtown Core: Within the Downtown-Commercial (C-D) zone the following parking standards and incentives shall apply: 1. Parking space reductions noted in items B through E above shall not be applicable in the C-D zone, as the reduced parking rates established herein are intended to provide flexibility in meeting parking requirements and rely on the consolidation of parking. 2. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, night clubs, other food service or entertainment establishments, theaters, auditoriums, convention halls, and churches: One-half that required in Table 6; provided, however, that in no case the requirement shall exceed one space per three hundred fifty square feet gross floor area. 3. Dwellings, motels, hotels and bed and breakfast inns: One-half that required in Table 6. In order to support and encourage residential uses in the C-D zone, additional options for meeting parking requirements for residential uses are available as listed in subsection 7 below. 4. All other uses: One space per five hundred square feet gross floor area. 5. In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. Fractions of one-half or greater shall be rounded to one; fractions less than one-half shall be rounded to zero. 6. For existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto or for changes in occupancy which increase parking requirement relative to prior uses shall be required. 7. The parking space requirement may be met by: a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use; b. The director may, by approving an administrative use permit, allow some or all of the parking to be located on a site different from the use. Such off-site parking shall not be within a residential zone. It shall be within reasonable walking distance and no greater than 500 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. The site on which the parking is located shall be owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use. c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where other businesses maintain their required spaces; d. Participating in a parking district that provides parking spaces through a fee or assessment program. e. Participating in an in-lieu fee program as may be established by the city council. Any parking agreement approved prior to adoption of the parking standards contained in subsections (1) through (3) of this section may be adjusted to conform with those standards, subject to approval by the community development director and city attorney; f. In order to facilitate housing development in the downtown, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for any residential element of a project in the CD district by 10% or one space, whichever is greater. In allowing this reduction, the Director may require a vehicle trip reduction plan be submitted for approval and such other conditions deemed necessary to reduce parking demand. Requests for Packet Pg. 232 12 parking reductions greater than 10% shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and shall require a use permit. In granting such additional reduction, the Commission must find that the increased demand for parking in the Downtown resulting from the project is not significant due to such considerations as the project's design, location, size or other features. The Commission may require a trip reduction plan and other conditions deemed necessary to reduce parking demand. Packet Pg. 233 12 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg. 234 12 1/18/2017 1 DANA STREET NEIGHBORHOOD Appeal to San Luis Obispo City Council January 17, 2017 1/18/2017 2 “All development projects should be designed in a manner that responds to the unique characteristics of their individual sites, but also to fit into the wider context of San Luis Obispo.” San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines page 1 “Neighborhood Compatibility Definition: a. Appropriate design theme; b. Proportional building scale/size; c. Appropriate building setbacks and massing; and d. Appropriate colors, textures, and building materials.” San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines page 15 1/18/2017 3 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines page 15 “Design factors that contribute to neighborhood compatibility include: •Appropriate design theme; •Proportional building scale/size; •Appropriate building setbacks and massing; and •Appropriate colors, textures, and building materials” “A building’s design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion.” San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines page 16 1/18/2017 4 •“Avoid “boxy” structures with … by articulating building forms and elevations…. •Preserve the design integrity of … neighborhoods adjacent to the commercial area.” San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines page 14 Each development proposal should demonstrate consideration for the existing conditions on and off the site…. •The architectural style, the shape and massing of neighboring structures. •Existing natural features… •preserve or enhance views of the hills, (and) •Privacy and solar access of the site and neighboring properties…. San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines page 18 1/18/2017 5 Sample of good articulation Sample of good articulation 1/18/2017 6 Setback 4th story on the creek side •to minimize vertical aspect and reduce shading of Dana neighbors roof solar panels •the amount of setback can be offset on the Higuera Street side 1/18/2017 7 Parking Garage •completely enclose in concrete along the creek side to protect Dana Street neighbors from noise and lights Revised Landscape Plan with Evergreen Trees and Shrubs of varying heights •screen the view from 560 Higuera into Dana Street homes •presented at ARC so neighbors can review and comment 1/18/2017 8 Condition: no future roof deck/patio allowed 1/18/2017 9 1/18/2017 10 Shading Study 1/18/2017 1 560 Higuera Street APPL-4063-2016 January 17, 2017 Applicant: Creekside Lofts, LP Recommendation Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of a mixed- use project that includes 18 residential units, a commercial space and parking within the Downtown Commercial zone. 2 1/18/2017 2 Site Information 3 Zone: C-D Size: 16,980 s.f. (0.390 acres) General Plan: General Retail Currently Vacant Office Building The Creamery Parking LotMedium-High Density Residential 4Site Information 1/18/2017 3 Site Information 5 150 feet Parking Access to the Creamery 6Project Description South Elevation 1/18/2017 4 7Project Description West Elevation 8Project Description North Elevation 1/18/2017 5 9Project Description View from the Northwest 10Project Description: Color & Materials Smooth Finished Stucco CMU Block Terra Cotta Brick 1/18/2017 6 Background August 15, 2016: ARC reviewed the proposed project and voted 3:1 to continue review of the project to a later date and provided specific changes they wanted to see made in the project. October 17, 2016: Project returned to the ARC for review. The ARC reviewed the project based on the direction provided and unanimously approved the modified project design. 11 Appeal October 27, 2016: Donna Duerk and Ursula Bishop filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project. The appeal expressed concern with: 12 Overall Design Scale/Height Landscaping Lighting and light trespass Privacy and overlook Noise Parking not enclosed Lack of Parking 1/18/2017 7 Policy Guidance Downtown Development Preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. LUE Policy 4.20.4: New buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing development, shall respect views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development. Generally, new buildings should not exceed 50 feet in height. 13 Policy Guidance Housing The Land Use Element: Policy 4.2:Downtown is not only a commercial district, but also a neighborhood. Its residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour presence which enhances security and help the balance between jobs and housing in the community. Housing Element: Policy 6.2:New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C-D zone) shall include housing. Policy 7.2:Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. 14 1/18/2017 8 Policy Guidance Downtown Parking Projects located in the Downtown can pay an in-lieu fee rather than provide parking on-site. LUE Policy 4.14 states any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people can walk rather than drive between points within the core. The Circulation Element includes goals and objectives to increase multi-modal transportation within the City. 15 Staff Analysis Overall Design 16 1/18/2017 9 Staff Analysis Height & Scale Multi-story buildings are desirable in the downtown because they provide upper-floor residential units. Multi-story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge. New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions and should provide upper story setbacks along the street. 17 Project Analysis 18 Height & Scale 1/18/2017 10 19Height & Scale Staff Analysis Privacy & Overlook The Land Use Element: New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings Housing Element and the Community Design Guidelines: encourage multi-family housing designs that include open space for the residence such as patios, porches, and balconies. Conservation/Open Space Element: Most roof areas and some south walls on upper floors should be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice. 20 1/18/2017 11 Project Analysis 21 Privacy & Overlook ~12 feet ~23 feet 22 Medium-High Density Residential Office Building The Creamery ~75 feet 1/18/2017 12 Project Analysis 23 Privacy & Overlook 24Winter Solstice 1/18/2017 13 Staff Analysis Noise All uses within the City are to comply with the City’s Noise Regulations found in Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code. Noise from the parking garage shall be minimized with additional screening that is required as a part of Condition No. 9. 25 Staff Analysis Landscaping The Community Design Guidelines provide guidance for landscaping including: Integration with the building design, Enhancement of the appearance and enjoyment of the project, To soften the visual impact of buildings and paving, and Use a combination of trees, shrubs and ground cover. 26 1/18/2017 14 Project Analysis 27 Landscaping Staff Analysis Lighting & Light Trespass The project is required to comply with the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards and Condition No. 5. Condition No. 9: 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. 28 1/18/2017 15 Staff Analysis Parking The project requires 12 spaces. The applicant is requesting a reduction of 1 parking space for the project consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060 H.7f. The project provides 20 spaces. The 9 additional parking spaces not used for the project will be used as off-site parking for the Creamery. 29 Staff Analysis Parking Palm/Nipomo Parking Garage Environmental Review is underway Traffic Study has been submitted and is under review The design review by Council sometime later this year If everything stays on track, construction would start late spring/early summer of 2018 30 1/18/2017 16 Staff Analysis Housing Under the Housing Accountability Act, the project is considered a “housing development project.” 31 Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects, Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. 32 1/18/2017 17 Recommendation Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of a mixed- use project that includes 18 residential units, a commercial space and parking within the Downtown Commercial zone. 33 Questions/Comments 34 1/18/2017 18 35Surrounding Neighborhood 36Project Description Dana Street Residences Existing Office Building along Higuera Street Proposed Project 1/18/2017 19 Parking 37 20 Parking Spaces4 Tandem Parking Spaces Install a low fence and/or additional shrubs 1/18/2017 1 SOUTH TOWN 18 SOUTH TOWN 18 REVISED DESIGN INITIAL DESIGN 1. Reduce the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project #1 3. Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery 2. Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers #2 #3 1/18/2017 2 SOUTH TOWN 18 REVISED DESIGN INITIAL DESIGN 1. Reduce the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project #1 3. Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery #3 2. Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers #2 SOUTH TOWN 18 REVISED DESIGN INITIAL DESIGN 1. Reduce the amount of corten steel used on the façade of the project #1 3. Provide better transition between height of the project and The Creamery #3 2. Incorporate horizontal elements, particularly on the vertical towers #2 1/18/2017 3 FIRST FLOOR 0" LOWER ROOF 43'-11" SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" THIRD FLOOR 23'-5" 4TH FLOOR 34'-10" DASH STUCCO FINISH TERRACOTTA BRICK TO COMPLIMENT CREAMERY BRICK WALL NEAR GOSHI'S DASH STUCCO FINISH CMU BLOCK ALUMINUM WINDOWS PROPOSED HEIGHT 47'-0" SCREENED MECHANICAL UNITS WOOD GUARDRAIL ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL DEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINE CLIMBING VINEADJ. BLDG SHOWN TRANSPARENT FOR CLARITY GROWING BUSHES HEDGE REMOVED PERFORATED CORTEN STEEL REDUCED PROPOSED HEIGHT REDUCED HEIGHT VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION WINDOW SUBSTITUTION MATERIAL COLOR CHANGE REMOVED TOWER ELEMENT SIGNAGE REMOVED PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN - FOR REFERENCE ONLY ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL CREAMERY APPROX. HEIGH EXISTING CREAMERY BUILDING 28'-5"8'-0"2'-2"METAL CANOPY 5'-0"2'-2"HORIZONTAL BANDING AT FLOOR LEVEL. CONTINUES THROUGH MULTIPLE MATERIALS TO ACCENTUATES HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS33'-5"APPROX. 42'-0"8'-1"STRG STRG TRASH STRG STRG STRG COVERED WALKWAY FLAT 9 STUDIO DECK STRG STAIR 2 FLAT 1 STUDIO LOBBY ELEV. STRG STRG Date Scale Sheet A4.0 08/26/2016SOUTH TOWN EIGHTEEN 1/16" = 1'-0" 560 HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA ELEVATIONS (FORMALLY HOMETOWN LOFTS) FRONT PRESENTATION ELEVATION 0'4'8'16'32' ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL DEPICTED BY BOLD RED LINE SOUTH TOWN 18 SOUTH TOWN 18