HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Architectural Review Commission
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Hearing Room
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
November 3, 2014 Monday 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:Commrs. Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy Nemcik,
Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle
McCovey-Good
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of October 20, 2014. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items
raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record.
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City
Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the
Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
1.120 Tank Farm Road, 3825 and 3897 S. Higuera Street.ARCH-0029-2014;
Conceptual architectural review of a project located at the Long Bonetti Ranch
property including modifications and rebuilding of historic structures and the
addition of four new buildings (including four residential units) located among the
existing historic structures, totaling 42,000 square feet; M-SP zone; PB
Companies, applicant. (Marcus Carloni)
Architectural Review Commission
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
2.805 Morrison Street.ARC 21-14; Review of a wireless telecommunications
facility consisting of an equipment shelter, standby generator, and camouflaged
monopole with 12 antennae with a categorical exemption from environmental
review; M zone; GTE Mobilenet/Verizon Wireless, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
3.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
b. Budget Workshop – Goal Setting for 2015-2017 Financial Plan
4.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planners: Marcus Carloni and Walter Oetzell
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual architectural review of a project located at the Long-Bonetti Ranch
property including modifications and rebuilding of historic structures and the addition of four
new buildings (including four residential units) located among the existing historic structures,
totaling 42,000 square feet.
PROJECT ADDRESS:120 Tank Farm Road BY:Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
3897 S. Higuera Street Phone Number: 781-7176
e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: (Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:Continue the project to a date uncertain with direction to staff and the
applicant on items to be addressed in plans submitted for final approval.
SITE DATA
Applicant PB Companies
Representative Steve Rigor, Arris Studio Architects
Zoning M-SP (Manufacturing – Higuera
Commerce Park Specific Plan)
General Plan Services & Manufacturing
Site Area ~5.56 Acres
Environmental
Status
Final plans for the proposed
project will likely require further
environmental analysis.
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2) for conceptual review of site and building
modifications for a new project located at the Long-Bonetti Ranch property. The submitted plans
retain Tractor Supply, Shops E, and Shops K (which were part of a 2013 approval) and focus on
four new structures located around the existing historic structures along the western side of the
subject location (closer to South Higuera Street). The plans also include associated site plan
modifications (parking, pedestrian routes, etc.) to accommodate the new structures.
Staff has conducted an analysis of the conceptual project (section 4.0) and provided directional
items (section 7.0) for consideration and discussion of the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) with the purpose of providing feedback to the applicant prior to finalizing plans and
returning for final approval.
Meeting Date: Nov. 3, 2014
Item Number: 1
ARC1 - 1
lanner
r
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The purpose of conceptual review before the ARC is to offer feedback to the applicant as to
whether the project design is headed in the right direction before plans are further refined for
formal review. The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and the Architectural Guidelines of the Higuera
Commerce Park Specific Plan.
2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
The project site, Long-Bonetti Ranch, was previously approved for a business park development
in 2010 (Attachment 5, 2010 ARC Approved Plans). The 2010 approval was then modified in
2013 to include the Tractor Supply tenant (Attachment 6, 2013 ARC Approved Plans). Staff has
also attached previous CHC and ARC approvals from 2009 and 2010 (Attachments 3 and 4).
The applicant is now proposing a new project at the subject location as discussed in section 3.2
below.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
This proposed development site consists of three separate sites:
1) An approximately 2.17-acre parcel at the corner of South Higuera Street and Tank
Farm Road (with the historic Long-Bonetti Ranch structures)
2) An approximately 2.25-acre vacant parcel at the corner of Tank Farm Road and
Long Street, and
3) A 1.14-acre vacant site on Long Street adjacent to the Tribune News property.
CHC Approval
August 24, 2009
PC Approval
March 11, 2009
Council Approval
April 21, 2009
Modification
to site with
Listed Historic
Resource
Review
Specific Plan
amendments
Approve
Specific Plan
amendments
Architectural
review &
approve CHC
findings
ARC Approval
February 17, 2010
Time Extension
January 2, 2013
Extends ARC
approval to
February 17,
2014
ARC Conceptual
April 1, 2013
Direction on
modification
to original
project
ARC Approval
August 19, 2013
Final
Approval
ARC1 - 2
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 3
The properties are all within the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan. The total Specific
Plan area consists of approximately 80 acres and includes a customized set of land uses and
development standards that are unique to this vicinity. Primarily, the specific plan requires
larger lot sizes and is designed to accommodate industrial and warehouse uses. However, in
the vicinity of the historic Long-Bonetti Ranch property, the Specific Plan allows for smaller
lot sizes and retail, restaurant and service land use types. It is primarily designed to maintain
compatibility with the existing historic structures and to complement adjacent residential and
retail uses that already exist in this vicinity.
Site Size 5.56 acres (total)
Present Use & Development Historic Long-Bonetti Ranch buildings
Topography Relatively flat
Access Primary: Tank Farm Road
Secondary: Front Tribune Property
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: M-SP; Tribune parking lot and Tribune building
South: C-S & C-S-PD; Commercial uses
East: M-SP; Fitness/manufacturing uses
West: R-2-S; Residential (Silver City Mobile Home Park)
3.2 Project Description
A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 2, Project
Plans):
1) Retention of the historic farm house with relatively minor modifications; roof
changes and trellis for outdoor patio area (Building 1).
2) Reconstruction of the historic barn (Building 2).
3) Reconstruction of the historic granary (Building 3).
4) Reconstruction of the historic water tower (Building 4).
5) A new 1,522 square foot commercial building shown as a wine and cheese shop
(Building 5).
6) A new 4,860 square foot two-story commercial building with four second floor
residential units (Building 6).
7) A new 29,495 square foot building proposed to house a public market (Building 7).
8) A new 5,549 square foot commercial building proposed to be used as a brewery
(Building 8).
9) Retention of the Tractor Supply Building, Shops E, and Shops K which were
previously approved in 2013.
10) Reoriented parking layout and shared parking with the Tribune property.
ARC1 - 3
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 4
3.3 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard 15 to 20 feet No building adjoins: 10 feet
Building ≤ 20 feet tall: 15 feet
Building > 20 feet tall: 20 feet
Max. Building Height 45+ feet 35 feet
Building Coverage (footprint) Not provided 50%
Parking Spaces 302 spaces Insufficient info. provided to determine
Landscaping Not provided 15% minimum
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans
2. Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The purpose of conceptual review before the ARC is to offer feedback to the applicant as to
whether the project design is headed in the right direction before plans are further refined for
formal review. The project would return to the ARC for a comprehensive analysis at a later
date.
The site is located within the boundaries of the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan (HCPSP).
The HCPSP includes Architectural Guidelines on page 23 (Attachment 4). Staff has used the
Architectural Guidelines of the HCPSP and Community Design Guidelines (CDG) to review the
project.
At the conclusion of the report, staff has provided draft directional items as a starting point for
discussion of the project. The following paragraphs highlight key elements of the site and
building design of the project that the ARC should discuss and provide direction to staff and the
applicant.
4.1 Buildings 1-4 Historic Structures (farmhouse, barn, granary, water tower, windmill)
The Long-Bonetti Ranch is listed as a Master List historic resource in the City of San Luis
Obispo and review by the Cultural Heritage Committee will be required due to the placement
of new buildings on a property with listed historic resources.
Photographs of the existing historic structures are found in Attachment 8.
Farmhouse. Modifications to the farmhouse are classified as rehabilitation in the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI
Standards). The proposed modifications are relatively minor in nature and are shown on
sheet 1-3 of the project plans (Attachment 2). The SOI Standards allow conservative
modification to historically listed structures while ensuring that the character-defining
features of the structure are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed.
ARC1 - 4
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 5
ARC Discussion Items: The ARC should weigh in on the appropriateness of the
proposed roof form modifications (hip to gable).
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) will review the proposed modifications and
make a recommendation to the ARC. Plans submitted for final review will require
additional information such as existing and proposed floor plans/elevation drawings and
justification for the replacement of historic features (e.g. it will need be shown that
existing windows are deteriorated beyond repair if window replacement, rather than
restoration, is proposed).
Barn, Granary, Water Tower, Windmill.Modification to these structures is classified
as reconstruction in the SOI Standards due to the current extent of disrepair.
Reconstruction was recognized by the CHC and ARC when the project was reviewed in
2009/2010. The SOI Standards for reconstruction are to make the building appear as it
did at a particular, and most significant, time in its history.
The proposed designs (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheets 2-1 through 4-3) present
inconsistencies with the original design of these structures (see Attachment 8,
Photographs of Historic Structures) and will need to be refined consistent with the SOI
Standards for reconstruction which include designs based on documentary and physical
evidence to ensure accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture. The designs will also
need to include preservation and reuse of any remaining historic materials and features.
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) will review the proposed modifications and
make a recommendation to the ARC.
4.2 Building 5 (shown as a wine and cheese shop)
Staff supports the use of the proposed contemporary agrarian style at the subject location but
is concerned with a building of this architectural style located among the historic structures;
and potentially disrupting the historic relationship/context these structures have with one
another (Building 5 is the only structure located within the “circle” of historic structures).
The goal of the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines is to ensure new structures
are architecturally compatible with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural
elements, and exterior materials of historically listed structures. Furthermore, the guidelines
indicate that the new development should not significantly contrast with, block views of, or
visually detract from, the historic character of adjacent historically designated structures.
ARC Discussion Items: The ARC (and the CHC) should consider the following concerns:
1. The siting of Building 5 and the potential to disrupt the symbiotic relationship of the
historic structures.
2. The appropriateness of the contemporary agrarian style located among the historic
structures. A style more similar to Buildings 6 and 8 may be more appropriate.
4.3 Building 6 (shown as new shops, mixed-use building)
Overall, staff is supportive of the architectural style proposed for Building 6. The design
ARC1 - 5
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 6
includes, but is not limited to, the following areas of consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and HCPSP: 1) an appropriate use of articulation including overhangs and
awnings to provide a sense of human scale and proportion, 2) an appropriate use of materials
including board and batten siding, horizontal lap siding, corrugated metal, a muted color
scheme, and 3) roof planes consistent with the project site and those found in the
neighborhood.
ARC Discussion Items: The ARC should consider the following concerns:
1. Proximity of the building to the adjacent parking lot. The building and its staircase
are approximately 5-feet from adjacent parking to the east. The building should be
pushed further away from the parking lot and the eastern entrance further highlighted.
2. The western staircase for two of the residential units is within a pedestrian plaza and
could be relocated.
4.4 Building 7 (shown as Market Hall)
The 29,495 square-foot Building 7 includes two stories and an additional subterranean level
and would be the largest structure on-site (as a comparison, the recently approved Tractor
Supply Building is 19,250 square feet). The contemporary agrarian style is consistent with
that proposed for Building 5 but at a grander scale. Generally, staff is supportive of this
design scheme since it incorporates compatible materials (corrugated metal siding, reclaimed
barn word and corten steel), color scheme, and barn-style elements.
ARC Discussion Items: The ARC should consider the following concerns:
1. Scale. The massing of the structure appears inconsistent with the adjacent (~15-feet to
the north) smaller scale historic barn and should be revised. A 3D model of the
project site is proposed as directional item #17 which will help give an understanding
of the relationship between these two structures.
2. Siting. The proposed siting of Building 7 has the potential to alter the historic context
of the barn. Building 7 should have a setback greater than that of the historic barn to
make it visually subordinate rather than dominating views from the street. The street-
oriented entry feature is consistent with City guidelines to have buildings address the
street; however, a greater setback would provide a better transition from the street to
the project. The design should consider having a smaller plaza transitioning from
pathways before the entry doors and massing stepped back to the tallest roof volumes.
3. Articulation. The height, massing, and siting of the elevation facing South Higuera
Street (Attachment X, Project Plans, Sheet 7-9 west elevation) presents a visually
obtrusive façade at the back of the sidewalk. This façade is proposed to be
approximately 13-feet from the South Higuera Street property line (which does not
comply with minimum setbacks, 20-feet is required). The façade appears to be greater
than 45 feet in height with a large extent of glazing from the ground to the roof that
does not provide a sense of human scale and proportion. The ARC should discuss
significant modification to the west elevation.
a. The design appears too cluttered (south and east elevations in particular) and
should be simplified.
b. The amount of glazing around the entry, should be reduced and the ARC
should consider directing a lower volume for the entry vestibule before
ARC1 - 6
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 7
entering the taller building volume, to provide a better transition from the
street to the building.
4. Roofline. The design incorporates a variety of roof forms, but includes long expanses
of unbroken roofline. The roofline should include additional breaks and modulation,
especially along the south and north elevations to avoid large, monotonous expanses.
5. Height. The building, at approximately 45 feet in height, does not comply with the
maximum height allowance of 35 feet.
4.5 Building 8 (shown as Brewery)
Overall, staff is supportive of the architectural style proposed for Building 6 which
incorporates barn style elements and a tower similar to that used on Tractor Supply, Shops E,
and Shops K (previously approved). The design includes, but is not limited to, the following
areas of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and HCPSP: 1) an appropriate
use of articulation including a stepped roofline and wrap-around porch providing outdoor
seating, 2) an appropriate use of materials including board and batten siding, corrugated
metal, standing seam roofing, wood supports, a muted color scheme, and 3) roof planes
consistent with the project site and those found in the neighborhood.
ARC Discussion Items: The ARC should consider the following concerns:
1. The building’s south elevation facing Tank Farm Road includes a lower shed roof
structure that helps with the transition in massing from the street, but is somewhat
unarticulated. The ARC should consider revisions to this elevation to ensure the
structure does not turn its back to Tank Farm Road; a main view corridor.
4.6 Miscellaneous Comments
Additional directional items related to pedestrian pathways, parking, the ornamental
farm/orchard at the corner of South Higuera, loading areas/refuse enclosures, signage and
providing a 3D model of the project site are discussed in the directional items (section 7.0
below).
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Information needs and comments from the other departments were provided to the applicant
team separately.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
Continue the project to a date uncertain with the following directional items:
ARC1 - 7
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 8
Planning
1. Submit complete plans with all of the required information on the City’s checklist for
final architectural approval.
(Buildings 1-4)
2. Proposed modifications to the historic farmhouse shall be reviewed by the Cultural
Heritage Committee. Plans submitted for final review shall include existing and proposed
floor plans/elevation drawings and justification for the replacement of historic features.
3. The designs of the reconstructed barn, granary, water tower, and windmill must be found
consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and applicable City policy by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). The
designs for these structures must be based on documentary and physical evidence to
ensure accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture. The proposed design for all of
these structures does not appear to be accurate reconstructions and will need to be
redesigned subject to the review and recommendation of the CHC. Plans submitted for
review shall include existing and proposed floor plans/elevation drawings.
(Building 5)
4. Placeholder pending ARC discussion. [Building 5 should be removed from its current
location and relocated so as to not disrupt the relationship of the historic structures to
one another].
5. Placeholder pending ARC discussion. [Building 5 is acceptable at its current location,
pending review by the CHC, but the design should be modified similar to that of
Buildings 6 and 8 to be more compatible with the adjacent historic structures].
(Building 6)
6. Relocate Building 6 westward to ensure adequate buffering from the adjacent parking lot.
7. Revise the design of Building 6 (west elevation) to ensure the staircase for the residential
units is not located within the proposed pedestrian plaza.
(Building 7)
8. Reduce the scale of Building 7 to be more compatible and visually subordinate to the
historic barn.
9. Relocate Building 7 to have a greater setback than the adjacent historic barn.
10. Revise the entry feature to provide a smaller plaza transitioning from pathways before the
entry doors with massing stepped away from the street.
ARC1 - 8
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 9
11. Placeholder for revisions to Building 7 west elevation pending ARC discussion.
12. Simplify the design of the south and east elevations to reduce clutter for consistency with
the other structures on the project site.
13. Reduce the amount of glazing around the entry and lower the volume of the entry
vestibule to provide a better transition from the street to the building.
14. Revise the roofline design of Building 7 to provide a multi-planed design and reduce the
long expanses of unbroken roofline expanses.
15. Revise the height of Building 7 to comply with the maximum height allowance of 35-
feet.
(Building 8)
16. Revise the design of Building 8 (south elevation) to provide a more aesthetic relationship
to the street edge and ensure the building does not “turn its back” to Tank Farm Road.
(Miscellaneous)
17. Provide a detailed farm implement display as required by condition 11b of ARC
Resolution No. 1003-10.
18. A sign program will be required either as a condition or as a part of the approval of final
plans. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors,
materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for the buildings and the
overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of
proposed buildings and to complement the site’s historic setting relating to the Long-
Bonetti Ranch. The signage submittal shall be consistent with condition 6 of ARC
Resolution No. 1012-13.
19. Provide a digital 3D model showing all proposed and approved buildings at the project
site and showing improvements on adjacent properties for design and scale reference.
20. Include detailed information on pedestrian pathways, lighting, location of backflow
prevention devices, and screening of mechanical equipment.
a. Include delineated pedestrian pathways from the parking areas.
b. The row of parking spaces east of Buildings 6 and 8 requires at least one
landscape planter and shade tree to break up the 12 parking spaces. If pedestrian
access is proposed through Building 6 and 8, the area shall also incorporate a
small pedestrian “bump-out” to break up the 12 parking spaces and provide
pedestrian access between the two buildings.
21. Provide additional detail/description of the proposed ornamental farm and orchard shown
at the corner of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. Plantings in this area should
ARC1 - 9
(Conceptual) ARCH-0029-2014 (120 Tank Farm & 3891 S. Higuera)
Page 10
not be tall enough to block views of the historic structures, generally below 4-feet.
22. Provide information on loading areas (i.e. indicate if truck loading areas are needed) and
refuse enclosures. Loading areas (including bays for individual buildings) and refuse
enclosures are to be screened from street and off-site views and are to be architecturally
integrated with the design of the project.
23. The parking analysis relies on shared parking with the Tribune property. Please provide a
detailed parking calculation for the Tribune property to ensure adequate sharing of
parking spaces.
Comments from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire provided to applicant
separately.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map
2. Reduced Size Project Plans
3. 2009 CHC Approval
4. 2010 ARC Approval
5. 2010 ARC Approved Plans
6. 2013 ARC Approved Plans
7. Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Architectural Guidelines
8. Photographs of Historic Structures
Included in Committee member portfolio:project plans
ARC1 - 10
R-2-S
C-C
M-SP
C-S-SP
C-S
M-SP
M-SP
C-S-SP
C-S
M-SP
C-S-PD
R-1
C-S
C-S-SP
R-1
C-S-SP-PD
R-1
C-S-S
HIGUERA SLONGHIND
EL
M
TANK FARM
MA
P
L
E
CROSS
PIN
E
SHORTCENTERMEISSNER
REDWOODMA
G
N
O
L
I
A
SH
E
F
I
E
L
D
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
ECEDARS
A
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
VICINITY MAP File No. 18-13
120 TANK FARM ¯
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 11
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 12
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 13
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 14
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 15
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 16
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 17
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 18
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 19
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 20
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 21
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 22
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 23
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 24
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 25
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 26
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 27
JUNE 23, 20145-1BUILDING 7 - WINE & CHEESE SHOPPERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM PLAZAThe California Central Coast has quickly become one of themore renowned wine regions in the world, and with goodreason. San Luis Obispo county boasts over 200 wineriesoffering up a variety of styles and experiences suitable for theenthusiast and casual drinker alike. Much of the local food anddrink culture is rooted in the exceptional wines produced righthere in SLO county.The SLO Wine and Cheese Shop serves as a foray into thevibrant local food and wine culture. Patrons are invited tosample and enjoy tastings of various wines, cheeses, andartisan pairings in a setting that is truly “San Luis Obispo.”Located on the South portion of the plaza, the Wine andCheese Shop takes advantage of the historical landmarks itneighbors. Large glazed overhead doors open the shop up tothe plaza and an outdoor seating area that is uniquely situatedunder the existing water tower. From within the shop, a fullheight mitered window looks out to the historical windmill aswell as the Bonetti Ranch sign.Architecturally, the Wine and Cheese Shop has many of thesame contemporary agrarian features as the Public Market;vertical corten siding, corrugated metal, reclaimed barn wood,and exposed steel structure. Large windows and doorspromote the indoor/outdoor feel and encourage the patronsto slow down, relax, and enjoy some of the best wine around.PROJECT INTRODUCTIONSITE PLANSCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVE$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 28
JUNE 23, 20145-2BUILDING 7 - WINE & CHEESE SHOPPERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM PLAZASITE PLANSCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVE$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 29
JUNE 23, 20145-3BUILDING 7 - WINE & CHEESE SHOP1,522 sq ftPREPKITCHENBARWINE &CHEESESALESCASHIERBUILDING 5FBOOTHSCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANSERVICEPREP KITCHEN - 310 s.f.RETAILWINE & CHEESE SALES - 632 s.f.BAR - 552 s.f. PROJECT STATISTICSTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE +CIRCULATION - 1,522 S.F.SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 30
JUNE 23, 20145-4BUILDING 7 - WINE & CHEESE SHOPEAST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONSCHEMATIC ELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 31
JULY 23, 2014 6-1SCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVEBUILDING 6 - NEW SHOPSPERSPECTIVE VIEW AT BUILDING 6 ENTRYHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFVERTIAL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDINGSTAINED WOOD TRIM & ELEMENTSBUILDING NARRATIVEReminiscent of the old days, the mixed use Building #6 re-establishes residential uses on the property providing four, 2 bedroom living units. In combination with the DGMDFHQW%UHZHU\WKHUHWDLOEXVLQHVVHVRQWKHJURXQGÁRRUof Building 6 are expected to be a key draw in the village that will be a magnet for agritourism in San Luis Obispo.The design brings traditional farm building materials to a FRQWHPSRUDU\ÁDYRUHGEXLOGLQJIHDWXULQJYHUWLFDOERDUGDQGEDWWHQVLGLQJRISDLQWHGÀEHUFHPHQWERDUG7KHupper roof will be composition shingle material while the visible lower roofs will be corrugated metal over timber that play out the story of historic agricultural materials.SITE PLANBLDG 6CORRUGATEDMETAL ROOFCORRUGATEDMETAL SIDING$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 32
11X17 SHEET SCALE: 1” = 16’-0”24X36 SHEET SCALE: 1” = 8’-0”0 8 1632 JULY 23, 2014 6-2SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANBUILDING 6 - NEW SHOPSUNIT PLANRETAIL SHELL PLANUP77' - 0"72' - 0"DNLIVING12'0"X13'2"DINING10'10"X8'2"KITCHEN12'3"X10'6"M. BED13'6"X13'6"BED 211'0"X14'0"BATH 25'6"X9'6"M. BATH6'0"X10'4"M. CL.LIVING12'0"X13'2"DINING10'10"X8'2"KITCHEN12'3"X10'6"M. BED13'6"X13'6"BED 211'0"X14'0"BATH 25'6"X9'6"M. CL.M. BATH6'0"X10'4"M. BED13'6"X13'6"BED 211'0"X14'0"BATH 25'6"X9'6"LIVING12'0"X13'2"DINING10'10"X8'2"KITCHEN12'3"X10'6"M. BATH6'0"X10'4"KITCHEN12'3"X10'6"LIVING12'0"X13'2"DINING10'10"X8'2"M. BATH6'0"X10'4"M. BED13'6"X13'6"BED 211'0"X14'0"BATH 25'6"X9'6"M. CL.M. CL.DECK8'6"X11'0"DECK8'6"X11'0"DECK8'6"X11'0"DECK8'6"X11'0"77' - 0"72' - 0"GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL (4) UNITS @ 1,215 SF TOTAL 4,860 SFSECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL (4) UNITS @ 1,154 SF TOTAL 4,616 SFBUILDING TOTAL 9,476 SF$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 33
11X17 SHEET SCALE: 1” = 16’-0”24X36 SHEET SCALE: 1” = 8’-0”0 8 1632 JULY 23, 2014 6-3SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONSBUILDING 6 - NEW SHOPSSOUTH/NORTH ELEVATIONEAST/WEST ELEVATION+36’-0”+36’-0”$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 34
JUNE 23, 20147-1BUILDING 7 - MARKET HALLPERSPECTIVE VIEW OF ENTRY FROM PARKING LOTThe SLO Public Market at Bonetti Ranch is the destination food andentertainment venue of the Central Coast. A place where everydayshoppers, foodies, and tourists can find a variety of carefully curatedpurveyors, restaurants and producers representing the abundance ofSLO county’s food culture.The building itself harks back to the historical landmarks that exist on theproperty, while offering a contemporary and refreshing architecturalvocabulary; a style we call “contemporary agrarian.” As viewed fromSouth Higuera Street, the building’s form is reminiscent of a classic barn.Large storefront windows and doors take advantage of the moderateclimate and ample natural daylight. Exposed steel structure,corrugated metal siding, reclaimed barn wood and corten steel offer arich and varied materials pallet.Loading and services are appropriately located on the North side of thebuilding. This location allows the vendors easy access to the PublicMarket hall, as well as the subterranean storage area.From the parking lot, patrons are greeted by large windows and bi-folddoors into the market hall. The circulation is controlled and optimized sothat patrons flow through the building giving equal exposure to allvendors. Vendor stalls vary in size and function and we have suggestedthe locations for specific vendors.Because of SLO’s excellent climate, the interior of the market is closelyintegrated with the exterior plaza. Large glazed openings and glazedgarage doors open up to this plaza, allowing the activity overlap. Asviewed from the plaza, the market hall provides multiple locations forpublic interaction. A terrace climbs up the side of the building offeringseating and the opportunity for future entertainment events. Secondstory decks are covered by translucent polygal shading structures.These elements transform the plaza from simple circulation space intothe “place to be” on site.SCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVESITE PLANPROJECT INTRODUCTION$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 35
JUNE 23, 20147-2BUILDING 7 - MARKET HALLJUNE 23, 2014PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF ENTRY FROM SOUTH HIGUERASCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVESITE PLAN$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 36
JUNE 23, 20147-3BUILDING 7 - MARKET HALLPERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM PLAZASCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVESITE PLAN$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 37
JUNE 23, 20147-4BUILDING 7 - MARKET HALL 17 x 7 1/16" = 10'-0"1234567891011121314151617 17 x 7 1/16" = 10'-0"1234567891011121314151617485 sq ft751 sq ft265 sq ft426 sq ft426 sq ft501 sq ft425 sq ft425 sq ft425 sq ft388 sq ft418 sq ft481 sq ft352 sq ft362 sq ft522 sq ft431 sq ft472 sq ftMOP SINKBAKERBUTCHEROIL/VINEGARMECHANICAL/UTILITY CARTSTORAGEICE CREAMJUICE BARTAQUERIAFEATUREDPRODUCERCOFFEESALADKIOSKSPASTRYMEZZANINEVENDORRESTAURANTSTORAGEFEATUREDPRODUCERSANDWICHPUBLICMARKETSTORAGEELEV.EQUIP.FEATUREDPRODUCERSCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANBASEMENT FLOOR PLANSTORAGESANDWICH - 425 s.f.RESTAURANT - 552 s.f.FEATURED PRODUCER #1 - 425 s.f.FEATURED PRODUCER #2 - 425 s.f.COFFEE - 425 s.f.ICE CREAM - 391 s.f.JUICE BAR - 501 s.f.SALAD - 391 s.f.PASTRY - 426 s.f.OIL & VINEGAR - 265 s.f.BUTCHER - 751 s.f.BAKER - 485 s.f.KIOSKS - 426 s.f.TAQUERIA - 567 s.f.MEZZANINE VENDOR - 435 s.f.SEATINGTERRACE - 536 s.f.GRASS TERRACE - 503 s.f.DECKS - 796 s.f.TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE+CIRCULATION - 12,002 S.F.PROJECT STATISTICSSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 38
JUNE 23, 20147-5BUILDING 7 - MARKET HALL 17 x 7 1/16" = 10'-0"1234567891011121314151617 24 x 7" = 14'-0"123456789101112131415161718192021222324 17 x 7 1/16" = 10'-0"1234567891011121314151617530 sq ft418 sq ft208 sq ft203 sq ft285 sq ft454 sq ft530 sq ft367 sq ft374 sq ft212 sq ft 212 sq ft231 sq ft231 sq ft117 sq ft113 sq ft347 sq ft93 sq ftTRASHINFOENTRYICE CREAMJUICE BARBUTCHERBAKEROIL/VINEGARTAQUERIASANDWICHFEATUREDPRODUCERFEATUREDPRODUCERCOFFEERESTAURANTSALADKIOSKSPASTRYTERRACESTORAGE JANITOROPEN SEATINGOPEN SEATINGSCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SERVICEINFO - 93 s.f.JANITOR - 113 s.f.STORAGE - 117 s.f.VENDORSSANDWICH - 285 s.f.RESTAURANT - 454 s.f.FEATURED PRODUCER #1 - 231 s.f.COFFEE - 203 s.f.ICE CREAM - 374 s.f.JUICE BAR - 212 s.f.SALAD - 367 s.f.PASTRY - 212 s.f.OIL & VINEGAR - 208 s.f.BUTCHER - 418 s.f.BAKER - 530 s.f.KIOSKS - 347 s.f.TAQUERIA - 530 s.f. PROJECT STATISTICSTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE +CIRCULATION - 11,692 S.F.$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 39
JUNE 23, 20147-6BUILDING 7 - MARKET HALL 17 x 7 1/16" = 10'-0"1234567891011121314151617 24 x 7" = 14'-0"123456789101112131415161718192021222324986 sq ft487 sq ft290 sq ft571 sq ft225 sq ft556 sq ft503 sq ftDECKDECKOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWGRASSTERRACETERRACEOPEN TOBELOWVENDORKIOSKSVENDORKIOSKSDEMOKITCHEN/BARSCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANMEZZANINE LEVEL FLOOR PLANVENDORSKIOSKS - 285 s.f.DEMO KITCHEN/BAR - 986 s.f.SEATINGTERRACE - 536 s.f.GRASS TERRACE - 503 s.f.DECKS - 796 s.f. TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE +CIRCULATION - 5801 S.F.PROJECT STATISTICSSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 40
JUNE 23, 20147-7BUILDING 7 - MARKET HALLSCHEMATIC ELEVATIONSNORTH ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 41
JUNE 23, 20147-9BUILDING 7 - MARKET HALLSCHEMATIC ELEVATIONSWEST ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 42
JULY 23, 2014 8-1PERSPECTIVE VIEW AT BUILDING 8 ENTRYBUILDING NARRATIVEBuilding 8 is designed for a family owned brewery, revital-izing the historic agricultural process on the ranch where barley and wheat once grew and where the Bonetti fam-ily stored wine in the cellar of the historic home. Recalling typical farm buildings, the Brewery will be clad in painted ÀEHUFHPHQWERDUGLQDERDUGDQGEDWWHQSDWWHUQDQGcapped with a standing metal seam roof.Giving new life to traditional forms, the building takes cues from the historic core buildings along South Higuera Street as expressed in the windows, exposed rafters and goose-neck lamp posts. The easy transition from indoor to broad outdoor spaces not only grounds the building on the site but takes full advantage of San Luis Obispo’s climate for dining and leisure.CORRUGATED METALVERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDINGSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFWELDED WIRE MESH RAILINGBLDG 8SITE PLANSCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVEBUILDING 8 - BREWERY$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 43
11X17 SHEET SCALE: 1” = 16’-0”24X36 SHEET SCALE: 1” = 8’-0”0 8 1632 JULY 23, 2014 8-2BREWERY PLANBREWERY MEZZANINE PLANBREWERY 1,324 SFDINING DINING ROOM/BAR 1,670 SF MEZZANINE DINING 1,026 SF INDOOR DINING 2,696 SFOUTDOOR DINING 729 SFBACK OF HOUSE 1,529 SFTOTAL BUILDING 5,549 SFUPMEN'SWOMEN'SVEST.DINING/BARWAITAREAENTRYBREWHOUSEOFFICEMILLPREP &DISH.KIT.SERV.HALLWAYBREWER'SOFFICECOLDSTOR.COLDSTOR.COLDSTOR.69' - 0"90' - 6"PATIOUPMEZZ.DININGOPENTOBELOW57' - 0"70' - 0"OPENTOBELOWSCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANBUILDING 8 - BREWERY$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 44
11X17 SHEET SCALE: 1” = 16’-0”24X36 SHEET SCALE: 1” = 8’-0”0 8 1632 JULY 23, 2014 WEST ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATION8-3SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONSBUILDING 8 - BREWERY+28’-0”+28’-0”+34’-0”+34’-0”$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 45
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 46
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 47
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 48
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 49
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 50
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 51
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 52
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 53
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 54
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 55
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 56
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 57
ARC1 - 58
Attachment 5
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 59
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 60
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 61
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 62
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 63
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 64
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 65
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 66
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 67
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 68
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 69
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 70
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 71
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 72
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 73
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 74
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 75
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 76
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 77
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 78
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 79
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC1 - 80
ARC1 - 81
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 82
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 83
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 84
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 85
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 86
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 87
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 88
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 89
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 90
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 91
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 92
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 93
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 94
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 95
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 96
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 97
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 98
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 99
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 100
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 101
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 102
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 103
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 104
ARC1 - 105
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 106
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 107
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Image 1 Barn
Image 2 Barn and water tower
ARC1 - 108
Attachment 8
Image 3 Water tower
Image 4 Granary
ARC1 - 109
Attachment 8
Image 5 Granary
Image 6 Water tower and windmill
ARC1 - 110
Attachment 8
Image 7 Windmill
Image 8 Farm house
ARC1 - 111
Attachment 8
Image 9 Front view of farmhouse
Image 10 Front view of farmhouse
ARC1 - 112
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of an equipment
shelter, standby generator, and camouflaged monopole with 12 antennas.
PROJECT ADDRESS:805 Morrison St BY:Walter Oetzell
Phone Number: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER:ARC 21-14 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt a resolution (Attachment #1) approving the application based
on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Address 805 Morrison St
Applicant GTE Mobilenet of California
Verizon Wireless
Representative Tricia Knight
Property Owner Greg Moore
Zoning Manufacturing (M)
General Plan Services and Manufacturing
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15303 New
Construction of Small Structures)
SUMMARY
Tricia Knight, representing Verizon Wireless, the applicant, has filed applications for the
installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility at 805 Morrison Street. New wireless
facilities require administrative use permit approval and architectural review. A use permit for
installation of the facility was granted on October 17, 2014. The applicant is now requesting
final approval of the design details of the proposed facilities.
Meeting Date: November 3, 2014
Item Number: 2
ARC2 - 1
ZR
ARC 21-14 (805 Morrison)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s role is to review the proposed facility and evaluate the suitability and
appropriateness of its design, using standards and policies of the City’s General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines, to help achieve attractive, environmentally
sensitive development.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The facility will be constructed on a flat, unpaved industrial site within a Manufacturing (M)
Zone, on a parcel measuring about 1¼ acres in area. The site is on the south side of Morrison
Street at its easterly terminus at the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The site does not have
any significant physical or topographic features, and is developed with two industrial buildings.
Sydney Creek runs in an underground culvert across the southerly corner of the site.
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 1.25 acres
Width: about 220 feet
Depth: about 250 feet
Street Frontage: 190 feet
Present Use &
Development
Industrial
Topography Elevation: Min. 235 feet; Max. 240 ft.
Slope: Flat
Natural Features: trees along the southeast border of the site
Access From Morrison St
Surrounding Use /
Zoning
East: Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way
West, South, North: Manufacturing (M), Industrial uses
Figure 1: Site Plan (Portion, Enlarged)
ARC2 - 2
ARC 21-14 (805 Morrison)
Page 3
The site is accessed from Morrison Street, which, though unpaved along the site frontage, has an
adequate surface for occasional traffic to the site for maintenance purposes. The facility itself
will be reached over a 12’ access easement to be granted to the facility operator.
The Manufacturing (M) Zone surrounds the site, except at the easterly border of the site, formed
by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Property in the vicinity is developed for industrial
uses. Current businesses and activities include auto mechanics, contractors, manufacturers,
business services, recyclers, repair services, and wholesale and distribution. Villa Rosa, an 86-
unit residential condominium development, is located 600 feet to the west.
2.2 Project Description
This project consists of construction of an unmanned telecommunications facility within a 1,275
square-foot portion of the northeast corner of the site, at the east side of an industrial building,
near the Morrison Street frontage. The facility will be surrounded by an eight-foot chain link
screening fence with artificial wood slats. No trees are proposed to be planted or removed, and
no landscaping is proposed because of the industrial character of the site and its existing use, and
the impracticality of developing irrigation facilities. Utilities serving the facility will be placed
underground.
Equipment Shelter and Generator
The facility includes a metal equipment shelter at ground level, measuring 11½ feet wide, just
under 15 feet deep (about 195 square feet in area), and about 10 feet tall. A 9-foot tall diesel
backup generator will be placed on a 5-foot by 10-foot concrete pad behind the shelter. The
facility equipment is screened with a chain-link fence with false-wood slats.
Monopole
Immediately next to the equipment shelter, an 85-foot tall monopole will be erected to support
two arrays of wireless antennas and remote radiohead units, mounted at 74 feet and 81 feet above
ground level. Each array has 6 antennas and 3 radiohead units, for a total of 12 antennas and 6
radiohead units on the monopole. The monopole is metal, covered with a plastic material
textured and colored to resemble the trunk of a eucalyptus tree (Figures 3 and 4). Higher up the
pole, plastic branches and leaves will extend beyond the “trunk” of the “faux eucalyptus”.
Figure 2: Ground Equipment Enclosure
ARC2 - 3
ARC 21-14 (805 Morrison)
Page 4
2.3 Project Statistics
Proposed Standard or
Requirement
Yards
Street > 15 ft. 15 ft.
Other (South) > 100 ft. 0 ft.*
Other (East) 5 ft. 0 ft.*
Height (max.) 85 ft. (case-by-case;
see §17.16.120(F.2))
Facility Area 1,275 sq. ft. (N/A)
* as provided in zone of adjacent lot
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 General Plan and Zoning Conformance
The proposed facility is in an area designated for Services and
Manufacturing land uses by the General Plan. Wireless
telecommunications facilities are permitted in the Manufacturing (M)
district with an administrative use permit, subject to conformance with
specific site development and performance standards set forth in
§17.16.120 of the Zoning Regulations. View corridors are to be
preserved, and adverse visual and environmental impacts are to be
avoided. The project may be subject to additional standards deemed
appropriate to address site-specific conditions.
A use permit allowing installation of a new facility at this site was
granted on October 17, 2014 (Attachment 4). Staff found the project
to be consistent with applicable site development and performance
standards, subject to the evaluation of standards related to aesthetics
and visibility during architectural review of the project.
Policies of the General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE) related to the preservation of scenic views are relevant to the
construction of this facility:
In and near public streets, plazas, and parks, features that clutter,
degrade, intrude on, or obstruct views should be avoided.
Necessary features, such as utility and communication equipment,
and traffic equipment and signs should be designed and placed so
as to not impinge upon or degrade scenic views of the Morros or
surrounding hillsides…
(COSE §9.1.3);
Figure 3: Proposed Monopole
Figure 4: Example
ARC2 - 4
ARC 21-14 (805 Morrison)
Page 5
The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public
Places… [including] parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and
publicly accessible open space. […] Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs
and lights shall not intrude on or clutter views…
(COSE §9.2.1)
3.2 Community Design Guidelines
The City’s Community Design Guidelines give little guidance for wireless telecommunications
facilities, but encourage careful consideration of site character and constraints, the uses on
neighboring properties, and the existing natural features (CDG §3.1(C.1)). The site was selected
in part because of its lack of constraints, such as steep slopes or significant natural features, and
location in an industrial area.
3.3 Visual Impact
In order to be consistent with General Plan goals and policies, a wireless facility needs to be
designed in such a manner that it does not degrade or impinge on scenic views. While the
monopole, given its appearance, size, and height, will be perceptible in some views towards the
west, it will not impinge on those views if sensitively designed so that it does not make an
immediate impression on the viewer of being a large artificial tree. This impression can be
avoided by using the most minimal and naturalistic design possible.
Staff finds that the facility has little potential to intrude upon views of surrounding hillsides.
While the monopole is higher than many nearby structures, disguising the monopole as a tall
eucalyptus tree and placing it near groves of eucalyptus trees mitigates its impact on views, with
the monopole blending into tree groves in the background. Photo-simulations provided by the
applicant (Figure 5) demonstrate this effect. The monopole will, however, be perceptible in some
views that do not have groves of trees as a backdrop. Two views at the beginning of the Railroad
Safety Trail, west towards the South Hills Open Space, and northwest toward Cerro San Luis
(Figure 6) demonstrate this visibility.
Figure 5: Photo-simulations depicting background screening of monopole
ARC2 - 5
ARC 21-14 (805 Morrison)
Page 6
Naturalistic Design: Original plans submitted for this application proposed a support tower
designed with three thinner masts rather than one thick pole. As suggested by Figure 7, a
photograph of a similar “faux-eucalyptus” installation, this design could result in a more
naturalistic appearance that more closely mimics nearby trees. Staff recommends that the
Commission adopt a condition of project approval that gives preference to this design, to
enhance the screening effect against nearby tree groves, and to minimize the potential of the
facility to impinge on scenic views. Additional conditions of approval require the use of antenna
sock covers and careful color selection to best camouflage the facility.
Honesty of Materials: It should be noted that Community Design
Guidelines discuss using building materials “honestly” (CDG
§3.1(B.10)). This guideline is typically applied to building
materials used in construction of a commercial project, but in this
instance it suggests that an alternative design that honestly reflects
the true function of the facility could be seen as appropriate in its
industrial location.
Zoning Regulations call for minimizing visual impact through
placement, screening, and camouflage, but do not require that all
facilities be disguised to mimic natural features (unless the facility
is located within natural surroundings). If the support structure lost
its artificial branches and limbs, it would be immediately
recognizable as a wireless facility, but its visual profile would be
further reduced. From most views the facility would continue to
enjoy the screening effect of nearby trees, and careful choice of
color would help camouflage it. An undisguised support tower may
be apparent to the casual observer who is viewing it from certain
points on the Railroad Safety Trail, but a “faux -eucalyptus” tower
may also be apparent to the casual observer looking at it from
within the industrial zone around the facility. The commission may
Figure 6: Two views from the beginning of the Railroad Trail (left, toward South Hills; right toward Cerro San Luis)
Figure 7: Naturalistic example
ARC2 - 6
ARC 21-14 (805 Morrison)
Page 7
wish to consider an undisguised support structure if, in its judgment, such a structure would,
have a lesser visual impact overall than an artificial tree.
4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on this analysis, staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached draft
ordinance, approving the project based on the findings set forth in the resolution, and subject to
several conditions giving preference to a more naturalistic design and requiring careful attention
to camouflaging techniques.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), as it involves construction of a small structure, as described in §15303 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
6.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
Project plans were routed to several departments for review, and various comments were
submitted in response. These comments were incorporated into conditions of approval of use
permit A 21-14 allowing operation of a wireless facility at the site. The draft resolution granting
final approval of the project makes reference to conformance with those conditions.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Eliminate Condition #4 (requiring a naturalistic “faux-eucalyptus” design) of the attached
draft resolution and adopt a modified resolution, approving the application, based on
findings of consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Community Design
Guidelines, subject to conditions of approval; or
7.2 Deny the application, describing findings that constitute the basis for denial, based on
inconsistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or Community Design
Guidelines.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced-Size Project Plans
4. Administrative Use Permit Staff Report (A 21-14)
5. Airport Land Use Commission Determination of Consistency
Included in Commission Member Portfolio: Project Plans
Available at Hearing: Samples of “Faux-Eucalyptus” Materials
ARC2 - 7
RESOLUTION NO. ####-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2014,
FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT
805 MORRISON STREET (MANUFACTURING (M) ZONE; ARC 21-14)
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 November 3, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ARC 21-14, GTE Mobilnet of California / Verizon Wireless, 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; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the proposed project (ARC 21-14), based on the following findings:
1. The proposed facility conforms to the policies and goals of the City’s General Plan. It
consists of the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility in a Services and
Manufacturing area, in conformance to use limitations and development standards set
forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Conditions of approval require that the facility’s
monopole, disguised as an artificial tree, employ a naturalistic design so that it will not
impinge on or degrade views from public places and open space.
2.The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable
to wireless telecommunications facilities. It is located on a site with an industrial
character. Conditions of approval require that the facility’s monopole, disguised as an
artificial tree, employ a naturalistic design, in consideration of the constraints presented
by views across the site toward hillsides from public spaces and open space.
3. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as construction of a small structure, as described by CEQA
Guidelines §15303, New Construction of Small Structures.
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARC 21-14), with incorporation of the following conditions:
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC2 - 8
Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 2
ARC 21-14 (805 Morrison St)
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for construction permits shall
be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate,
full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings 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.
2. Conformance to Use Permit: Plans submitted for construction permits must be in
compliance with the provisions of use permit A 21-14, granted on October 17, 2014. The
facility must at all times be operated in conformance with said use permit.
3. Colors and Materials: The artificial trunk and leaves will be color-matched to the
surrounding eucalyptus trees, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director. The color will be refreshed regularly through the life of the facility so that it
continues to match surrounding eucalyptus trees.
4. Monopole Design: The monopole will use a more naturalistic design that branches into
several thinner limbs from the lower portion of the trunk. Limbs, branches, and leaves
will be arranged in a naturalistically varied pattern. Such arrangement will avoid an
artificially regular, repetitive appearance.
5. Equipment Camouflage: The equipment supported on the monopole (including, but not
limited to, antennas, remote radiohead units, and support structures) will be painted in a
non-reflective color that blends with the colors of the artificial foliage. Antenna sock
covers will be used to further camouflage the equipment.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3rd day of November, 2014.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ARC2 - 9
PF
M
M
M-MU
M
M
R-3-PD
C-S-H
C-S
M
R-3-PD
R-4-PD
M-PD
O-S
C-S-PD
C/OS-5
R-3-S-PD
C-S
C-C-S
C-S
C-C-PD
C-S-PD
C-S
R-3-S
C-S
C-S-S
C-S
C-S-S-H
C-S-S
ORCUTTMcMILLANGARIBALDI DUNCANBROADLAWRENCE
MORRISON
VICINITY MAP File No. 21-14
805 Morrison St. ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC2 - 10
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC2 - 11
ARC2 - 12
ARC2 - 13
ARC2 - 14
ARC2 - 15
ARC2 - 16
ARC2 - 17
ARC2 - 18
Meeting Date: October 17, 2014
Item Number: 4
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner MMEETING DATE: October 17, 2014
FILE NUMBER: A 21-14
PROJECT ADDRESS: 805 Morrison St
SUBJECT: Operation of a wireless telecommunications facility
BACKGROUND
Verizon Wireless has filed applications to install and operate a new wireless
telecommunications facility adjacent to an existing industrial building at 805 Morrison
Street. An administrative use permit and architectural review approval must be granted
before a new wireless telecommunications facility can be installed.
Address 805 Morrison St
Applicant GTE Mobilenet of California
Verizon Wireless
Representative Tricia Knight
Property Owner Greg Moore
Zoning Manufacturing (M)
General Plan Services and Manufacturing
Environmental Status Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15303
New Construction of Small
Structures)
SITE INFORMATION
The facility will be constructed on a flat, unpaved industrial site within a Manufacturing
(M) Zone, on a parcel measuring about 1¼ acres in area. The site is on the south side of
Morrison Street at its easterly terminus at the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The
site is developed with two industrial buildings, and is devoid of significant physical
features. Sydney Creek runs in an underground culvert across the southerly corner of
the site.
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: Manufacturing (M) Zones surround the site, except
along the easterly border of the site, which adjoins the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-
way. Property in the vicinity is developed for industrial uses. Current businesses and
activities include auto mechanics, contractors, manufacturers, business services,
recyclers, repair services, and wholesale and distribution.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 19
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 1.25 acre
Width: about 220 feet
Depth: about 250 feet
Street Frontage: 190 feet
Present Use &
Development
Industrial
Topography Elevation: Min. [000] feet; Max. [000] ft.
Slope: Flat
Natural Features: trees along the southeast border of the lot
Access From Morrison St
Surrounding Use /
Zoning
East: Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way
West, South, North: Manufacturing (M), Industrial uses
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project consists of the construction of an unmanned telecommunications facility
with an equipment shelter of just under 200 square feet in area, a standby generator,
and an 85-foot tall tower camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree. It is to be constructed on the
northeasterly portion of the site, on the east side of the larger building on the site, and
near the Morrison Street frontage.
EVALUATION
Permit Requirements
Installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility requires an administrative use
permit and architectural review. An application for architectural review has also been
filed for this project and the Architectural Review Board will review the proposal for this
facility and determine if it conforms to applicable Community Design Guidelines, and
whether additional standards should be applied to address site-specific concerns.
In considering a use permit, the Director is concerned with whether the facility could be
established and maintained without jeopardy to persons or property within and adjacent
to the site, and without damage to resources of the site and surroundings. The Director
ARC2 - 20
must find that the facility will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of
persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity, and may impose conditions to
reduce land use conflicts and detrimental effects of the proposed facility.
Facilities Standards
Standards applicable to wireless telecommunications facilities are set forth in the City’s
Zoning Ordinance (§17.16.120 – Wireless Telecommunications Facilities). They are
intended to protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare, to preserve view
corridors, and to avoid adverse visual and environmental impacts.
Site Access
Telecommunications facilities should use existing access roads and parking, and these
should be improved and surfaced where necessary. This easterly end of Morrison Street
is unpaved, but has an adequate surface for occasional traffic to the site for
maintenance purposes. A 12-foot wide easement is proposed to be granted by the
property owner to Verizon Wireless to access the facility from the easterly end of
Morrison Street.
Setbacks and Height
The facilities comply with the setback requirements of the Manufacturing (M) Zone. The
tower and equipment are placed more than 15 feet from the northerly lot line, well
beyond required 15-foot street yard depth (for structures over 20 feet in height). They
are at least 5 feet from the easterly property line, satisfying the minimum depth required
for “other yards” in the zone.1
The height limit for most structures in the Manufacturing (M) Zone is 35 feet. The
generator and equipment shelter are less than 10 feet in height, and the tower is 85 feet
high. The allowable height of telecommunications antennas is determined on a case-by-
case basis through the use permit process, and facilities are to be designed to the
minimum necessary functional height.
The applicant has stated that 85 feet is the lowest functional height, in order to clear
trees and buildings and provide a line-of-sight path for wireless signals. Coverage maps
generated for different antenna heights are typically prepared to justify antenna
placement and demonstrate the effect of lowering antenna height. No such comparison
has been prepared for this application because the main constraint to antenna
placement is the presence of tall trees nearby. Nearby trees will create some signal
“shadows” at the proposed antenna heights. Lower antenna height would increase this
shadowing and make it necessary to establish additional wireless facilities in the area to
provide the desired coverage. Rather than constructing several smaller facilities, the
applicant proposes to accomplish coverage objectives by locating taller antennas on a
single site in an industrial district.
1 The required depth of “other yards” in the Manufacturing (M) Zone is “as provided in the adjacent zone”.
The railroad right-of-way is adjacent to the tower location, and is not within any particular zone.
ARC2 - 21
Aesthetics and Visibility
Visual impact must be minimized to the greatest extent possible by placement,
screening, camouflage, and use of the smallest and least visible antennas possible to
accomplish coverage objectives. Features that clutter, degrade, intrude on, or obstruct
views should be avoided. Views of important scenic resources from public places are to
be preserved and improved.
This facility is camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree and placed about 200 feet west of a
linear grove of tall eucalyptus trees running in a northeasterly direction along the banks
of Sydney Creek. Because wireless facilities depend on line-of-sight paths to provide
good coverage, visual screening of the antennas and monopole, beyond camouflage, is
impractical, and the location and placement of the facility does not, in itself, screen it
from view. The applicant is attempting to reduce the facility’s visual impact by
camouflaging it as a eucalyptus tree so that, when viewed from a distance, it blends with
several nearby groupings of tall trees.
The Railroad Safety Trail travels along the east side of the Union Pacific Railroad right-
of-way in a northwesterly direction from Orcutt Road to the Railroad Depot, with
significant views from in an easterly direction toward the hillsides of the Santa Lucia
Mountains. Those views are not compromised, as the camouflaged monopole is located
across the railroad tracks from the trail, in the opposite direction. When looking west
from the trail, toward the proposed facility, the viewer is looking toward an industrial area
that is not considered a significant view needing protection.
The ground facilities are proposed to be screened with walls and fencing. The
Architectural Review Commission will review this project, and the aesthetic
characteristics of the facility will be considered in further detail during architectural
review.
Lighting and Noise
Telecommunications facilities are to be unlit except when personnel are actually
present. No lighting is proposed, apart from lighting necessary to illuminate the ground
facilities during times that personnel are present for maintenance and repair, and
emergency lighting. A condition of approval (#5) requires that the facility be unlit, except
when personnel are present at the facility. Exterior lighting will be more closely
examined during architectural review of the project to ensure compliance with Night Sky
Preservation regulations (SLOMC Chapter 17.23).
The facility is unmanned and the equipment within the equipment shelter does not
generate significant amounts of noise. Zoning Regulations prohibit equipment noise
from any source in excess of an exterior noise level of 55 dB at the property line.
Backup Generator
The standby generator is not used during normal operations. Conditions of approval
(#12 and #9) require that the generator be permitted by the Air Pollution Control District
(condition #12), and that evidence be submitted with construction drawings to
ARC2 - 22
demonstrate that the generator will comply with the City’s Noise Control regulations
(SLOMC Chapter 9.12). Zoning Regulations also limit the operation of the generator to
power outages and testing and maintenance activities.
Airport Operations
This site lies in the northern reaches of the Airport Planning Area described in Airport
Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo Regional County Airport. The County’s Airport
Land Use Commission reviewed the project at a public hearing on September 5, 2014
(Attachment 2) and determined that it is consistent with airport area standards and
policies. The Commission, as part of its determination, forwarded several conditions of
approval that have been incorporated into this use permit.
Electromagnetic Exposure and Warning Signs
This application includes a statement prepared by Hammet & Edison Inc., Consulting
Engineers (Attachment 3) evaluating the exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic
fields due to the proposed facility (with no other nearby wireless base stations reported).
Based on the evaluation, Hammet & Edison concluded that the proposed facility would,
in their opinion, comply with standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency
energy.
No warning signs were indicated on project plans. A condition of approval (#7) will
require that explanatory warning signs will be posted at all access points to the facility,
in compliance with applicable standards and conventions.
Nuisance
Zoning Regulations allow for public review of this permit to address nuisances in
response to written complaints. At such a hearing, conditions of approval may be added,
deleted, or modified, or the use permit may be revoked.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It involves construction of new small facilities in small structures, as
described in §15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
REFERRAL AND COMMENT
Project plans were routed to several departments for review and comment. Comments
received in response have been incorporated into conditions of approval of this use
permit. The project was also referred to the County’s Airport Land Use Commission for a
determination of consistency with airport area policies, as described in this report.
Conditions forwarded by the Commission have also been incorporated into conditions of
approval of this use permit.
ARC2 - 23
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the findings described below and approve this application, granting an
administrative use permit allowing the installation of a wireless telecommunications
facility at this site, subject to certain conditions.
Findings
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
working or living at the site or within the vicinity. The wireless telecommunications
facility complies with standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency
energy.
2. The project complies with the site development and performance standards of the
Zoning Regulations applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
3. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It involves construction of new small facilities in
small structures, as described in §15303 (New Construction of Small Structures) of
the CEQA Guidelines.
Conditions
Planning
1. Architectural Review: The new wireless telecommunications facility is subject to
architectural review, and architectural review approval is required before
construction permits may be issued for the facility.
2. Compliance with Standards and Conditions: The facility will at all times be operated
in full compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.120)
and with the conditions of approval of this use permit.
3. Access Easement: An easement in favor of the operator of the wireless
telecommunications facility providing access across the property from the public
right-of-way to the facility, as shown on the project plans, will be secured and
recorded prior to issuance of construction permits for this facility.
4. Encroachment: No portion of the facility, including support structures or associated
equipment, may extend beyond the property line or encroach into any public right-of-
way.
5. Lighting: The facility will be unlit, except when authorized personnel are present at
the facility at night, or as required by the Federal Aviation Administration.
6. Generator Noise: Plans and drawings prepared for construction permits for this
facility will include sufficient information to demonstrate that backup generators will
not exceed maximum noise levels established by the City’s Noise Control
Regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 9.12).
ARC2 - 24
7. Explanatory Warning Signs: Plans and drawings prepared for construction permits
for this facility will include details about the type and location of required explanatory
warning signs, sufficient to determine compliance with applicable conventions and
standards.
8. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its
agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the
City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole
or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly
notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City
fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be
of no further force or effect.
Fire
9. An installation permit is usually required from Fire Department to install an
emergency or standby generator tank, piping, and associated equipment; A detailed
plan shall be submitted through the City Building Department and shall comply with
the Fire Code, NFPA 30 and San Luis Obispo Fire Department installation
Guidelines.
10. A new or modified Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) is required before
placing the tank(s) in service;
11. Notification of the electric utility is required;
12. The proposed generator shall also be approved and permitted by the San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Contact the APCD at (805)
781-7912 for any permit requirements.
Public Works
13. Frontage improvements are required across the Morrison Street frontage as a
condition of building permits in accordance with Municipal Code Section 12.16.050.
Frontage improvements generally require the design and construction of curb, gutter,
& sidewalk, paving, and street termination per City Engineering Standards. Public
improvements may be deferred in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department. If deferred, a covenant agreement shall be recorded against the
property to require the future construction of these improvements upon request of
the City of San Luis Obispo.
14. Unless otherwise approved for deferral by the Public Works Department, a barricade
shall be provided at the termination of Morrison Street at the railroad (UPRR) right-
of-way per City Engineering Standards. The plans shall clearly delineate the right-of-
way limits and shall dimension a reasonable off-set to allow for the construction
without encroachment into the railroad right-of-way. The plans shall include a note
ARC2 - 25
to contact the local UPRR representative as part of the pre-construction meeting and
prior to commencing with work adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way.
15. Any existing or proposed encroachments into the Morrison Street right-of-way shall
be specifically approved by the Public Works Department. If allowed to remain, a
separate encroachment agreement shall be recorded against the property in a
format approved by the City of San Luis Obispo.
16. The building permit plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed
improvements located within the public right-of-way. A separate encroachment
permit will be required for all work or construction staging within the public right-of-
way.
17. The building permit plan submittal shall include a construction staging plan and may
need to include a Water Pollution Control Plan in a format provided by the City of
San Luis Obispo. The building plan may need to include some standard erosion
control notes and BMP’s.
Airport Land Use Commission
18. Non-residential density for property is limited to no more than 150 persons/acre.
19. Non-residential density for the proposed operation of the wireless communications
facility is limited to 2 persons.
20. The proposed 85-foot tall monopole (configured to resemble a eucalyptus tree) shall
be reviewed by the Air Traffic Division of the FAA regional office having jurisdiction
over San Luis Obispo County to determine compliance with the provisions of FAR
Part 77. In addition, applicable construction activities must be reported via FAA Form
7460-1 at least 30 days before proposed construction or application for building
permit.
21. No structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or
permanent in nature shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to air
navigation, as defined by the ALUP.
22. Any use is prohibited that may entail characteristics which would potentially interfere
with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport, including:
a. creation of electrical interference with navigation signals or radio
communication between the aircraft and airport;
b. lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting;
c. glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport;
d. uses which attract birds and create bird strike hazards;
e. uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke; and
f. uses which entail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of
aircraft (e.g., exterior laser light demonstrations or shows).
ARC2 - 26
23. Avigation easements will be recorded for each property developed within the area
included in the proposed local action prior to the issuance of any building permit or
conditional use permit;
24. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and
potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate
disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport
operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or
otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans (reduced size)
2. ALUC Determination of Consistency
3. Radio Frequency Exposure Statement
ACTION:
Approve
Approve as modified
Deny
Continue to: ____________________ to allow _______________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Continue indefinitely to allow: ___________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
________________________________
Hearing Officer
ARC2 - 27
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC2 - 28
STAFF REPORT
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2014
TO: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC)
FROM: XZANDREA FOWLER, COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING
REFERRING AGENCY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPLICANT: GTE MOBILE NET OF CA/ VERIZON WIRELESS
CITY FILE NUMBER: N/A
PROJECT MANAGER: WALTER OETZELL,
SUBJECT: A REFERRAL BY THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (CITY) FOR A
DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY REGARDING A USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN
UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, CONSISTING OF
TWELVE (12) PANEL ANTENNAS, AND THREE (3) REMOTE RADIO HEAD (RRH)
UNITS, MOUNTED TO THE TOP OF An 85-FOOT TALL MONOPOLE
(CONFIGURED TO RESEMBLE A EUCALYPTUS TREE); ONE (1)
PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER (APPROXIMATELY 12’ X 17’ IN SIZE);
AND ONE (1) EMERGENCY GENERATOR LOCATED WITHIN AN
APPROXIMATELY 1,350 SQUARE-FOOT FENCED ENCLOSURE/ LEASE AREA.
LOCATION: THE 1.3-ACRE PROPERTY (APN: 053-212-026) IS LOCATED AT 805 MORRISON
STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ADJACENT TO THE UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS, AND APPROXIMATELY ¼ MILE FROM THE
INTERSECTION OF MCMILLAN AVENUE AND ORCUTT ROAD. THE PROPERTY
IS WITHIN THE MANUFACTURING LAND USE CATEGORY. THE PROPOSED
PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN (ALUP) - AVIATION SAFETY AREA S-2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend a determination of consistency to the City for the construction and operation of an
unmanned wireless communications facility, consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, and three (3)
RRH units, mounted to the top of a 85-foot tall monopole (configured to resemble a eucalyptus tree);
one (1) prefabricated equipment shelter (approximately 12’ x 17’ in size); and one (1) emergency
generator located within an approximately 1,350 square-foot fenced enclosure/ lease area.
Finding(s):
1. The proposed project for the construction and operation of an unmanned wireless
communications facility within an approximately 1,350 square foot fenced enclosure/
lease area on a site of 1.3 acres in the Manufacturing Land Use Category is consistent
with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) because the
proposed development and use on the property are required to satisfy all ALUP
requirements regarding general land use, noise, safety, airspace protection, and
overflight, and because of the following:
a) As required by General Land Use Policies, all information required for review of
the proposed local action was provided by the referring agency; the project
would not result in any incompatibilities to the continued economic vitality and
efficient operation of the Airport with specific respect to safety, noise, overflight
or obstacle clearance;
ARC2 - 29
Applicant: GTE Mobile Net of CA/ Verizon Wireless
City of San Luis Obispo Referral
ALUC September 5, 2014
Page 2 of 5
b) As required by the applicable Specific Land Use Policies for Noise, the area
affected by the project or local action is located outside the projected 50 dB
CNEL airport noise contour and no additional acoustic design and/or noise
mitigation is required since the wireless facility will be unmanned;
c) As required by the applicable Specific Land Use Policies for Safety, the
proposed development would not result in a density greater than specified in
Table 7 for Aviation Safety Area S-2; the proposed wireless communication
facility would not result in a greater building coverage than permitted by Table
7; and the proposed development and use would not result in high intensity
land uses or special land use functions;
d) As required by the applicable Specific Land Use Policies for Airspace
Protection, the proposed development will not exceed 200 feet above ground
level; obstruct the surface of a takeoff and landing area or any imaginary
surface established under Section77.25 or 77.29 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations; or allow any structure, landscaping, glare, apparatus, or other
feature, whether temporary or permanent in nature to constitute an obstruction
to air navigation or a hazard to air navigation;
e) As required by the applicable Specific Land Use Policies for Overflight, the
proposed development has been conditioned to ensure that potential and
prospective airport area land users are provided with sufficient information on
the presence and activity of the Airport and associated noise and safety
impacts in order for them to make an informed decision as to whether or not
they wish to live and/or work in the Airport area; and
f) Proposed development within the project area will not exceed the maximum
building coverage nor increase densities greater than what is allowed per
Table 7 of the ALUP, because the square footage of the prefabricated
equipment shelter associated with the proposed unmanned wireless
communication facility will not surpass the requirements set forth in the Table 8
of the ALUP. These criteria will also be incorporated into the conditions of
approval for the development permit.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Proposal: Wireless communications facility – unmanned
Setting: Suburban
Existing Uses: Construction Company
Site Area: Approximately 1.3 acres
DISCUSSION:
Wireless Communication Facility
The applicant has submitted a proposal for the construction and operation of an unmanned wireless
communications facility, consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, and three (3) RRH units, mounted
to the top of a 85-foot tall monopole (configured to resemble a eucalyptus tree); one (1) prefabricated
equipment shelter (approximately 12’ x 17’ in size); and one (1) emergency generator located within
an approximately 1,350 square-foot fenced enclosure/ lease area.
Setting/Existing Uses/Site Area
The project site consists of one parcel totaling 1.3 acres located at 805 Morrison Street, adjacent to
ARC2 - 30
Applicant: GTE Mobile Net of CA/ Verizon Wireless
City of San Luis Obispo Referral
ALUC September 5, 2014
Page 3 of 5
the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and approximately ¼ mile northeast of the intersection of McMillan
Avenue and Orcutt Road. The subject parcel (APN: 053-212-026) has a Manufacturing land use
designation. The property is occupied by a construction company and development consists of
several warehouse structures; and storage of construction related equipment and materials.
Surrounding land uses include: warehousing and office developments to the west and south; vacant
parcel to the north; and the Union Pacific Railroad to the east.
Airport Land Use Plan Applicability
The project site is located within San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan Aviation
Safety Area S-2, and is approximately 1.17 nautical miles from the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport (SBP) active Runway 29. The project site is outside the projected 50 dB airport noise contour,
as shown on Exhibit 2 (Airport Noise Contours). The proposed wireless communications facility is an
allowable use in accordance with the ALUP 5.3 Land Use Compatibility Table, because the proposed
use is considered a Communications Use (antennas, repeater stations, etc.- unmanned), and
unmanned communications uses within any Airport Noise Exposures and Aviation Safety Area S-2
are allowable.
ALUP Table 7 – Planning Requirements
The proposed project is consistent with the 20% of gross area for maximum building coverage and
the 150 person/acre maximum density of non-residential use, because less than 1% of the gross
area of the site would be covered by structures associated with the proposed wireless
communications facility and would only require employees to be on site 1-2 times per month, which is
a density of approximately 1 person/acre.
ALUP Table 8 – Non-Residential Land Use Densities
Table 8 does not have an applicable use category for the proposed wireless communications facility,
therefore staff applied the manufacturing use since the project is located within the manufacturing
zoning category of the City of San Luis Obispo. The proposed project is consistent with the one
person per 200 square feet gross floor area, plus one person per 1000 square feet outdoor
manufacturing or storage area. When those standards are applied to the project, the non-residential
density would be one person for the proposed equipment shelter and one person for the proposed
lease area.
ALUP 4.2 General Land Use Policies
The proposed project is consistent with the general land use policies because the information
required for review of the proposed local action was provided by the referring agency; the project will
not impact the continued economic vitality and efficient operation of the Airport with respect to safety,
noise, overflight or obstacle clearance; the project conforms with all applicable Specific Land Use
Policies; and the project is located in a single noise exposure area or aviation safety area.
ALUP 4.3 Specific Land Use Policies: Noise
The proposed project is consistent with the objective of the ALUP noise policies to minimize the
number of people exposed to frequent and/or high levels of airport noise or to frequent and/or high
cumulative noise levels of which airport noise is one component. The proposed wireless
communications facility is a compatible use, because it is not a use that is sensitive to noise and
involves few people.
ALUP 4.4 Specific Land Use Policies: Safety
The proposed project is located within Safety Area S-2 and is consistent with the objective of the
ALUP safety policies to minimize the risk to the safety and property of persons on the ground
associated with potential aircraft accidents and to enhance the chances for survival of the occupants
involved in an accident which takes place beyond the immediate runway environment. The proposed
wireless communications facility is a compatible use, because no aviation safety risk have been
ARC2 - 31
Applicant: GTE Mobile Net of CA/ Verizon Wireless
City of San Luis Obispo Referral
ALUC September 5, 2014
Page 4 of 5
identified; the number of people on the ground will be limited; potential severity of an aviation-related
incident has been reduced because the use will have a limited number of people; the project does
not include features that could substantially contribute to the severity of an aircraft accident.
ALUP 4.5 Specific Land Use Policies: Airspace Protection
The proposed project is consistent with the airspace protection policies of the ALUP to minimize the
risk of potential aircraft accidents in the vicinity of the Airport by avoiding the development of land
uses and land use conditions which pose hazards to aircraft in flight. The proposed project does not
pose an obstruction to the air navigation because the height of the proposed monopole will not
exceed 85 feet above ground level (AGL), and the project is located within the Horizontal Airport
Imaginary surface, and would be located northeast of an elevated terrain obstruction (South Hills)
and two man-made ones.
ALUP 4.6 Specific Land Use Policies: Overflight
The proposed project is consistent with the overflight policies of the ALUP to ensure that potential
and prospective airport area land users are provided with sufficient information on the presence and
activity of the Airport and associated noise and safety impacts in order for them to make an informed
decision as to whether or not they wish to live and/or work in the Airport area. The subject property is
located between 3 flight paths and the proposed project wireless communications facility will only
have technicians on site 1-2 times per month. As conditioned, those employees will receive sufficient
information regarding the presence of airport activity within the vicinity.
Conditions of Approval to be incorporated into any use permit(s) for development:
1. Non-residential density for property is limited to no more than 150 persons/acre.
2. Non-residential density for the proposed operation of the wireless communications facility is
limited to 2 persons.
3. The proposed 85-foot tall monopole (configured to resemble a eucalyptus tree) shall be
reviewed by the Air Traffic Division of the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over San Luis
Obispo County to determine compliance with the provisions of FAR Part 77. In addition,
applicable construction activities must be reported via FAA Form 7460-1 at least 30 days
before proposed construction or application for building permit.
4. No structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or permanent in
nature shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to air navigation, as defined
by the ALUP.
5. Any use is prohibited that may entail characteristics which would potentially interfere with the
takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport, including:
o creation of electrical interference with navigation signals or radio communication
between the aircraft and airport;
o lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting;
o glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport;
o uses which attract birds and create bird strike hazards;
o uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke; and
o uses which entail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of aircraft
(e.g., exterior laser light demonstrations or shows).
6. Avigation easements will be recorded for each property developed within the area included in the
proposed local action prior to the issuance of any building permit or conditional use permit; and
7. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concerning
the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any
ARC2 - 32
Applicant: GTE Mobile Net of CA/ Verizon Wireless
City of San Luis Obispo Referral
ALUC September 5, 2014
Page 5 of 5
contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties
within the airport area.
CONCLUSION:
The property is located in an area that contains manufacturing uses. The proposed use for the
subject property would have relatively low employee densities, and no customer densities. All
proposed development will be required to comply with the ALUP, City of San Luis Obispo Zoning
regulations, and applicable design standards.
EXHIBITS:
Ex.1: Vicinity Map
Ex.2: Aerial of Property
Ex.3: Aerial of Project Site
Ex.4: ALUP Airport Noise Contours
Ex.5: ALUP Aviaition Safety Zones
Ex.6: ALUP Airport Imaginary Surfaces & Existing Obstructions
Ex.7: ALUP Aircraft Flight Paths
Ex.8: Project Plans – Verizon Wireless (PSL#249598)
Ex.9: City Zoning Regulations – Chapter 17.22
ARC2 - 33
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2017 Architectural Review Commission Goal-Setting and the Financial
Plan/Budget Process.
FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
Phone Number: 781-7168; E-mail: pricci@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and evaluate status of 2013-2015 Architectural Review Commission goals, take public
testimony, and identify Commission goals and work program items for the 2015-2017 Financial
Plan.
BACKGROUND
Situation
Every two years the City adopts a budget and financial plan. The City is beginning the process of
goal setting in anticipation of the adoption of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan. The City Council
before establishing its major city goals for the budget adoption exercise has solicited input from
each of the City’s advisory bodies to identify their goals and major work programs for the next
two years. The ARC is being asked to establish a list of suggested goals for Council
consideration. The City Council then uses this information, along with public comment and other
input, to set community priorities and allocate resources to accomplish the most important City
goals.
Outcome
The results of this process are an updated list of Architectural Review Commission goals and
implementation programs or projects. Goals should pertain to the mission and purview of the
Commission and reflect perceived community-wide concerns and needs. This is a public process
and citizen comments are welcome.
Why involve advisory bodies in the goal-setting process?
Advisory body members provide important input because they are recognized as representatives
of the community, committed to the long-term best interests of the City. And they are close to
the “pulse” of the community in terms of their specific area of interest. Other key points as we
embark on this goal-setting process are:
Meeting Date: November 3, 2014
Item Number: 3b
pricci@@@i@@@@
ARC3b - 1
Page 2 2015-2017 Budget Goal Setting –Architectural Review Commission
1. The Council is seeking advisory body input focused on the purview area of the advisory body
and is also interested in input on other issues important to the community.
2. Advisory body input is highly valued by the Council and the staff.
3. Goals can include completing projects from a previous work program.
4. Identifying priorities implies recommending fewer rather than more goals to the Council.
The Planning Commission should recommend only those activities that can reasonably be
accomplished in the two-year budget period.
The Process
Tonight, staff will present a brief slide show introducing the budget process and advisory bodies’
role in it. The Commission should then review its 2013-2015 goals and the status of each
activity, followed by consideration of goals and program recommendations for the 2015-2017
Financial Plan. During past goal-setting sessions, the Architectural Review Commission has
generally followed the steps below.
Goal-setting steps:
1. Review and understand goal-setting and City Financial Plan/Budget Process;
2. Evaluate previous goals and work programs. Determine which goals and programs were
accomplished and can be deleted, or which ones are no longer needed;
3. Determine which goals and/or programs have not been completed and should be carried
forward;
4. Identify new goals or programs for possible inclusion in the work program;
5. Prioritize the goals and programs, based on the Architectural Review Commission’s adopted
goals and General Plan goals, community needs and input, opportunities, or special or urgent
conditions; and
6. Identify activities which may require additional resources to accomplish. This may include
references to possible community partnerships or outside funding sources.
The Commission will establish goals for the next two years and identify three to five key tasks or
programs it intends to complete in the period. The Commission should discuss how these goals
and activities relate to important Council goals and at the same time, consider the fiscal context
for the goal-setting process, including resources needed to accomplish the task.
ARC3b - 2
Page 3 2015-2017 Budget Goal Setting –Architectural Review Commission
What’s Next?
Advisory body goal recommendations are due by November 18, 2014. All advisory bodies will
receive a consolidated listing of all recommended advisory body goals by November 21, 2014.
This provides an opportunity to review what other advisory bodies see as high community
priorities. It is also an opportunity to revise goals accordingly if the Commission so chooses.
Final changes are due by December 15, 2014. The Council will receive the final report with all
advisory body recommendations before they begin the goal-setting process in January 2015.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Budget Process Brief
Attachment 2: 2013-15 ARC Budget Goals with status updates
ARC3b - 3
ADVISORY BODIES, GOAL-SETTING & THE BUDGET PROCESS
PURPOSE OF THE CITY’S BUDGET
The City has adopted a number of long term goals
and plans –General Plan, Water and Sewer Master
Plans, Source Reduction, Recycling & Hazardous
Materials Plans, Pavement Management Plan, Short
Range Transit Plan, Downtown Access and Parking
Plan, Waterways Management Plan, Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program, Bicycle Plan, Public
Art Policy, Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s
Center and Facilities Master Plan.
The Financial Plan is the key tool for
programming implementation of these goals, plans
and policies by allocating the resources necessary
to do so.
This requires a budget process that:
Clearly sets major City goals and other
important objectives.
Establishes reasonable timeframes and
organizational responsibility for achieving them.
Allocates resources for programs and projects.
FINANCIAL PLAN FEATURES
Goal-Driven
Policy-Based
Multi-Year
Automated, Rigorous, Technically Sound
COUNCIL GOAL-SETTING
First Step in the Budget Process. Linking goals
with resources requires a budget process that
identifies key objectives at the very beginning of the
process. Setting goals and priorities should drive the
budget process, not follow it.
PROCESS FOR 2015-17
Setting the Stage: November 13, 2014.Council
Workshop to Review the status of the General Plan
programs, current Major City Goals, long-term
Capital Improvement Plan, current CIP projects, and
the City’s general fiscal condition and outlook.
Budget Foundation: December 16, 2014. Finalize
plans for the goal-setting process and the
Community Forum, review fiscal policies, review
financial results for 2013-14 and general fiscal
outlook, including General Fund Five-Year Fiscal
Forecast.
Community Forum: January 13, 2015 Consider
candidate goals from Council advisory bodies,
community groups and interested individuals.
Council Goal-Setting Workshop: January 24,
2015.Discuss candidate goals presented at January
13 workshop; discuss Council member goals; and
prioritize and set major City goals for 2015-17.
Major City Goal Work Programs: April 14, 2015.
Conceptually approve detailed work programs for
major City goals and set strategic budget direction
for 2015-17.
ADVISORY BODY ROLE
By providing the Council with their goal
recommendations, advisory bodies play a very
important part in this process. For example,
virtually all of the advisory body recommendations
received as part of this process two years ago were
included in some way in the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
Council goals, by their nature, tend to be broader in
scope than those developed by advisory bodies. In
your recommendations to the Council, please
consider what you believe would be appropriate City
goals, both from the perspective of your advisory
body’s purpose, as well as any perceived
community-wide concerns and needs.
Council advisory body goals are due on November
18, 2014. Advisory bodies will receive a
consolidated listing of all recommended advisory
body goals on November 21, 2014. This provides
advisory bodies with an opportunity to review what
other advisory bodies see as high community
priorities; and while not required, it is also an
opportunity to revise goals in light of these if they
want to do so. Changes in goals, if any, are due on
December 15, 2014. The Council will receive the
final report with all advisory body recommendations
before they begin the goal-setting process in January
2015.
Attachment 1
ARC3b - 4
2013-2015 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Budget Goals
(December 3, 2012):
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) requests Council consideration of the
following budget goals in priority order:
1.Downtown Concept Plan:
Update and further expand the Downtown Concept Plan with focus on the
following:
a. Enlarge and improve Mission Plaza to the Broad Street dogleg.
b. Extend and improve facilities along the downtown creek-walk.
c. Implement pedestrian plaza in front of Government Center on Monterey Street.
Status Update:In 2013, the City applied for funding from the National
Endowment for the Arts, but was unsuccessful in obtaining an “Our Town” grant.
The grant was for a needs analysis for the area surrounding Mission Plaza.
However, the Council authorized $100,000 for a Mission Plaza Master Plan as part
of the 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget review. The project is scheduled to kick-off in late
2014.
2.Gateway Projects:
Implement three previously-identified City gateway improvements.
Status Update: The Citywide way-finding project included a concept of the arch
entry feature over Marsh Street that is also shown on the Conceptual Physical for
the City’s Center. The entry sign along Highway 1 near the entry to Cal Poly
recently received funding approval from the City Council and will be implemented
by SLOCOG.
3.Alternative Transportation Incentives:
Encourage using in-lieu parking fees and other transportation revenue sources for
the development of bicycle circulation and improvements and encourage the
development of spaces in conventional parking lots and structures to
accommodate scooters and other alternative transportation vehicles.
Status Update:
Railroad Safety Trail (Taft to Pepper) - An on-street, two-way path (bicycle track) is
under design for Winter 2015 construction. This alternative is under jurisdiction of
the City and Caltrans and will allow use of existing grant funds. The on-street
project will be followed by the construction of a bridge at Phillips (an additional
Attachment 2
ARC3b - 5
2013-15 Draft ARC Budget Goals
Page 2
phase of the project) to assist in connecting cyclists to the southern portion of the
Railroad Trail. This bridging of the UPRR right of way will require California PUC
approval but in essence reestablished the prior Phillips bridge that existed in this
location for years.
Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail (Octagon Barn Connection) – Planning for this
segment is substantially complete and has been reviewed by City BAC and PC
along with the County’s P&R Commission, Bicycle Advisory Committee and
County Trail Committee. However, adjacent property owners have requested
additional environmental review at this time (prior to Council consideration) and
staff is reviewing how best to address this concern prior to final public hearing on
route alternatives.
4.Downtown Beautification & Maintenance:
a. Provide funding for ongoing maintenance activities like shrub and flower
planting in landscaped areas and the steam cleaning of sidewalks to improve
the appearance of the downtown.
b. Expand the uniform streetscape improvements to other areas.
Why It’s Important
a. Improves citizens’ enjoyment of community.
b. Provides a diversity of experiences.
c. Promotes economic distribution throughout the downtown core.
d. Makes downtown an attractive environment to encourage mixed-use
developments.
How to Make it Happen
a. Encourage public-private partnerships with the Downtown Association and
individual businesses to take on the responsibility of downtown maintenance.
b. Emphasize low-cost improvements over costly capital projects.
Status Update: On November 18, 2014, the City Council will be approving the
plans and specifications for new improvements for a one block stretch of Higuera
between Garden and Broad. This will be a continuation of the 2012 project that
included improvements along Higuera Street between Morro and Garden Street.
New Improvements include Mission sidewalk, trash cans, tree grates, signal and
street light pole painting and sign pole upgrades. Project also included
underground conduit and pull boxes to facilitate the Downtown Associations tree
lighting project.. The new trash & recycling receptacles will be added as new
projects move forward and as funding becomes available.
Nine prototype vehicular and pedestrian directional signs were installed in the
spring of 2014 in the downtown core consistent with the wayfinding program that
the ARC approved. Additional signage will be installed in the spring of 2015. Some
funding for new signage has already been allocated.
Attachment 2
ARC3b - 6
2013-15 Draft ARC Budget Goals
Page 3
CIP requests are being prepared for additional pedestrian lighting, downtown
sidewalk repairs and tree replacement. Where trees are replaced and damaged
sidewalks repaired, new grates in Mission Sidewalk will be installed.
Funding for ongoing maintenance is part of the Parking operations for the parking
lot planting areas, and Street Maintenance for sidewalk scrubbing. Trash cans that
are no longer usable will be replaced with the new standard.
Attachment 2
ARC3b - 7
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
October 20, 2014
ROLL CALL:
Present:Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
and Vice-Chair Greg Wynn
Absent:Commissioner Suzan Ehdaie and Chairperson Michelle McCovey-Good
Staff:Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Assistant
Planner Walter Oetzell, Natural Resources Manager Robert Hill, and
Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. 1845 Monterey was moved to be the first
hearing.
MINUTES:
The minutes of October 6, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.1845 Monterey Street. ARC 143-13; Continued design review of a new 102-unit
multi-story hotel building with adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact; C-T-S zone; West Coast Asset Management, applicant.
(Marcus Carloni)
Associate Planner Carloni presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the
Draft Resolution which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
George Garcia, project representative, provided an overview of the responses to the
directional items that the ARC provided at their meeting of September 15, 2014. He
noted that the applicant agreed with the additional noise conditions 10-14. He further
explained the findings of the lighting photometric study and how light would be
contained on the site at acceptable levels. He mentioned that the existing fence at the
edge of the surface parking spaces would be reinforced to further attenuate sound.
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 2
David Dubbink, project noise consultant, explained the methodology used in the
acoustic report and indicated that the project complies with the City’s noise standards.
In response to a question from one of the commissioners he discussed the effects of the
site’s topography on noise contours.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bob Lucas, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that he felt the project was diverted to
the Commission twice at the behest of the applicant even though the Planning
Commission has not rendered a decision on the appeal of the use permit, which he felt
is not the typical process. He noted that speakers from the neighborhood will refer to
the City's principles governing size, mass, fit, continuity, and other issues; and to a
similar project proposed for this site five years ago. He added that Ordinance 1130 has
a checklist of requirements that he felt have not been met.
Hana Novak, San Luis Drive neighborhood, compared this project to a project
conceptually reviewed by the ARC in 2009 for a Hyatt Hotel. Referring to specific
sections of the General Plan that she stated have been overlooked, she concluded that
this project is too massive and felt it towered above adjacent residential properties with
views into backyards. She added that the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood
will not be protected and the contemporary design does not complement the area.
Ben Griffin, San Luis Drive neighborhood, referred to specific sections of the General
Plan and the Community Design Guidelines of which he felt the project does not
comply. He felt the project has a negative impact that will reduce the sense of enclave
and property values. He stated that the ten existing parking spaces on the lower
parking level are within the creek area. He urged the Commission to keep the City
distinctive and asserted that this project belongs in a city like Los Angeles or New York.
He added that the surrounding hotels are small in scale and that storm runoff from this
project could cause problems.
Sally Equinoa, San Luis Drive neighborhood, felt the project is not consistent with
specific sections of the Community Design Guidelines, such as 1.5 Community Design
Context, 2.1 Site Design and 3.1.A Overall Design Objectives for Commercial Projects.
She fel there were issues with the landscaping; modern design; and the form and mass,
which she referred to as not on a human scale and much larger than nearby commercial
buildings.
Richard Equinoa, San Luis Drive neighborhood, continued the neighborhood
presentation by citing further sections of City documents. He objected to the form and
mass of the project and noted that the hotel is not only taller than the homes, but sits on
land that is elevated above the homes which results in an invasion of privacy. He
added that the ten parking spaces on the lower level are not consistent with City codes
and there are issues with the transition between this commercial project and this
residential neighborhood.
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 3
Angela Soll, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that the proposed hotel is too big and
felt it violates the Community Design Guidelines because it is not compatible with the
neighborhood surroundings. She noted that the applicant did not point out the lack of
continuity in size and character between this hotel and the surrounding hotels. She
presented illustrations of the fronts of all nearby hotels and pointed out that the design
and colors of the hotel contrasts with the other hotels in the neighborhood. She noted
that a three-dimensional model would be very helpful. She supported consideration of
the small town scale of the City and felt the developers to be good neighbors and
downsize this project so that it is in proportion with the other businesses in the area.
Gene Goldschmidt, San Luis Drive neighborhood, quoted from Ordinance 1130. He
gave the example of a wedding or victory celebration held at the proposed hotel and
noted the multiplier effect of celebration noises from balconies or rooms at the same
time. He added that controlling the noise via reminders to guests to quiet down is after
the noise has already disturbed the neighborhood. He felt the worst problem is the
basement level, which is completely open, allowing all sounds and fumes to exit toward
the creek and he did not see any plans offered to attenuate the sound.
Carson Britz, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that 24 of the 27 rooms facing the
creek have balconies, but a much smaller percentage of the other rooms have them. He
stated that he surveyed hotels in Hawaii, asking about the size of their balconies, and
found that few were over five feet deep, which means that the balconies on this
proposed hotel have not really been minimized. He asked for compliance with
Ordinance 1130.
Hilliard Wood, San Luis Drive neighborhood, felt that the present design presents
significant potential as a disruptive source of sound projected across his neighborhood.
He noted that forecasting the acoustic profile of a proposed structure is both art and
science and he challenged the methodology used for the acoustic analysis. He added
that no one can be certain until it is too late and the risk is not worth the price of what
could be a significant irritant between the neighborhood and the hotel management for
many years. He requested a waiver of the ten additional parking spaces and closure of
the basement parking on the creek side. He showed PowerPoint slides which illustrated
his points and compared the lower level parking garage to a speaker enclosure. He
provided digital copies for staff to keep on file.
Steve Hansen, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that the added vehicle trips, fumes,
noise, and light from the proposed hotel could disrupt the biorhythms of the flora and
fauna in the creek, some of which are rare and threatened species. He added that a
viable creek is more important than the hotel development. He noted that the City got it
right in 1989 when they passed Ordinance 1130.
Bob Tedone, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that he lives in a nearly ideal
neighborhood with mostly owner-occupied homes built in the 1940s and 1950s that is
within easy walking distance of downtown. He noted that there is pride of ownership
and many homes have been remodeled and that the neighborhood does not have the
student problems that have degraded many other areas. He added that there is a
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 4
diverse economic mix and a local association with many social events, and that many
residents have paid a premium to live there. He felt that if this project is allowed, the
neighborhood will take a big step away from what it is now.
Wendy Lucas, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that she is Northern Chumash.
She felt that the parking structure magnifies sounds with openings facing the creek and
the existing ten parking spaces encroach upon the 20-foot creek setback. She
disagreed with the conclusions of the sound study. She noted concerns with lighting
facing the creek and felt a final landscape plan needed to be provided. She felt the
project had stormwater runoff issues and questioned why the Natural Resources
Manager and City Biologist signed off on this project. She felt the project does not
comply with Ordinance 1130 and questioned why there is no reference in the mitigated
negative declaration about the state-required tribal consultation during excavation. She
added that she questions the process and the attitude that allows this project to be
pushed through without all the details covered.
Patrice Rowe, SLO, architectural historian, felt the project is not compatible with the
Monday Club, designed by Julia Morgan, because of its height and mass. She
supported further review so this development is in compliance with City codes and
ordinances.
Cindy Griffin, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that reducing balcony size and
scaling down the size of the hotel could mitigate the noise and privacy issues for
neighbors.
Ann Hansen, San Luis Drive neighborhood, asked if the noise and light standards are
pertinent to nonhuman residents of the creek. She stated that doing noise level studies
when the closest areas to the creek are empty could skew the results. She added that,
even if hotel staff can enforce visitor compliance about noise, the neighbors will already
have been disturbed. She suggested going to Alta Vista neighborhood where you can
hear the bowl effect when music is playing.
Victoria Kastner, architectural historian, stated that the Monday Club could be under
consideration for addition to the National Register of Historic Places and, therefore Julia
Morgan is important to the City. She supported the comments made by Patrice Rowe.
Dave Garth, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that his primary job as CEO of the
local Chamber of Commerce for 39 years was to make sure that city guidelines were
consistent with good business and, although there was increasing concern about the
environment, good business was always preserved. He stated that this hotel does not
follow the guidelines. He added that the word “minimize” is really pretty clear and noise
is one of his biggest concerns. He noted that he gets noise now in his location along
the creek. He stated that City requirements are very specific about noise sources
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and the hotel should have to be as consistent as students
are required to be about noise.
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 5
Paula Carr, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated she is an architectural historian, and
that noise drove her from one City neighborhood. She felt that until you have measured
alcohol-infused noise, which is random and punctuated by only brief moments of sanity,
you do not have measured noise. She noted that all service trucks create noise
because they come to the back of commercial properties. She stated that she wants to
echo Victoria Kastner’s remarks about the importance of Julia Morgan to the
community. She stressed the need to follow CEQA guidelines for all properties eligible
for,listed, or having potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Jill Urquhart, Morro Bay resident, stated she is a proponent for the Monday Club which
sets the historic character of the neighborhood. She added that the proposed project is
out-of-scale.
Marcia Nelson, SLO, docent at Hearst Castle and the Jack House, stated that it should
be considered that Julia Morgan has provided a legacy for women, now and in the
future. She described Morgan's life of obstacles and achievements.
Nancy Lewis, San Luis Drive neighborhood, stated that she would invite David Dubbink,
the noise consultant, to her house to do a noise survey on her porch between 10 p.m.
and 12 a.m. on any Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday to listen to the loud
noise from Pappy MacGregor’s. She noted that she has a strong feeling that this hotel
will be way too big for the neighborhood.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Andreen stated that she likes this hotel and its beautiful design, but wanted to
hear the opinions of the other Commissioners. She noted that she has been a
traditionalist most of her life, but wants to attract more young people to the City who
have a different aesthetic. . She noted that the City is a tourist community and it is not
wise to turn down a good hotel which could be replaced with a poorly designed box.
She stated she is open to discussing things that would minimize the views for San Luis
Drive and minimize the openings on the creek side.
Commr. Root noted that a property like this is not going to sit undeveloped and the
community is evolving, which is natural and wonderful. He stated he is sympathetic to
all the comments from neighbors, but with this project being so far within the
requirements and setbacks, it is difficult to say it should not be allowed. He added that
he understands the concerns about the massing, but that the architectural responses
have been really good and it is not a box. He noted that from an architectural
standpoint, it is good to have that level of articulation on the creek side, and, while there
may be some tweaking that can be done, the applicant has gone a long way toward
addressing concerns. He stated he is in favor of the project.
Commr. Curtis stated that, if asked to make a decision tonight, he would vote no
because he finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate and the project
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 6
inconsistent with Ordinance 1130, which was designed to give an extra level of comfort
and protection for this neighborhood. He added that he has a sense that the ten
existing parking spaces are going to be totally reconstructed, extending the life of a non-
conforming condition which should ultimately be terminated because the ordinance
states that there will be no new parking there. He stated the open parking garage level
is just as significant as the balconies and the ordinance requires that parking be located
in the interior of the project.
He noted that the project is not consistent with the design guidelines and he disagrees
with staff that some of the issues are only the purview of the Planning Commission
because there are design guidelines for things like drainage and creeks so he felt the
Commission has broad discretion about these design features. He added that, although
the City uses Leq as a standard for noise, he prefers using Lmax for noise analysis
because he felt Leq camouflages the short noises that occur, and, given that the
analysis of noise is an art, he is skeptical that there will not be noise that impacts the
neighborhood. He noted that a more significant time for analysis might be nine or ten at
night.
He added that the scale and mass of the building is out of keeping with the immediate
neighborhood and is inappropriate for the site and doubly so when considering the
Monday Club. He stated that the massing, which is too large on the back of the
property, has the appearance of a five-story building and, since the houses are even
lower, it is going to be a very massive looking building with lights from people coming to
park. He noted that the project does not adequately consider the creek, screening for
noise, visual impacts, and privacy. He stated he has questions about the extent of
grading and whether that will be compatible with the creek side resources, and about
the drainage which is being referred to another stage even though there are design
guidelines for this.
Commr. Nemcik stated that she agrees with Commr. Root but knows there are a lot of
concerns, which are important. She noted that the architect has addressed a lot of the
concerns. She supported the project.
Commr. Wynn stated that he supports the project from a design standpoint and he is
comfortable with the setback and height. He noted that every rule thrown at the
applicants has been addressed positively. He added that he would support the project if
a condition could be added to remove the ten existing surface parking spaces at the
eastern edge of the site and enclose the lower parking level which would provide sound
and headlight mitigation. He concluded by stating that it is a nicely designed project.
Commr. Root stated that he wants to address the walls on the ramp accessing the lower
parking area to make sure there is headlight and sound screening.
Associate Planner Carloni stated that Condition 13, second sentence, addresses
Commr. Root’s concern and added that the Commission could condition the specific
appearance of the wall.
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 7
Commr. Wynn suggested wording to say the finish of the wall will be reviewed by staff.
Commr. Andreen stated that the more she hears residents talk, the less clear the issue
becomes and that she is trying to consider the big picture but is a little worried about the
height, although she does not hear other commissioners concerned about the height
except Commr. Curtis.
Commr. Wynn stated that he expects this project will be appealed either way and that
what the Commission can do is give the best information possible about the
deliberations, having heard and responded to the testimony. He added that he strongly
favors the Planning Commission be a part of that consideration so that the City Council
can make an informed decision.
The commissioners discussed adding a new condition for the Planning Commission to
review further enclosure of the lower parking area.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Nemcik to adopt the Draft
Resolution which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions with
the following additions:
1. Add references to final “design” approval in both the opening paragraph of
Section 1 (Findings) & Section 3 (Action).
2. Add new condition which reads: “The applicant shall consider the elimination of
the 10 existing surface spaces at the eastern edge of the property in an effort to
fully enclose the lower level of the parking garage subject to review of the
Planning Commission.”
AYES:Commrs. Wynn, Nemcik, Andreen, and Root
NOES:Commr. Curtis
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commrs. Ehdaie and McCovey-Good
The motion passed on a 4:1 vote.
On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Root, the ARC agreed to continue
the meeting past 9:00 p.m.
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, Root, and Wynn
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commrs.Ehdaie and McCovey-Good
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 8
2.2885 S. Higuera Street.ARC 35-14; Review of exterior changes and additions to a
warehouse building, including a determination that the project is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act as an infill project (CEQA
Guidelines §15332): The project includes conversion and expansion of an existing
warehouse to a 35,285-square foot office building by the installation of a second
floor within the building shell, and development of parking areas with 143 parking
spaces; C-S-S zone; Mike Kyle, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the
Draft Resolution, approving the application, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
Warren Hamrick, project representative, noted that the project had been in the planning
stages for some time and that it would be LEED-Silver-NC, which would include a trip
reduction program. He acknowledged that the proposed parking exceeded
requirements, but that Caltrans maintains a fleet of vehicles at the site.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Tauria Linala, SLO, representing the Villa Fontana residents, supported staff’s
suggestion that the five parking spaces on the south side of the project closest to Villa
Fontana be removed because of their proximity to several of the residences. She
supported retaining the requirements for landscaping and pedestrian walkways in the
parking lot. She stated that Villa Fontana owns the fence on the south side of the
project and proposed that a green sound wall be built by the applicant to protect that
fence and provide some noise protection to residences. She noted that the three-acre
parking lot is a good place for underground water storage. She asked if the parking lot
would be gated due to the potential for nighttime partying. She noted the last sentence
of Condition #34 needs revision because there are no mutual agreements with this
landowner.She stated that it is important to keep the provision stating that the of the
project owners would be responsible for constructing a new dedicated left-turn lane into
Villa Fontana if traffic generated by the project and impacting left-turns into Villa
Fontana results in accidents. She noted that the residents had been successful in
limiting the truck traffic at the project site over the last three years when it was a winery
and now they have to start over. She stated that the calculation for vehicle traffic needs
to include lunchtime trips and the hillside should be hydro-seeded with native grasses
that complement the open space.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Wynn supported moving three to five parking spaces away from the property
line with Villa Fontana. He stated he would rather write a condition to have staff work
on the issue of a parallel fence.
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 9
Senior Planner Ricci stated that she assumes the neighbors want a sound attenuation
wall, six feet tall, fairly thick, probably cement block.
Commr. Wynn noted that sound would be reflected off of a cement block wall and then
off the building and back to the residences.
Commr. Root suggested that the sound wall go to the head of the ramp where it turns
away from the property line. He agreed that this concern should be worked out at the
staff level.
Commr. Wynn stated that this would result in sound attenuation for the lowest two
residences.
Commr. Curtis supported a longer wall to mitigate noise and to protect the Villa Fontana
fence from damage by vehicles.
Commr. Andreen agreed with Commr. Curtis.
Commr. Wynn asked staff to also consider the impact of the 20 or more CalTrans fleet
vehicles.
Commr. Root expressed concern about the grading.
Commr. Nemcik suggested adding something about using native seeding on cut slopes;
Vice Chair Wynn suggested adding reference to “hydro-seeding with native grasses” to
Condition 11.
Senior Planner Ricci summarized the discussion and changes to the conditions.
Vice-Chair Wynn reopened public comment.
Tauria Linala, SLO, representing the Villa Fontana residents, stated, in support of the
sound wall, that the C-S-S overlay zone is designed to give first priority to protection of
the residential neighborhood.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Root, seconded by Commr. Andreen to adopt the Draft
Resolution, approving the application, based on findings and subject to conditions,
including the following:
1. Add the following sentence to the end of Condition # 8: “Fleet vehicles shall be
located on-site to minimize impacts to the neighborhood.”
2. Modify Condition # 9 to read: “Plans submitted for construction permits shall
incorporate improvements to enhance pedestrian connections throughout the
parking lot as feasible.”
3. Add the reference to Condition # 11 “with native grasses” to the hydro-seed mix
used on cut slopes.
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 10
4. Add a new condition, which reads: “Given the site’s Service-Commercial with
the Special Consideration overlay (C-S-S) zoning to address neighborhood
compatibility, the applicant shall work with staff to mitigate noise along the
shared driveway with Villa Fontana.”
5. Delete the last sentence of Condition 34 that reads: “Any common storage
areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner's/Property Owner's Association
and shall be included in the CCR's or other property maintenance agreement
accordingly.”
AYES:Commrs. Root, Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, and Wynn
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commrs.Ehdaie and McCovey-Good
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
3.467 Hill Street.ARC 140-14; Review of the remodel of and addition to an existing
commercial building to accommodate a residential care facility, including a request
for a Variance to allow a second-story sunroom above the ground floor of the
existing building with a 2-foot street yard, and a fence height exception to allow up
to a 10-foot tall combination retaining wall and fence, including a categorical
exemption from CEQA (infill project); R-1 zone; Tim Ronda, applicant (Pam Ricci)
Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft
Resolution which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
Tim Ronda, project applicant, explained the site’s history and past land uses. He
indicated that he had previously met with the neighbors and that parking was raised as
a concern. He noted that the project will be a conforming use and good neighbor; but
acknowledged that there will be more activity at the site since it has been underutilized
for many years.
Arpad Soo, potential business operator, spoke about other residential care facilities he
manages. He noted that residents do not own cars, and that there would be 4-5
workers at the facility during the day, and two at night. He noted that one of the staff
does the cooking and that workers often are dropped off at the site, rather than drive
their own cars. He also mentioned that 12-hour shifts reduce the number of employees
needed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
John Holloman, SLO, stated that this is a building that has outlived its usefulness, and
that while the applicant has done a magnificent job on the design, it does not tackle the
major problem which is that the seven parking spaces is not sufficient for the demand.
He questioned the sufficiency of staff mentioned to t accommodate the use. He stated
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 11
that people will die in this facility and ambulances will arrive frequently, which means the
project presents a different feel than a neighborhood.
Craig H. Russell, SLO, agreed with Mr. Holloman. He added that students who now
use this parking lot will be displaced and park right in front on the street. He stated that
delivery truck traffic will be a common occurrence and asked where they will stop. He
stated that the capacity of the facility needs to be scaled back to twelve residents.
James Eason, SLO, stated he is concerned about parking and that the overflow will be
in front of this building or in front of his house. He added that the project is ridiculously
out-of-scale and he is concerned that the size is pushing the bounds for a building that
is too close to the street and too tall.
Janet Santacqua, SLO, stated that she supports residential facilities but parking is a
problem here and she does not see how five employees can take care of 19 people and
fix the food and do the cleaning. She noted that her other concern is noise and she
foresees ambulances in the night and is worried about the safety of the many small
children in the area.
John Schutz, SLO, stated he is concerned about the comings and goings of the workers
and asked if they will work 12-hour shifts, how the shift changes will work, and how
many times they will be driving in and out of parking lot next to his bedroom. He also
expressed concern about the type and frequency of deliveries and whether residents
will be allowed to have pets. He noted that he also has concerns about the parking.
Rod Keif, SLO, stated he lives on Mountain View and thinks the best thing that could
happen is for someone to buy this building and tear it down. He asserted that the
architects are proposing to put lipstick on a pig.
Cyrus Ramezani, stated that his home was new when he bought it but it went unsold for
a long time due to parking issues on the street when KSBY occupied this building. He
stated that the project is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood which
has residents of all ages and the building is odd-looking. He noted that the size of the
garbage cans speaks to the amount of food that will be driven in and out. He added
that currently students have been using this parking lot.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Curtis stated that it is unfortunate that there was not an administrative use
permit required to deal with some of the neighbors' issues. He added that he has
concerns regarding parking and the only way to address that is to reduce the number of
occupants, but he is not sure that is feasible. He noted that the exterior modifications
create a very satisfactory building in comparison to what is there now and it is
unfortunate parking cannot be expanded. He stated he has no concerns with the
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 12
architecture but thinks that it is a little too much for the lot although that is not easily
addressed through the design standards.
Commr. Root stated he is sensitive to the neighborhood parking issue but the applicant
has exceeded the parking requirements by 40% and that is what binds the Commission.
He noted that the design does not increase the footprint and the architecture is a
definite improvement. He added that, from a socioeconomic standpoint, this facility is
sorely needed and he is in favor of it.
Commr. Nemcik stated that she is in favor of the project and that it is beautiful and so
much better than what is there now. She did note that she once lived across the street
from an assisted living facility, and there were fire trucks there every week.
Commr. Andreen stated that she walks in this area and has not noticed parking
problems on this street during the day. She noted that there are only two staff persons
at night which may be helpful. She added that this is a needed facility for our
community and is a conforming use so she does not see a reason to deny this. She
stated that she is taking the applicant's assertion that there will be only five employees
at face value.
Commr. Wynn stated he will approve the project but would like a condition that
incentivizes the applicant to do something like buy monthly bus passes for employees
even though the project meets the parking requirements.
Commr. Curtis asked if there could be a condition stating that the residents are not
allowed to have their own vehicles.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that staff is reluctant to do that since there is not a use
permit being approved but that there could be a condition that encourages the applicant
to prepare a management plan to document how the parking will meet their needs. She
noted that zoning regulations are set up to encourage this kind of use because of the
need for this type of facility.
The applicant stated that the employees work 12-hour shifts, 7 to 7 and he commits to
continue that schedule to reduce traffic and parking but noted that he pays overtime for
that schedule.
Commr. Wynn agreed that there is a need for this type of facility and he is glad to have
them in residential zones to reduce the stigma of dying.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Root to adopt the Draft
Resolution which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
Draft ARC Minutes
October 20, 2014
Page 13
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Root, Curtis, Nemcik, and Wynn
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commrs.Ehdaie and McCovey-Good
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4.Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast by Senior Planner Ricci
x November 3, 2014--budget goals for next fiscal cycle, conceptual review of
the Long-Bonetti Ranch, a communication monopine on Morrison
x November 17, 2014--car wash at the old Denny’s on Calle Joaquin,
redevelopment of the Shell station at Santa Rosa and Monterey.
x December 1, 2014--new medical office building at French Hospital, four
houses on Grand, conceptual review for a new mixed use building on
Higuera, conceptual review for 1299 Orcutt.
5.Commission:Given the late hour, there were no specific communications to
report.
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting adjourned at 10:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary