HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-14
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
and CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo
AGENDA
December 15, 2014 Monday 4:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: ARC Commissioners: Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie,
Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson
Michelle McCovey-Good
CHC Committee Members: Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Hugh Platt,
Patti Taylor, Victoria Wood, Vice-Chair Jamie Hill, and Chair Bob
Pavlik
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of December 1, 2014, ARC meeting. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the ARC Commission/Cultural
Heritage Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should
come forward and state their name and address. 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.
ARC & CHC Joint Meeting Agenda
Page 2
Joint ARC/CHC Hearing:
1. 1327 Osos Street. ARC 96-13; Review of revised plans for a mixed-use project
with nine (9) condominium units and 8,000 square feet of office space in the Old
Town Historic District; R-3-H, O-H zones; Mission Medical, LLC, applicant. (Pam
Ricci)
ARC Regular Agenda Item:
2. 1911 Johnson Avenue. ARCH-0240-2014; Review of plans to construct a new
four-story medical office building including a two-level parking garage consistent
with the approved Master Plan for the French Hospital Medical Center site, a
building height variance, and reaffirmation of a previously-approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; O-S zone; SLOPHA, applicant.
(Pam Ricci)
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
a. Proclamation honoring Senior Planner Pam Ricci’s years of service (Michelle
McCovey-Good)
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Pam Ricci
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE (CHC) AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC) AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of revised plans for a mixed use project known as Pacific Courtyards with
8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential units located on three properties between
Osos and Morro Streets that are currently used as a parking lot in the Old Town Historic District.
PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1321 & 1327 Osos St. BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7168 E-mail: pricci@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 96-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
CHC RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which recommends
that the Architectural Review Commission recommend to the City Council that they grant final
design approval to the project, based on findings.
ARC RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 2) which recommends
that the City Council grant final design approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Mission Medical LLC
Representative Oasis Assoc., Carol Florence
Zoning Office (O-H) & Medium-High
Density Residential (R-3-H)
(historical preservation overlay
zone)
General Plan Office & Medium-High Density
Residential
Site Area
23,600 square feet (0.54 acre)
Environmental
Status
The City Council approved an
Addendum to the adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration
on June 10, 2014.
SUMMARY
On June 25, 2013, the applicant submitted an application to the City for a General Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (to create both commercial and residential
condominiums), and architectural review, to allow the development of a new mixed use project.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2014
Item Number: 1
Site
Old Town
Historic
District
Site
ARC1 - 1
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Joint ARC and CHC Hearing – December 15, 2014
Page 2
The proposed mixed use project includes 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential
units on an approximately half-acre site located near the downtown core between Osos and
Morro Streets that is currently used as a parking lot.
The tentative map and rezoning were relatively non-controversial and were approved by the City
Council on June 10, 2014. The key issue with the project has been its proposed contemporary
architectural style given its location in the Old Town Historic District, and associated concerns
of that style related to scale, massing, and architectural detailing. This issue was deliberated at
two CHC meetings and three ARC meetings, and culminated with two appeals of the ARC’s
final approval of the design at the City Council on November 10, 2014 (Attachments 5, 6, & 7).
Through City Council Resolution No. 10576 (2014 Series), the Council upheld the two separate
appeals and denied without prejudice the final design of the project (Attachment 8). The denial
without prejudice enables the applicant to resubmit plans within a year of the Council’s action to
deny the project design. The Council further directed that any resubmitted project be considered
by both the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission at a joint public
hearing. The Council also required that the final design approval return to them for final action.
1.0 PURVIEW
CHC: The CHC’s role is to review the project and determine how well the project design fits
within the Old Town Historic District, focusing on compatibility with nearby structures. The
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and the General Plan
should guide the CHC’s deliberations and action.
ARC: The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines (CDG). The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design
Guidelines, and the General Plan should guide the ARC’s deliberations and action.
2.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
2.1 Policy Guidance
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG):
The Historic Preservation Program provides guidelines for ensuring architecturally compatible
development within historic districts, and adjacent to historically designated structures. The
Seventh Day Adventist Church on the adjacent property at 1301 Osos Street is a Master List
property located just outside the historic district. All of the residential and office properties to
the south of the site are in the historic district and are Contributing properties, including the
large, stucco-clad Rio Bravo apartments at the corner of Osos and Pismo Streets. Following are
the adopted criteria from the HPPG which are most relevant to project development at this site in
the Old Town Historic District:
ARC1 - 2
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Joint ARC and CHC Hearing – December 15, 2014
Page 3
3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New structures in
historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s
prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks
of the district's historic structures, as described in Figures 2 and 3. New structures are not
required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new
building is historic.
3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for
architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with
applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in
Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public
views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically
designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the
prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district.
5.2.1 Old Town Historic District (Architectural Character). In keeping with its peak period
of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District has many examples of High
Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during the that time period that reflected
prosperity, power and discriminating taste. his included several style variations, such as
Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along the top of the
hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest structures
with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first home to
the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the
century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman
Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the
houses in this district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by
local builders and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The
shared first story porches along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design
feature linking buildings.
Community Design Guidelines (CDG):
1.4 Goals for Design Quality and Character.
A. Keep San Luis Obispo architecturally distinctive; don’t let it become “anywhere
USA.”
4. Design with consideration of the site context in terms of the best nearby examples
of massing, scale, and land uses when the site is located in a notable area of the city
(for example, Downtown, Old Town).
6. Require design excellence for infill redevelopment sites, especially in the downtown
area.
3.B.1. Architectural style. No particular architectural style or design theme is required
in the City nor can San Luis Obispo be defined by any particular architectural style. A
wide range of architectural characteristics adds to the City’s overall image. While
ARC1 - 3
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Joint ARC and CHC Hearing – December 15, 2014
Page 4
variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new projects with the
existing built environment should be a priority. The goal is to preserve not only the
historic flavor of the community but, equally important, its scale and ambiance.
2.2 Project Changes
While many of the project elevations will have limited off-site visibility, the two street elevations
facing Osos and Morro Streets will be highly visible. The focus of past project evaluations has
been on the appearance and detailing of these two elevations. In general, the basic site plan,
parking configuration, and podium style for the main building have not changed with the latest
project modifications. The revisions made to the current plans are again focused on the two
street elevations. The goal of the revisions is to create more traditional building styles to address
the primary concerns with the project, which was the appropriateness of the previous
contemporary architectural style in the context of the Old Town Historic District.
The applicant has provided a summary of the project changes (Attachment 3). The 8-4-14 and 9-
8-14 ARC reports are attached to this report for background information on the previously
reviewed project. These reports include a detailed project description, parking analysis, and
project review history.
Osos Street
The Osos Street elevation has been refined to have an Italianate style with the following features:
1) Cornices on building towers;
2) More traditional windows style with pre-cast lintels and sills;
3) Fascia elements with dentils;
4) Two additional balconies at the second level;
5) Brick veneer along with stucco;
6) Trim bands between the second and third floor levels; and
7) Revised colors including tan brick, and cream and gray stucco colors.
Figure 1. Osos Streetscape view
ARC1 - 4
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Joint ARC and CHC Hearing – December 15, 2014
Page 5
Staff’s Analysis: Consistent with the cited HPPG 5.2.1 guidance on architectural character, the
Italianate style is listed as an appropriate style for the Old Town District. The revised street
elevation has a scale, massing and detailing that respects and is compatible with adjacent historic
structures on either side, which is consistent with HPPG 3.2.1 & 3.2.2.
Morro Street
The Morro Street elevation has been modified to have a Craftsman style with the following
features:
1) Entry highlighted with a front porch with shed roof;
2) Second floor deck has a more open horizontal board railing design;
3) Grouped windows with divide lights at the top; and
4) Updated building colors.
Figure 2. Morro Streetscape View
Staff’s Analysis: Consistent with the cited HPPG 5.2.1 guidance on architectural character, the
Craftsman style is listed as an appropriate style for the Old Town District. The addition of the
front porch helps bring down the structure’s massing and better addresses the street to create a
more human scale. The shed roof feature of the porch was a specific directional item of the ARC
when they reviewed the project on September 8th.
Roof Decks
Many of the project units have roof deck areas that comprise a portion of the private open spaces
for residential units. The roof decks for the smaller building oriented toward Morro Street were
particularly scrutinized because of their proximity to adjacent bungalow structures.
The applicant has modified the proposals for the roof decks in the Morro building to pull the
footprints for the decks more toward the center of the roof away from adjacent properties rather
than having intervening planters along the edges.
ARC1 - 5
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Joint ARC and CHC Hearing – December 15, 2014
Page 6
Staff’s Analysis: The greater setback of decks responds to previous concerns with the deck areas
creating overlook and privacy issues. The planter boxes on the perimeter were eliminated
because of concerns that individual residents may not properly maintain them.
3.0 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There has been active participation by the public in the review of the project through both
testimony at various project hearings and written correspondences. Past meeting minutes have
been attached which provide a summary of the criticisms of previous designs.
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft ARC resolution.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Continue action to a date uncertain with direction on items to return in revised plans.
5.2. Deny the project based on inconsistency of the project design with the Community
Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Program because its massing and
architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town
Historic District.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft CHC Resolution
2. Draft ARC Resolution
3. Applicant’s summary of project changes
4. Reduced scale project plans
5. 9-8-14 ARC follow-up letter, resolution, minutes, & staff report without attachments
6. 8-4-14 ARC follow-up letter, minutes, & staff report without attachments
7. 6-23-14 CHC follow-up letter, resolution & minutes
8. City Council Resolution No. 10576 upholding appeals & denying final design
Distributed to CHC & ARC: 11” x 17” colored project plans
ARC1 - 6
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OF
A MIXED-USE PROJECT IN THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT WITH
9 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 8,050 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA,
R-3-H & O-H ZONES,
AT 1321 & 1327 OSOS STREET, ARC 96-13
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mission Medical LLC, filed an application on June 15,
2013, for review of the proposed mixed-use project in the Old Town Historic District; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a Joint Public Hearing along with the Architectural Review Commission in the
Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
December 15, 2014, for the purpose of reviewing revised plans for the mixed-use
project located at 1321 & 1327 Osos Street; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage
Committee makes the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because
its massing and architectural design is compatible with neighboring buildings in the
Old Town Historic District. This is because the exterior elevations have been
modified to complement the historic character of the Old Town and Downtown
Historic districts through the use of complementary design elements.
2. As designed, the project complements nearby residential and commercial structures
and does not detract from the historic elements on nearby historical structures.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council approved an Addendum
on June 10, 2014, which updates the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the
project previously approved by the City Council on August 18, 2008.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 7
Resolution No. [ ]
Page 2
Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend
approval of the proposed mixed-use project (ARC 96-13) to the Architectural Review
Commission.
On motion by , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of June, 2014.
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 8
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF REVISED PLANS FOR THE
PACIFIC COURTYARDS PROJECT CONTAINING 9 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS & 8,050 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND APPROVING A
10% SHARED PARKING REDUCTION AND AUTOMOBILE TRIP
REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1321 & 1327 OSOS STREET (ARC 96-13)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2013, for conceptual review of Planning
Application ARC 96-13, a mixed-use project with 9 dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office
floor area and continued the hearing with general direction to the applicant for project revisions;
and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on August 4, 2014, for the purpose of considering revised plans for final
approval and continued action with six directional items; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on September 8, 2014, and granted final design approval to the mixed-use
project; and
WHEREAS, adjacent neighbors Alice Davis and Stewart and Diane Jenkins filed
separate appeals of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on September 18, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
November 10, 2014, and upheld the appeals of the Architectural Review Commission’s action to
grant final design approval to the project, denying the final project design without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a joint public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, on December 15, 2014, with the Cultural Heritage Committee to
consider revised project plans; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered along with all evidence, including the recommendation provided by the Cultural
Heritage Committee, testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 9
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 2
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
recommendations by staff at said hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. As designed and conditioned by this architectural review approval, the building materials,
style, character, and form of the revised design of proposed structures promote the
architectural character, style, form, and materials of the existing historic district and
complements the character of the surrounding buildings and area consistent with the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
2. The revised project design is consistent with standards contained in the City’s Community
Design Guidelines, which encourage projects that are pedestrian-oriented, and have
proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures.
3. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 A.,
Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which is "... to
minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be
satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." Moreover, the project satisfies the requirement
for a shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060
B. because there are multiple uses that share common parking areas.
4. The project conforms to the general plan policies, which encourage mixed-use projects that
provide needed residential units close to the downtown core. The proposed project complies
with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 D., Automobile Trip Reduction, in
that it satisfies the intent of that section ".... to reduce the parking requirement for projects
implementing non-auto travel, particularly for commuting, when it can be demonstrated that
reduction of on-site parking will be safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding area
or cause a decline in quality of life." The applicant through their submitted trip reduction
plan and on-going commitment to rely on alternative transportation for commuting practices
has demonstrated that their provided automobile, bicycle and motorcycle parking will meet
the parking needs of their business.
5. This approval is consistent with the Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) land use
planning strategies designed to reduce dependence on vehicle travel, and it can be expected
that some trips will be consolidated for existing and proposed uses because of the range of
different uses at the site.
6. The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures on August 19,
2008. On June 10, 2014, the City Council approved an Addendum to document the revised
project description and eliminate no longer relevant mitigation measures.
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 10
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 3
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission recommends to the City
Council that they grant final design approval to revised plans for the mixed-use project (ARC 96-
13) with 9 dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office floor area, with incorporation of the
following conditions:
Conditions:
1. The project is subject to all of the pertinent conditions, code requirements and mitigation
measures approved through City Council Resolution No. 10531 (2014 Series) along with the
review of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to reconfigure the land use and
zoning boundaries within the overall site area and Tentative Tract Map to create both office
and residential condominiums.
2. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and
code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the
margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to
approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be
approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
3. The color board for the project buildings presented at the meeting was supported by the
Architectural Review Commission. Any modifications to the approved palette shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a
building permit. Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part
of working drawings.
4. All stucco and plastered surfaces shall have a smooth hand-finished appearance to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and not be a sprayed-on type of
application. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Plans shall clearly show the details of all windows and storefronts. Variegated, fritted
glazing shall be used for the window panes on the left-hand side of the Osos Street
elevation.
6. Plans shall clearly show details on all railings, including their width, color, and finish.
7. Plans submitted for a building permit clearly show how lockable private storage of 200
cubic feet for each unit is provided.
8. A specific sign program for the office component of the project shall be to the review and
approval of the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director
may approve the sign program if it is consistent with applicable sections of the sign
regulations and is in keeping with the character and context of the building. The Director
may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the project.
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 11
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 4
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
9. The locations of all wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building
elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall
complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a
graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut-sheets shall be separately
submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall
be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the
City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning
Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to
be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that “Lenses of exterior
wall-mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the
Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare.”
10. The applicant shall maximize planting around the P.G.&E. transformer cabinet and work
with P.G.&E. to explore the possibility of moving the transformer closer to the south
property line to the review of the Community Development Director.
11. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be
placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen
them. A line-of-sight diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be
adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
12. Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosure on the Morro Street side
of the project shall be included in working drawings for a building permit and shall be to the
review and approval of the Community Development and Utilities Departments. The
ultimate design shall be consistent with the Solid Waste Guidelines.
13. Final details for the trash room in the larger podium building shall be included in working
drawings to the review and approval of San Luis Garbage Company and the Community
Development and Utilities Departments. Plans shall show the planned path for the bin from
the designated trash room to the street and any needed frontage improvements such as a
ramp. Specifications for maintenance shall be required so that the pathway is routinely
cleaned after trash pick-ups.
14. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on
plans. The plan shall also include hardscape materials for walkways, patios, and terraces.
15. To provide compensatory planting for tree removals, the applicant shall submit a
comprehensive tree planting mitigation program which includes both on-site and off-site
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 12
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 5
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
planting locations to the approval of the City Arborist and Community Development
Director.
16. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan.
Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where
possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the
building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined
by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be
located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and,
if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and
configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and
Community Development Directors.
17. Decks and balconies within the project shall not be utilized for the storage needs of
individual units. However, outdoor patio furniture, potted plants and small barbecues may
be placed in these areas.
18. The applicant shall provide for the professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area
including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping in a first class condition.
19. Individual tenant spaces and the overall site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly
manner at all times. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary.
Fire
20. The applicant shall provide a means of building identification from the public road in which
each building is addressed.
21. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access.
22. An approved NFPA 13 system will be required for the commercial building (inclusive of
apartment), either a 13R or 13D system will be required for the residential component,
depending on final product, please designate a CBC occupancy (R2 or R3) on plans.
23. Fire Main and all associated control valves shall be installed per NFPA 24 Standards and
City Engineering standards. The Fire Department Connection shall be located within 40 feet
of Morro or Osos Street. Please show location of Backflow device and FDC on plans.
Housing
24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an affordability
agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo that the one 1-bedroom unit shall be deed-
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 13
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 6
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
restricted to very-low income households for a term of 55 years, which will be recorded
against the title of the property.
Transportation
25. The applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the approval
of the Public Works and Community Development Directors that includes supportable
programs that will reduce vehicle trips to the site.
26. The applicant shall submit a revised plan showing how long and short-term bicycle parking
shall be provided on site in accordance with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle
parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of
the destination as possible and located at least as conveniently as the most convenient
automobile parking space. Dimensioned locations and details of the short and long-term
bicycle parking shall be provided on the project’s construction plans including rack design,
location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers’ standards.
A minimum four foot wide path of travel shall be provided to all bicycle parking spaces.
Additional bicycle parking (above what is required) may be proposed on the project
frontages if adequate pedestrian circulation is maintained and they result in no line of sight
issues. Specific to this project, the plan shall show: 1) how complying bicycles parking will
be provided in the Morro Street garages given space restrictions; 2) how bicycle lockers will
accommodate two spaces without having to remove a bicycle; 3) one of the lockers for the
office component set aside the affordable flat.
Public Works
27. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the parking and driveway
standards. The plans shall show all space, bay, and aisle dimensions. Additional space
width may be required for spaces with obstructions or limitations with maneuverability.
28. Details of the security gate, access controls, and accommodation for offsite residents that
have access rights through the site, shall be approved along with plans submitted for a
building permit.
29. The building plan submittal shall include an overall site plan to show how access and
maneuverability is provided through the access easement to the existing off-site parking
located at 958 Pismo.
30. The building plan submittal shall include complete details for the public right-of-way for
both the Osos Street and Morro Street frontages. The plans shall show all existing and
proposed improvements. The plans shall include the existing and proposed metered parking
spaces. The plan shall consider line of sight distances, curbside trash pick-up requirements,
red curb areas, any special parking designations, and shall maximize the number of metered
parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The scope of work may
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 14
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-12 Page 7
1321 & 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96-13
include the removal, relocation, and installation of parking meter posts and the
corresponding pavement markings per City Engineering Standards.
31. The proposed demolitions, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach construction on
Morro shall provide for an orderly transition to the existing frontage improvements located
at 1322 and 1336 Morro.
32. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground. No additional utility poles shall be
set in the public right-of-way and no wires shall be extended across the proposed project to
serve adjacent properties unless otherwise approved to the satisfaction of the City and the
serving utility companies.
Utilities
33. The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property’s existing and
proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of connection at the
City water and sewer mains. Each proposed unit shall have a separate water meter.
34. If the property’s existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused, submittal of a video
inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during the
Building Permit Review process. If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must be
abandoned per City standards.
On motion by Commissioner _____, seconded by Commissioner _____, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of December, 2014.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission by:
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 15
1306 JOHNSON AVENUE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 P: 805/547.2240 F: 805/547.2241
THOMAS E. JESS, ARCHITECT #C27608
December 3, 2014
Pam Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Pacific Courtyards – Modifications
1321 & 1327 Osos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Pam:
Arris Studio Architects has replaced the previous architect that worked on the Pacific
Courtyards project at 1321 & 1327 Osos Street. We have made several modifications to the
previous design in response to City Council, CHC and ARC comments. We have also met with
both of the appellants to understand their concerns. In reviewing the meeting minutes from the
hearings that this project has been presented at, we were able to get a good grasp of the
issues. We feel that the current design addresses these comments. We have prepared a design
set of drawings which illustrates the proposed design along with comparative images of the
previous design for comparison. This set of plans is being submitted to the planning department
for a joint CHC/ARC hearing followed by a separate City Council hearing.
The comments and our responses are described below:
Comment:
The modern architecture presented is not appropriate to the Old Town Historic District
location.
Response:
The building elevations have been completely redesigned to reflect a more familiar
architectural look and feel. A detailed analysis of the Old Town Historic District was
performed. Based on this we felt that an Italianate influenced character for the office
component and a craftsman influenced character for the residential portion was
appropriate for the neighborhood.
Materials and elements used on the office component in order to accomplish this include
brick veneer, stucco, decorative brackets and trim, wrought iron railings, a projected bay
window with wood trim, concrete wainscot, window sills and lintels as well as decorative
light fixtures.
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 16
1306 JOHNSON AVENUE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 P: 805/547.2240 F: 805/547.2241
THOMAS E. JESS, ARCHITECT #C27608
Craftsman materials and elements used on the residential portion include a brick wainscot,
horizontal lap siding, wood columns and railings, decorative wood trim and brackets as
well as wrought iron fencing at the front yard.
In addition to the material changes, the building colors have been modified to be more
muted and consistent with the historical character.
Comment
The building façade on Morro Street is flat and does not tie into the neighborhood.
Response
The proposed plan now includes a covered front porch that projects from the face of the
building. A covered porch element is common throughout the Old Town Historic District
and adds depth to the façade. In addition it brings down the scale and allows for a more
personal interaction between the residents and the community in general. The face of the
porch is 10’ from the front property line. This is within the 15’ deep front yard but is
consistent with the predominant neighborhood pattern.
Comment
The neighbor to the south on Morro Street requested that the driveway and parking court
surface be decorative stamped concrete or pavers, that we install a high quality fence
(possibly with vines or other plantings on it) and that we install wood carriage-style garage
doors.
Response
All three of these items have been incorporated into the plans. The plans now show a
decorative concrete pattern in the parking court, a high quality wood fence with vines on
it and wood carriage-style garage doors.
Comment
The Osos Street façade is flat, the massing is incongruous, the garage opening is too large
and the ground floor windows that look into parking are not appropriate.
Response
The character of the Osos Street façade has been completed changed to include a
projected bay window to add depth, brick veneer to add texture, decorative cornice trim
to activate the roof line. The windows have been grouped together and concrete lintels
and sills have been added. In order to improve the massing, the tower element has been
reduced in width and the former small third floor balcony on the north side has been
brought down to the second floor and made much larger. This will also improve visibility of
the adjacent Master List Seventh Day Adventist Church. The garage opening has been
narrowed from 25’ to 20’ wide. This was accomplished by adding wing walls to either side
which visually support the balcony above. Lastly, the window to the garage has been
removed and replaced with an espalier vine recessed under a projecting balcony.
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 17
1306 JOHNSON AVENUE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 P: 805/547.2240 F: 805/547.2241
THOMAS E. JESS, ARCHITECT #C27608
Comment
The roof decks are too close to the property lines and will overlook the adjacent properties.
Response
The previous solution to this comment was to install planters along the edges of the decks
so that residents would not be able to stand at the edge of the deck. This was a good
solution but required the residents to maintain the planters in order to be effective and
attractive. The current design eliminates the planters and instead pulls them back from the
edge of the building closer to the center. In the previous design the roof decks were 11’
from the south property line and 10’-9” from the north property line. In the new design the
roof decks are now 17’-6” from the south property line and 16’-6” from the north property
line.
Thank you and please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions, comments or
require additional information.
Sincerely,
Thom Jess, AIA
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 18
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 19
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 20
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 21
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 22
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 23
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 24
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 25
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 26
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 27
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 28
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 29
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 30
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 31
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 32
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 33
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 34
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 35
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 36
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 37
Attachment 4 ARC1 - 38
TRASHLOBBYSTAIR #1OFFICEGARAGESTAIR #2RESIDENTIALBIKESOFFICEBIKESUNIT 1ADJACENTSEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCHUNIT 2TRASH / RECYCLINGUNIT 3DRIVEWAYADJACENT MULTI-FAMILYELEVEQUIPSTORADJACENT OFFICE USEADJACENT OFFICE USEADJACENT PARKINGELEVBLDG ABLDG BELECTEQUIPGAS METERSELECTGASMOTORCYCLE 2MOTORCYCLE 1OSOS STREETMORRO STREETNO PARKINGVANBCECFAAAGGCEEBDXDADRB 5 HYM FLA 24"B STANDARD 1 ANI 'BT' 5G8'8'NO DRBNO DRBNOTE: DEEP ROOT BARRIER (DRB) SHALL BE PLACED AT ALL TREE LOCATIONS WHERE TRUNK IS WITHIN 7.5 FEET OF CURB OR WALK. SEE DETAIL 42, SHEET L1.04DRBDRBDRBDRBDRB7.5'NO DRB 1 CAL VIM 24"B 4 ERI KAR 5G 1 AGA ATT 15G 1 KNI UVA 'WL' 5G 3 CHO TEC 5G 1 STR REG 15G 4 ERI KAR 1G 2 CHO TEC 5G 8 ANI 'BT' 5G 3 CHO TEC 5G 3 AGA AFR 5G 1 BER THU 'CB' 5G 2 TEC CAP 5G 4 RUM ADI 5G 2 FIC PUM 5G TIE TO WALL 4 RUM ADI 5G 3 LIR MUS 'EG' 2G 28 PEN ORI 5G 1 PIT UND 24"B STANDARD 7 CAL 'LJ' 5G 3 CHO TEC 5G 2 TIP TIP 24"B STANDARD 1 CAL VIM 24"B 1 CAL VIM 24"B 4 FIC PUM 5G TIE TO WALL 2 DIS BUC 5G TIE TO GREEN SCREEN 2 CHO TEC 5GPlant ListWUCOLSABBREV SIZE BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME RATINGTREESCAL VIM 24”B CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS / WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH LHYM FLA 24”B HYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM / SWEET SHADE (STD.) MPIT UND 24”B PITTOSPORUM UNDULATUM / VICTORIAN BOX (STD.) MTIP TIP 24”B TIPUANA TIPU / TIPU TREE MSHRUBSAGA AFR 5G AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS / LILY-OF-THE-NILE MAGA ATT 15G agave attenuata / fox tail agave LANI ‘BT’ 5G ANIGOZANTHOS ‘BUSH TANGO’ / ‘BUSH TANGO’ KANGAROO PAW LBER THU ‘CB’ 5G BERBERIS THUNBERGII ‘CHERRY BOMB’ / CHERRY BOMB BARBERRY LCAL ‘LJ’ 5G CALLISTEMON ‘LITTLE JOHN’ / DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LCHO TEC 5G CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM / CAPE RUSH HERI KAR 5G/1G ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUS / FLEABANE LKNI UVA ‘WL’ 5G KNIPHOFIA UVARIA ‘WILHELM’S LANCE’/ RED HOT POKER MLIR MUS ‘EG’ 2G LIRIOPE MUSCARI ‘EVERGREEN GIANT’ / ‘EVERGREEN GIANT’ LILY TURF MPEN ORI 1G PENNISETUM ‘ORIENTALE’ / ORIENTAL FOUNTAIN GRASS MRUM ADI 5G RUMOHRA ADIANTIFORMIS / LEATHERLEAF FERN MSTR REG 15G STRELITZIA REGINAE / BIRD OF PARADISE MTEC CAP 15G TECOMARIA CAPENSIS / CAPE HONEYSUCKLE MVINESDIS BUC 15G DISTICTIS BUCCINATORIA / RED TRUMPET VINE MFIC PUM 5G FICUS PUMILA / CREEPING FIG MGROUND COVERA 18”OC 1G AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS ‘PETER PAN’ / DWARF LILY-OF-THE-NILE MB24” OC 1G CAREX TUMULICOLA / BERKELEY SEDGE MC30” OC 1G ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUS / FLEABANE LD18” OC 1G HEMEROCALLIS ‘STARBURST SUSIE’ / EVERGREEN DAY LILY (ORANGE) ME60” OC 1GMYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM ‘PUTAH CREEK’ / TRAILING MYOPORUM LF24” OC 1GNASSELLA TENUISSIMA / MEXICAN FEATHER GRASS LG 24”OC 1GTRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES / STAR JASMINE MMULCHMULCH ALL GROUND COVER AND PLANTER AREAS WITH 2” MINIMUM LAYER ‘WALK-ON’ BARK. NOTE: PLANT LIST IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY; IN CASE OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE PLANAND THE SCHEDULE, THE PLAN SHALL PREVAIL.LEGENDG = GALLONSB = BOXSTD. = STANTARD FORML.B. = LOW BRANCHING FORMDG = DECOMPOSED GRANITENCN = NO COMMON NAMEDRB = DEEP ROOT BARRIER. REFER TO DETAIL 42, SHEET L1.04.L1.02PLANTING PLAN(GROUND LEVEL)1KJHGFEDCBA23456789101112123456789101112KJHGFEDCBAFile Name: Firma_PacificCourtyards_DTL_21456 Last Date Modified: 11/12/14ARCHITECT OF RECORD/CONSULTANTADDRESS1306 JOHNSON AVENUESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT805.547.2240ARRIS-STUDIO.COMTHOMAS E. JESS ARCHITECT #C27608STEPHEN A. RIGORARCHITECT #C33672CONSULTANTPrincipal: David W. Foote ASLA Registration No. 2117 187 Tank Farm Road Suite 230 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 805. 781. 9800 fax 805. 781. 9803PLAN CHECK SETTHE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS & ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAVER OF ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS' RIGHTS. ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT 2008-2014DATEREVISION#A14019PROJECTNovember 12, 2014DATESHEETPACIFIC COURTYARDSA M I X E D - U S E D E V E L O P M E N TS A N L U I S O B I S P O, C A L I F O R N I APROJECTCLIENTMISSION MEDICAL, LLC8 5 5 A E R O V I S T A P L A C E, S U I T E 2 3 0S A N L U I S O B I S P O, C A 9 3 4 0 1 ETOOFWDIVAD.AINROFILACFOETATSEPACSDNALDESNECILDateNO. 2117TCETIHCRA
Expiration DateSignatureAttachment 4
ARC1 - 39
STAIR #1STAIR #2OFFICEUNIT 9 (AFFORDABLE)UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 8 UNIT 7 UNIT 6 UNIT 5 UNIT 4 COURTYARD ELEVATORLOBBYTRASHCHUTEUNIT 4 YARDUNIT 5 YARDUNIT 7 YARDUNIT 8YARDUNIT 9 YARDWOMENMENOFFICE PATIO 1ELEVBLDG ABLDG BUNIT 6 YARD 4 ANI 'BT' 1G WITH (4) SEN MAN (4"P) 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 4 TRA JAS 1G 4 TRA JAS 1G 4 ERI KAR 1G 4 SUT COR 'S' 1G 4 SUT COR 'S' 1G 4 SUT COR 'S' 1G 4 TRA JAS 1G 4 ERI KAR 1G 4 ERI KAR 1G 4 TRA JAS 1G 4 BEG 'DW' 1G WITH (4) SUT COR 'S' (4"P) 4 BEG 'DW' 1G WITH (4) SUT COR 'S' (4"P) 4 PHO TEN 'D' 1G WITH (2) TRA JAS (4"P) 4 PHO TEN 'D' 1G WITH (2) TRA JAS (4"P) 4 ANI 'BT' 1G WITH (4) SEN MAN (4"P) 4 ANI 'BT' 1G WITH (4) SEN MAN (4"P) 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARD 1 HYM FLA 15G STANDARDL1.03POTS & PLANTING PLAN(SECOND FLOOR PATIOS)A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A2A2A2A2A2A2A2Pot ScheduleABBREV DESCRIPTIONSIZE MODEL # FINISH / COLOR___________________48” x 48" x 42”Ht.#________ #________________________48” x 18" x 18”Ht.#________ #________________________348” x 48" x 36”Ht.#________ #_____MANUFACTURER: STONEWEAR, 2900 LOCKHEED WAY, CARSON CITY, NV 89706PH (800) 297-8663 FAX (702) 883-8306 www.stonewear.comCOBBLES: ______________________A1A2A31KJHGFEDCBA23456789101112123456789101112KJHGFEDCBAARCHITECT OF RECORD/CONSULTANTADDRESS1306 JOHNSON AVENUESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT805.547.2240ARRIS-STUDIO.COMTHOMAS E. JESS ARCHITECT #C27608STEPHEN A. RIGORARCHITECT #C33672CONSULTANTPrincipal: David W. Foote ASLA Registration No. 2117 187 Tank Farm Road Suite 230 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 805. 781. 9800 fax 805. 781. 9803PLAN CHECK SETTHE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS & ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAVER OF ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS' RIGHTS. ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT 2008-2014DATEREVISION#A14019PROJECTNovember 12, 2014DATESHEETPACIFIC COURTYARDSA M I X E D - U S E D E V E L O P M E N TS A N L U I S O B I S P O, C A L I F O R N I APROJECTCLIENTMISSION MEDICAL, LLC8 5 5 A E R O V I S T A P L A C E, S U I T E 2 3 0S A N L U I S O B I S P O, C A 9 3 4 0 1 ETOOFWDIVAD.AINROFILACFOETATSEPACSDNALDESNECILDateNO. 2117TCETIHCRA
Expiration DateSignatureAttachment 4
ARC1 - 40
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 41
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 42
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 43
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 44
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 45
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 46
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 47
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 48
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 49
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 50
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
September 8, 2014
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Suzan Ehdaie, Allen Root, Vice-Chair
Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey-Good
Absent: Commissioners Ken Curtis and Amy Nemcik
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Contract Planner Rachel Cohen, and
Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
The minutes of August 18, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 774 Caudill Street. ARC 101-14; Review of a new mixed-use project consisting of
four residential units and six work/live units located on the north side of Caudill
Street between Victoria Avenue and Broad Street with a categorical exemption
from environmental review; M zone; Caudill Street Partners, applicant. (Rachel
Cohen)
Contract Planner Cohen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft
Resolution which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Ehdaie questioned about how the contemporary design blends in with an
adjacent house that may be listed as historic.
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 51
ARC Minutes
September 8, 2014
Page 2
George Garcia, Garcia Architecture and Design, representing the applicant, pointed out
the eclectic nature of the neighborhood in both uses and architecture.
Contract Planner Cohen clarified that the neighborhood may include several historic
homes, but that the area was not designated as an historic district.
Commr. Wynn stated that this is an exciting project, and there will be more of this
relatively dense workforce housing in the future.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Root, to adopt the Draft Resolution
which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Root, Andreen, Ehdaie, and McCovey-Good
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Curtis and Nemcik
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
2. 1321 and 1327 Osos Street. ARC 96-13; Review of plans for a mixed-use project
with nine (9) condominium units and 8,000-square feet of office space in the Old
Town Historic District, including a request for a parking reduction through a shared
parking reduction and automobile trip-reduction program; R-3-H and O-H zone;
Mission Medical, LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, covering in detail the changes made to
the project to respond to previous ARC direction, and recommending adoption of the
Draft Resolution which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and
subject to conditions. She noted the letters from the public received.
Carol Florence, applicant representative, noted that the applicant team concurred with
the project conditions. She mentioned the efforts made by the applicant to work with
City staff to refine the Transportation Demand Management Plan.
Jonathan Watts, project architect, described the various changes to respond to the
ARC’s directional items. He noted that the Osos Street elevation had been simplified
and the wood box eliminated, resulting in a more contiguous building. He explained that
the elongated eaves on the Morro Street elevation would be 18 inches and that roof
wells had been provided to screen equipment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Stew Jenkins, SLO, stated that the revised project is not as ugly as it once was, but that
he is still opposed to this project because it does not solve some of the neighborhood
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 52
ARC Minutes
September 8, 2014
Page 3
problems. He noted that the bank of garages adjacent to his home creates a dead zone
without human activity and expressed concern about the glare of security lighting being
visible and intrusive through adjacent windows and in backyards. He stated that the
mass and size of this project violates the historic district development requirements
because there are no other three-story buildings in the neighborhood and only a few
properties with a garage right on the street and those few have their living space on the
ground floor. He stated that in addition to consistency, the City should be looking for a
transition in mass and size; instead, this project presents a massive wall on Morro
Street that separates the downtown from the neighborhood. He noted that the
architects' drawing of Morro Street shows grass on his property in place of his driveway.
He added that only natural starlight and street lights should be seen at night, not parties
on fourth floor decks. He urged denial of the project and suggested the architects
consult the neighbors before redesigning the project.
Buzz Kalkowski, SLO, stated that the redesign on Osos Street is somewhat improved
but he finds some difficulties with the Morro Street side. He noted that the Cultural
Heritage Committee did not recommend approval. He pointed out that birds-eye and
perspective drawings can distort how the project will actually look in relation to the
neighboring homes and that it is important to view the project from the street or
pedestrian level. He added that the rooftop open spaces will become party platforms if
the residences become second home purchases because buyers would likely turn them
into vacation or student rentals. He expressed concern about the type of lighting that
will be used on the decks. He asserted that there will not be enough parking and that
tandem parking rarely works because the moving of cars is disruptive and requires two
drivers plus space to maneuver the cars.
Diane Jenkins, SLO, stated that the 2008-09 project design, approved by the CHC and
the neighborhood, was complementary to the neighborhood with living quarters on the
ground floor, but the proposed design is problematic with the living areas on the upper
floors and a bank of solid garage doors on the ground floor next to her home. She
stated that this is the wrong project for this 28-block neighborhood of single bungalows.
She noted that the construction of the two apartment buildings in the neighborhood
resulted in a decision to protect the historic downtown.
Pete Peterson, SLO, neighbor, stated that the architects have done a good job of
improving the project design but there are still two problems: the mass of a four-story
complex, including the roof decks, next to one-story homes; and the reduced parking,
which will impact the neighborhood because cars will be parked on the streets and
some will end up being towed. He stated that cutting the mass will also solve the
parking problem.
There were no further comments from the public.
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 53
ARC Minutes
September 8, 2014
Page 4
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Wynn stated that the applicant has done a good job of fixing up the project to
the point where he can support it because it now fits in the neighborhood. He noted that
some further revisions are needed.
Commr. Andreen stated that the project has achieved a certain elegance that will fit on
the street and is compatible with the church. She added that it will bring people
downtown to live, will add feet to the street, and is better than a parking lot.
Commrs. Wynn and McCovey-Good stated they have no problem with the parking plan.
Senior Planner Ricci noted that an annual parking report is required and, if goals are not
met, the approach to parking will need to be revisited.
Commr. Wynn stated that the small awning over the door facing Morro Street needs
architectural projection to give it more mass and that this could be done by moving the
awning up to the second level window and making it wider. Commr. Root agreed.
Commr. Andreen noted that she looked at the bright yellow color proposed for the
awning at other locations downtown, such as Jamba Juice, and found that it does blend
in well with the surroundings.
Commr. McCovey-Good stated that a more traditional entry doorway would be better for
this Morro Street elevation.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested this wording which was acceptable to the
Commissioners: “Replace the shed awning with a shed roof similar to others in the
neighborhood.”
Commr. Wynn stated that the details of this condition could be worked out at the staff
level.
Senior Planner Ricci addressed concerns about lighting by referring to Condition 10 of
the Draft Resolution which requires exterior lighting to be completely shielded. She
noted that the City's lighting ordinances are stringent and lighting on the roof decks will
need to be integral to the walls and not shine onto other properties.
Commr. Wynn expressed concern about the possibility of a queue of cars blocking the
sidewalk at the garage entrance and asked if the security gate could be moved further
into the building. He also suggested painting the sidewalls of the garage entrance white
to keep this area from being too dark and stated he would like to prevent these walls
from being cluttered with signage, mailboxes, etc. He opposed creative painting on the
PG&E transformer box. He also expressed concern about each vertical portion of the
windows to the left of the garage entrance having a different appearance with the top
section clear glass, the middle spandrel glass painted on the reverse, and the bottom
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 54
ARC Minutes
September 8, 2014
Page 5
section possibly etched or obscure glass. He stated they should all look the same if
possible and noted that if the glass is clear on the bottom level, the parked cars and
sprinklers, etc., could be seen from the street.
Commr. Ehdaie questioned whether it was important to screen or obscure the view of
the garage interior and stated that the glass, top to bottom, should have a consistent
appearance.
Commr. Root asked if there could be a screen in front of the vertical windows to the left
of the garage entrance.
Commr. Wynn suggested fritted glass with a pattern that varies from heavy at the
bottom to light at the top.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested this wording: “variegated fritted glazing shall be used
on the left hand side of the Osos Street elevation.”
Commr. Root stated that continuity is important for this elevation facing Osos Street so
the other large window should be treated the same.
Commr. Wynn asked if the transformer box could be moved away from the front of the
window on Osos Street. The architect stated that this is a possibility.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested that Condition 11 be changed to read: “Applicant shall
maximize planting around the PG&E transformer cabinet, and work with PG&E to
explore the possibility of moving the transformer closer to the south property line to the
review of the Community Development Director.”
The Commissioners indicated that the changes made to the affordable housing unit
were acceptable and that the last sentence of Condition 6 requiring the pre-cast
bulkhead to extend across the base of the windows to the left of the garage entrance be
deleted.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie to approve the Draft
Resolution granting final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to
conditions, with the following changes: 1) Condition 4 to require a small shed roof
similar to those in the neighborhood; 2) Condition 6 to require variegated, fritted
windows to the left of the garage entrance; 3) Condition 11 to require the applicant to
maximize planting around the PG&E transformer cabinet, and work with PG&E to
explore the possibility of moving the transformer closer to the south property line to the
review of the Community Development Director.
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 55
ARC Minutes
September 8, 2014
Page 6
AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Ehdaie, Andreen, McCovey-Good, and Root
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Curtis and Nemcik
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast by Senior Planner Ricci
• September 15, 2014, meeting will be in the Council Chamber—1845
Monterey Street, new hotel behind Pappy McGregor’s, and another small
project.
• October 6, 2014—brownstone project in the back parking lot of the Bank of
America building, 7 units; Laguna Village identification signs for new stores;
9-unit residential condo project on Rockview. Senior Planner Ricci will be
absent.
• October 20, 2014--conceptual plans for the Miner's parking lot development;
residential care facility in the old KSBY building on Hill Street; CalTrans
offices on S. Higuera.
• November 3, 2014—Long-Bonetti Ranch; modified version of mixed use
project next to Wells Fargo.
4. Commission:
• Commr. Wynn may be absent from October 6, 2014, meeting.
• Commr. McCovey-Good observed that the windows for the Big Five store in
the Marigold Center are covered with images on the glass. Senior Planner
Ricci will talk to Enforcement to find out if the images are temporary.
• Commr. Ehdaie complimented the design of Scout Coffee on Garden Street.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on October 6, 2014.
Laurie Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 56
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a mixed use project known as Pacific Courtyards with 8,050 square feet
of office space and nine residential units located on three properties between Osos and Morro
Streets that are currently used as a parking lot in the Old Town Historic District, including a
request for a parking reduction through a shared parking reduction and automobile trip reduction
program.
PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1321 & 1327 Osos St. BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7168 E-mail: pricci@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 96-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final
approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Mission Medical LLC
Representative Oasis Assoc., Carol Florence
Zoning Office (O-H) & Medium-High
Density Residential (R-3-H)
(historical preservation overlay
zone)
General Plan Office & Medium-High Density
Residential
Site Area
23,600 square feet (0.54 acre)
Environmental
Status
The City Council approved an
Addendum to the adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration
on June 10, 2014.
SUMMARY
The proposed mixed use project includes 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential
units on an approximately half-acre site located between Osos and Morro Streets that is currently
used as a parking lot. To accommodate planned development, the applicant has received
approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (to create
both commercial and residential condominiums).
Meeting Date: September 8, 2014
Item Number: 2
Old Town
Historic
District
Site
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 57
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014
Page 2
The project is now before the ARC for final architectural review including a request for a
parking reduction. On August 4, 2014, the project was scheduled for final design review, but the
ARC continued action with directional items (Attachment 4). The August 4th staff report is
included as Attachment 3 and provides the detailed project description and analysis. The
attachments to the August 4th report are available for review on the website, rather than attached
again to this report. This report focuses on the new information and revised project plans
recently submitted in response to the directional items.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines (CDG). The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design
Guidelines, and the General Plan should guide the ARC’s deliberations and action.
The ARC is also charged with reviewing a request for a parking reduction. The Planning
Commission discussed parking with their review of the project and recommended approval of a
parking reduction.
2.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project directional items are listed below along with staff’s analysis.
1. Parking as provided in the project was generally supported by the ARC. The ARC
agreed to the condition that the applicant shall submit a revised Transportation
Demand Management Plan (TDMP) to the approval of the Public Works and
Community Development Directors that includes supportable programs that will
reduce vehicle trips to the site.
Staff’s Analysis: Findings 3-5 included in the draft resolution support on-site parking as
proposed through a 10% shared parking reduction and with adoption of automobile trip reduction
program. Attachment 5 includes the applicant’s updated transportation demand management
plan. Staff has worked closely with the applicant on the development of this plan and finds that
the applicant has met the requirements of Condition No. 24 to implement a TDMP. With the
review of the project on August 4th, staff expressed reservations with the draft plan because it did
not specify programs and measures to reduce the need for on-site parking. The current plan does
include such programs and measures and also provides a plan for oversight and management of
the program including monitoring and reporting.
Key to the success of the program will be meeting the stated goal of 1.6 Average Vehicle
Ridership which will be tracked through an annual survey and report to the City with proposed
modifications to the program if the goal is not met. The 1.6 AVR goal is established in the
City’s General Plan. As an example, a 1.6 AVR is met when you have 40 employees and 25 of
them drive alone to work and 15 use some form of alternative transportation.
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 58
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014
Page 3
2. Modify the Morro Street elevation of the project as follows:
a. Further refine the design of the roof decks to create a more seamless
transition from gable forms; and
b. Look at alternative locations for, or further reduce the sizes of, the roof
decks to take into consideration privacy and overlook to adjacent neighbors.
c. Provide larger roof overhangs to the gable end; and
d. Explore the idea of creating a yard area and more of a recess for the entry.
Morro Street Bird’s Eye 8-4-14 Morro Street Bird’s Eye 9-8-14
Staff’s Analysis: The transition of the roof toward
the interior of the site from the street-facing gable
end has been refined to appear better integrated with
a shed extension on the second and third levels and
having the roof deck walls further set back and
finished with asphalt shingles to blend with the
roofing. These changes coordinate with roof decks
being further set back and reduced in area. Planter
boxes at the perimeter work to provide additional
screening to the benefit of both residents and their
adjacent neighbors.
A noticeable change in the length of the roof
overhangs is not apparent between drawings. The
applicant points out that revised plans contracted the
walls about 1 foot which result in a deeper
overhang. Condition No. 4 is recommended to call for a detail of the eaves to be shown in
working drawings submitted for a building permit that show the extended overhang.
Plans show a small landscaped and fenced yard area leading to the front door of the townhome
unit facing Morro Street as recommended. The front door detail on Sheet 22 shows that the door
will be a painted solid core wood.
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 59
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014
Page 4
3. Modify the Osos Street elevations of the project as follows:
a. Simplify the design;
b. Play up the building entry;
c. Look at more offsets of the third floor on the apartment side to better
transition the building mass;
d. Consider the elimination of the wood box on the left-hand side; and
e. Provide less of a visual gap in the third floor level.
Osos Street Elevation 8-4-14 Osos Street Elevation 9-8-14
Staff’s Analysis: The most significant design changes were those made to the left hand side of
the Osos Street elevation. Consistent with the ARC’s direction, the design was simplified, a
greater setback made adjacent to the Rio Bravo Apartments, the wood box removed, and the
central gap eliminated. Gray cementitious siding is used for the wall surface above the garage
entry.
More transparency has been created in the elevation at the ground level with the addition of a
large, vertical set of divided window panes on the left-hand side. Detail 5 on Sheet 21 shows an
enlarged view of the window design. The detail shows that the window frames extend to the
ground. Staff recommends that the pre-cast base extend across this part of the elevation since
landscaping is proposed to abut the windows. The applicant indicates that the upper and lower
panes will be typical clear Low-E insulating glass with matching spandrel glass at the middle
panels to obscure the floor transitions.
ARC Discussion Items: The Commission needs to determine if the changes to the elevation
adequately respond to direction and address previous concerns with the design. The ARC should
weigh in on the use of the clear window panes in front of the garage space and the
appropriateness of this articulation. Condition No. 6 includes language in italics for the ARC to
refine with their review of the project at the meeting.
4. Building elevations shall be fully dimensioned and show compliance with side yard
setback requirements.
Staff’s Analysis: Sheets 15 & 16 were added to plans showing how required side yard setbacks
are met.
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 60
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014
Page 5
5. Provide more parity for the affordable housing unit in terms of its design and
associated amenities.
Staff’s Analysis: The affordable one-bedroom flat has more natural light as the former office
roof deck above it has been eliminated. A private terrace area has been created on the side of the
unit that provides more privacy than the earlier proposal for space directly off the main
courtyard.
6. Look at ways to reduce the visual prominence of the PG&E transformer in the
Osos street yard.
Staff’s Analysis: The applicant is proposing additional landscaping around the transformer for
screening. Condition No. 11 is recommended to encourage the applicant to work with P.G.&E.
to explore the possibility of creative painting to make the transformer blend in better with the
building beyond.
3.0 CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONOn
There has been active participation by the public in the review of the project through both
testimony at various project hearings and written correspondences. The ARC may review
previous correspondences received for the project through a link on the City’s website embedded
in the staff report prepared for Item PH-1 on the 6-10-14 Council agenda. In addition,
Attachment 8 of the August 4th ARC report contains a letter from James Lopes on behalf of Save
Our Downtown on the project. Attachment 6 to this report includes a new letter from Sandra
Lakeman.
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Continue action to a date uncertain with direction on items to return in revised plans.
5.2. Deny the project based on inconsistency of the project design with the Community
Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Program because its massing and
architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town
Historic District.
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 61
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – September 8, 2014
Page 6
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution
Attachment 2: Reduced-size project plans
Attachment 3: 8-4-14 staff report without attachments
Attachment 4: 8-4-14 ARC follow-up letter & minutes
Attachment 5: Applicant’s updated transportation demand management plan
Attachment 6: Sandra Lakeman comments
Distributed to ARC: 11” x 17” colored project plans
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 62
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 63
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 64
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 65
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 66
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 67
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 68
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 69
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 70
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 71
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a mixed use project known as Pacific Courtyards with 8,050 square feet
of office space and nine residential units located on three properties between Osos and Morro
Streets that are currently used as a parking lot in the Old Town Historic District, including a
request for an approximately 30% parking reduction through a shared parking reduction and
automobile trip reduction program.
PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1321 & 1327 Osos St. BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7168 E-mail: pricci@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 96-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on
pertinent issues.
SITE DATA
Applicant Mission Medical LLC
Representative Oasis Assoc., Carol Florence
Zoning Office (O-H) & Medium-High
Density Residential (R-3-H)
(historical preservation overlay
zone)
General Plan Office & Medium-High Density
Residential
Site Area
23,600 square feet (0.54 acre)
Environmental
Status
The City Council approved an
Addendum to the adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration
on June 10, 2014.
SUMMARY
The applicant submitted an application to the City for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (to create both commercial and residential condominiums), and
architectural review, to allow the development of a new mixed use project. The proposed mixed
use project includes 8,050 square feet of office space and nine residential units on an
approximately half-acre site located between Osos and Morro Streets that is currently used as a
parking lot.
Meeting Date: August 4, 2014
Item Number: PH-2
Old Town
Historic
District
Site
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 72
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 2
A previous mixed-use project was approved by the City for the site in 2008-2009. The current
version of the project was submitted in June of 2013 to reorient the office and residential uses on
the site and to pursue a contemporary architectural style. There have been several modifications
to the current project since it was initially submitted. An earlier version of the current project
was conceptually reviewed by the ARC in December of 2013 and continued with direction.
The project is now before the ARC for final architectural review including a request for a
parking reduction. At this time, staff finds that the applicant’s design submittal is not consistent
with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines or the Community Design Guidelines. This is
primarily due to the building elevations facing Osos Street and the fact that the mass, form and
design components do not relate to the existing historic elements of the neighborhood.
Therefore, staff is recommending a continuance to direct the applicant to make further changes
to the design.
In addition, staff is continuing to work with the applicant team on their Transportation Demand
Management Plan to support the full extent of the automobile parking reduction requested.
However, staff has also prepared a resolution approving the design if a majority of the ARC
supports the revised project design. The other alternative would be to deny the project design
based on inconsistency with applicable guidelines.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to take into consideration the recommendation of the CHC that the project is
not a good fit in the context of the site’s location in the Old Town Historic District, and to review
the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and the General Plan
should guide the ARC’s deliberations and action.
The ARC is also charged with reviewing a request for a parking reduction. The Planning
Commission discussed parking with their review of the project and recommended approval of a
parking reduction. The parking reduction is discussed in Section 3.6 of the staff report.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Review/History
On November 25, 2013, the project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
since the site is within the Old Town Historic District. The CHC had fundamental concerns with
the massing, roof design, and materials of the project and adopted a resolution recommending
denial of the project, based on a finding of inconsistency of the design with the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 3). On December 16, 2013, the ARC conceptually
reviewed the project. The ARC continued action and provided directional items. The main issues
discussed by the ARC were parking, building massing and materials (Attachment 4).
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 73
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 3
On June 10, 2014, the City Council through Resolution No. 10531 approved a Vesting Tentative
Map to create residential and commercial airspace condominium units, and a General Plan
Amendment & Rezoning to “flip” the zoning and land use from what was approved in 2008
(Attachment 5). The approved rezoning orients the offices uses to Osos Street and the residential
development to Morro Street.
Figure 1. Zoning Exhibit
Now that the site zoning has been set, the project is required to return to both the CHC and ARC.
On June 23, 2014, the CHC reviewed a revised version of the project from what they reviewed in
November of 2013. The CHC adopted a resolution again recommending denial of the project,
based on a finding of inconsistency of the design with the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (Attachment 6).
2.2 Site Information/Setting
The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot that contains a total of 47 spaces.
The portions of the parking lot that are currently zoned R-3 are considered non-conforming uses
since parking as a principal use is not allowed in residential zones. The site is generally level,
sloping down slightly from east to west, and developed with surface parking and planters. Sheet
17 of the plans (Attachment 2) includes an existing tree inventory and proposed status with
development. Some of the larger trees are Monterey Pines, eucalyptus, and Holly Oaks.
The project site is located in the Old Town Historic District. All of the residential properties in
the same block to the south of the site are also in the Old Town Historic District and considered
to be Contributing Historic Properties.
Other nearby development includes a mixture of residential projects, parking lots, and office
buildings. The San Luis Medical complex and the Marsh Street parking structure are located to
the north. Another significant use on the adjacent property to the northeast of the site is the
Seventh Day Adventist Church at the corner of Osos and Pacific Streets (1301 Osos), historically
known as the First Baptist Church and built in 1907.
2008 Approved Zoning 2014 Approved Zoning
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 74
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 4
The church is on the Master List of
Historic Resources and is described
as an “English Craftsman/Carpenter
Gothic” architectural building style.
It has a ranking of 3, which means
that it is eligible for placement on
the National Register of Historic
Places (see Figure 2). This site is not
in the Old Town Historic district,
but is the most historically
significant structure within the
project block.
2.3 Project Description
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development project that includes a total of 8,050 square
feet of office space and nine residential condominium units. The project consists of two separate
structures. The larger building is a podium style structure with both office space and six
residential units that is oriented to Osos Street and contains a total floor area of 35,445 square
feet (including ground floor parking, second level patio and roof decks). The smaller building
(6,819 square feet including garages and roof decks) contains three residential units and is
oriented to Morro Street.
The larger podium building contains all of the office space (see Figure 3 on the following page).
The building has been designed with 1,050 square feet of office floor space on the ground floor
in the northeast corner of the building near Osos Street, 3,810 square feet on the second level,
and 3,190 square feet on the third level. The offices have a roof deck on the interior of the
project at the third level. The podium building also contains five townhomes in the western
portion of the structure and a one-bedroom flat. Two stairwells and an elevator provide access to
a courtyard area on the second level that provides common space for the residential units and
entries to individual units beyond private terraces adjoining the courtyard.
The two-story townhomes range in size between 1,240 to 1,320 square feet. A one-story, 650
square-foot one-bedroom unit is included on the south side of the building which would be the
project’s designated affordable unit. To accommodate the proposed number of residential units,
a 25% density bonus was approved by the City Council. To qualify for the density bonus, a
minimum of 10% of the total number of project units needs to be a deed-restricted affordable
unit designated for very-low income households. The applicant has satisfied this requirement by
designating the one-bedroom unit as a deed-restricted affordable unit for very-low income
households.
Figure 2. Seventh Day Adventist Church
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 75
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 5
The smaller building contains three residential units that range in size between 1,230 to 1,610
square feet. The units each have ground floor garages and two levels of living area above. The
units are accessed by a driveway off of Morro Street.
Figure 3. Level 2 Floor Plan
The podium structure has a central opening in the building that provides the access point to Osos
Street (see Figure 4 below). In addition to covered parking (total of 28 spaces), the first floor of
the office includes the project’s trash and recycling facilities, equipment rooms, a lobby,
elevator, stairwell, and residential storage spaces.
Morro Street Osos Street
Figure 4. Level Floor Plan Osos Street Morro Street Attachment 6
ARC1 - 76
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 6
Table 1. Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yards (Osos & Morro) 15 feet 15 feet
Max. Building Height 35 feet 35 feet
Building Coverage (footprint) 58% 60%
Parking Spaces 343 47.1
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans revised July 15, 2014
2. Zoning Regulations
3. 30% parking reduction requested
A total of 34 parking spaces are proposed for the project. A driveway off of Osos Street would
provide access to a majority of the project parking spaces (28 spaces) composed of:
1) 15 standard spaces;
2) 3 compact spaces; and
3) 10 tandem spaces
The other six parking spaces are provided in garages for the Townhome units which have access
via Morro Street.
Currently the site provides 19 parking spaces for the Mission Medical complex at 1235 Osos
Street. With project development, the parking provided for Mission Medical would be
eliminated and Mission Medical would instead pay parking in-lieu fees.
Sheet 17 of plans (Attachment 2) includes the locations of all existing trees on the site.
Generally the applicant’s proposal will retain the street trees on Osos Street and trees on adjacent
properties, but remove the rest of the on-site trees.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Plan Updates
Project plans have been revised since both the CHC and ARC reviewed the project at the end of
2013. The main modification to the project has been to create a podium style building for the
larger structure oriented to Osos Street. The earlier version of the plans previously reviewed by
the ARC had an auto court open to the sky between portions of the building set aside for
residential uses and offices
3.2 Policy Guidance
The Historic Preservation Program provides guidelines for ensuring architecturally compatible
development within historic districts, and adjacent to historically designated structures. As
mentioned, the church on the adjacent property at 1301 Osos Street is a Master List property
located just outside the historic district. All of the residential and office properties to the south of
the site are in the historic district and are Contributing properties, including the large, stucco-clad
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 77
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 7
Rio Bravo apartments at the corner of Osos and Pismo Streets. Following are the adopted
criteria which are most relevant to project development at this site in the Old Town Historic
District:
3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New structures in
historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s
prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks
of the district's historic structures, as described in Figures 2 and 3. New structures are not
required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new
building is historic.
3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for
architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with
applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in
Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public
views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically
designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the
prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district.
5.2.1 Old Town Historic District (Architectural Character). In keeping with its peak period
of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District has many examples of High
Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during the that time period that reflected
prosperity, power and discriminating taste. his included several style variations, such as
Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along the top of the
hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest structures
with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first home to
the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the
century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman
Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the
houses in this district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by
local builders and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The
shared first story porches along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design
feature linking buildings.
3.3 Building Form & Massing
The project is similar in scale to the previously approved 2008-2009 version in terms of
including three levels of building area and an overall height of 35 feet. The project proposes the
same approximate setbacks as nearby structures and is consistent with property development
standards of the Zoning Regulations. The site’s location on the edge of the downtown core is
intended to be more intensely developed and the mix of land uses is supported by General Plan
policies. While many of the project elevations will have limited off-site visibility, the two street
elevations facing Osos and Morro Streets will be highly visible.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 78
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 8
Osos Street
The Osos Street building elevation has a flat roof and substantial amounts of glazing. It is lower
in height than the adjacent historic church to the west and somewhat taller than the rectilinear
and flat roof Rio Bravo apartments built in 1918 to the east. Figure 5 includes a comparison
between the plans reviewed last November and the current proposal (Sheet 3 of plans).
Staff’s Analysis: Looking at the two elevations side by side, a case could be made that the
original version with its darker base and neutral palette appears more recessive and is as
compatible as, or more compatible than, the revised version. The advantage of the revised
elevation is that it has more modulation in wall planes afforded by the second and third level
decks and the void created by the central courtyard above the podium. In addition, the elevation
includes ground floor fenestration provided by having some office space at the street level.
However, neither elevation complements the streetscape and both look overly severe and boxy.
The project massing is inconsistent with Historic Preservation Program Guideline 3.2.1 that calls
for new development to have a rhythm and massing consistent with surrounding development.
This might be improved by having more of the steps and voids of the building oriented toward
Figure 5. Osos Street elevation
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 79
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 9
the church side.
Since the CHC’s last review of the project on June 23rd and with staff’s recommendation, the
applicant has converted one of the storefronts into an entry door facing Osos Street to address
previous direction to have more human-scale elements along the street frontages. Yellow shed
awnings have also been added above storefronts. While staff feels like these changes are
appropriate, the fundamental massing concerns previously raised have not been addressed.
ARC Discussion Item: The ARC should determine if the rhythm, massing and articulation of
the Osos Street elevation is consistent with the context of its setting in a historic district.
Morro Street
The Morro Street elevation of the project has a
more residential character with a gable end roof
form and front door facing the street. The
building volume closest to the street is two-
story stepping up to three stories beyond.
Staff’s Analysis (CHC June 23rd): This form
and massing strategy complements the nearby
structures on the same side of the street that are
Bungalow style. The main massing concern
raised in the June 23rd CHC staff report with the
three Morro townhomes was the awkward
appearance created by cantilevered upper floor
over garages and the thin columns supporting
them (see Figure 6) .
These townhomes also have roof decks which neighbors have raised as a concern and are inter-
related to the massing discussion. The walls and railings of the deck areas, especially with the
Figure 6 –Morro Street Elevations
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 80
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 10
earlier version of the plans shown in Exhibit 6, extended above gable ends and added to the
height and bulk of the structure.
The project well exceeds its minimum open space requirements as a condominium project. While
staff is supportive of having sufficient usable outdoor use areas provided for project residents,
there may be opportunities to scale down the roof decks, especially the three nearest Morro
Street that are in close proximity to adjacent single-story buildings.
Staff’s Analysis (ARC August 4th): The applicant responded to the concerns with the earlier
design shown in the elevations in Figure 6 on the previous page with the modified elevation
shown below in Figure 7. The main changes in response to previous and feedback and direction
were:
1) Use of a more neutral color palette (buff and white rather than red);
2) Creation of a wing wall to screen the cantilevered floor area above supports;
3) Use of more substantial structural columns; and
4) Addition of a glass door with yellow awning for the entry facing the street.
Figure 7. Revised Morro Street elevations for ARC Review on 8-4-14
Staff appreciates the applicant’s efforts to respond to comments, but feel that some of the
solutions actually add bulk to the first floor of the building, rather than address earlier massing
concerns. The following suggestions are offered:
1) Use the open railing design on the upper, right-hand side of the wing wall where the deck
is located facing the street to create a less, heavy appearing elevation.
2) Add a porch extension for the entry with a complementary gable roof;
3) Further refine the design of the roof decks to create a more seamless transition from gable
forms; and
4) Further reduce the size of the roof decks to take into consideration privacy and overlook
to adjacent neighbors.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 81
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 11
3.4 Architectural Style
The proposed project’s architectural style is Contemporary, with both gable end and flat roof
forms. This proposed architectural style is a departure from the previous Neo-Victorian style
approved at the site with the 2008-2009 version of the project. The prior project took its design
theme from the adjacent church and had steeply pitched roofs, rafter tails, trim pieces and
window styles with a Victorian style theme. The current Contemporary style reflects more of the
smaller office buildings in the vicinity in terms of its form and detailing.
The surrounding neighborhood is an eclectic blend of different styles and periods of
construction. The surrounding
Contributing bungalows to the
southeast were built in the early
1900s. The adjacent Rio Bravo
apartments were built in 1918 and
a Spanish lace stucco finish added
a later time. The Grace Church at
the corner of Pismo and Osos
Street is a Spanish Revival style.
Other office buildings in the
vicinity are representatives of Mid-
Century Modern. With this eclectic
context defining the best examples
of style to emulate is more
challenging.
Community Design Guidelines (CDG) Policy Guidance:
1.4 Goals for Design Quality and Character.
A. Keep San Luis Obispo architecturally distinctive; don’t let it become “anywhere
USA.”
4. Design with consideration of the site context in terms of the best nearby examples
of massing, scale, and land uses when the site is located in a notable area of the city
(for example, Downtown, Old Town).
6. Require design excellence for infill redevelopment sites, especially in the downtown
area.
3.B.1. Architectural style. No particular architectural style or design theme is required
in the City nor can San Luis Obispo be defined by any particular architectural style. A
wide range of architectural characteristics adds to the City’s overall image. While
variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new projects with the
existing built environment should be a priority. The goal is to preserve not only the
historic flavor of the community but, equally important, its scale and ambiance.
Figure 8. 2008-2009 version of project design
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 82
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 12
Staff’s Analysis: With their review of an earlier version of project plans, neither the CHC nor
ARC specifically recommended against a Contemporary architectural style, but did have issues
with the massing and materials of project buildings. Consistent with CDG Section 1.4 cited
above, the CHC mentioned that the design should respond to some of the better quality examples
of architecture in the vicinity of the site. The CHC mentioned that earlier design was attractive,
but not in the context of this neighborhood setting.
Project architecture, even within the context of the project site, is not especially coordinated and
appears as a collection of different styles. The wall facing the church appears especially stark
and abrupt (Figure 9 below). The applicant has elected not to modify the elevation in response to
staff comments and CHC direction. A cohesive architectural style should be selected that is
consistent with the goal included in CDG 3.B.1 “to preserve not only the historic flavor of the
community but, equally important, its scale and ambiance.”
Figure 9. Osos Street Perspective
3.5 Colors & Materials
In addition to the smooth-finish stucco and fiber cement siding shown in current plans, previous
plans also included corrugated galvanized metal siding, and ribbed metal siding. The ARC
recommended that the project materials palette be simplified in terms of the number of different
materials proposed and that the corrugated galvanized metal siding be eliminated from use on
building walls.
Staff’s Analysis: Current plans respond to previous direction by eliminating metal siding. The
revised Osos Street building elevation shows Corten steel on the third level, but Sheet 1 of the
design response booklet updates this choice to a wood siding with the Prodema product name.
The applicant’s response makes the point that the revised colors, especially the predominant
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 83
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 13
white color in the Osos Street elevation, were selected to pay homage to historic structures
adjacent to the site and better blend in with the neighborhood. However, as was mentioned in
the previous massing discussion in Section 3.3 of this report, the white color seems to accentuate,
rather than diminish the building’s scale.
3.6 Parking
Required & Provided Parking
The office component of the project at 8,050 square feet requires a total of 26.8 parking spaces
(8,050/300 = 26.8). The six two-bedroom units require two spaces each (12), the two three-
bedroom units requires 2.5 spaces (5), and the one-bedroom unit requires 1.5 spaces for a total of
18.5 parking spaces. The 9 residential units require 1.8 guest spaces (one per 5 units).
Therefore, the total project parking requirement is 47.1 spaces.
Table 2. Required Automobile Parking
Use Parking Calculation Spaces Required
Office 8,050/300 26.8
Six two-bedroom units 6 x 2.0 12.0
Two three-bedroom units 2 x 2.5 5.0
One one-bedroom unit 1 x 1.5 1.5
Guest parking - residential 1/5 units; 9/5 = 1.8 1.8
TOTAL 47.1
A total of 34 parking spaces are shown on plans for the project. A driveway off of Osos
Street would provide access to a majority of the project parking spaces (28 spaces) on the
ground floor of the podium building composed of:
1. 15 standard spaces;
2. 3 compact spaces; and
3. 10 tandem spaces
The other six parking spaces are provided in garages for the townhome units which have access
via Morro Street. Since the parking provided does not meet ordinance standards, the applicant is
requesting a 30% shared and mixed use parking reduction.
The office use would require a total of 4 bicycle spaces (3 long-term in lockers; 1 short-term in a
rack). The residential units require that each unit include bicycle lockers or interior space within
each dwelling or garage for the storage of at least two bicycle spaces per unit (18). The
residential development would require 1 short-term bicycle space in a rack. The total project
bicycle requirement would be for 21 long-term spaces and 2 short-term spaces.
Plans show that the project includes a total of 32 bicycle parking spaces (Sheet 12). The three
townhomes off Morro Street would include two interior spaces in garages (6). There are 8
bicycle lockers on the north side of the large podium building; three for the office use and 5 for
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 84
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 14
the townhomes in that building. Each of these eight lockers accommodates 2 bicycles (16). There
are two bicycle racks to meet short-term demand each containing 5 spaces (10).
Staff’s Analysis
The 2008-2009 version of the project included underground parking accessed off of Morro Street
for a majority of the project’s parking requirement. The earlier version of the project did not
include any parking reduction requests, but was approved with tandem parking for the residential
units in the project.
With the ARC’s conceptual review of project plans on December 16, 2013, the project’s parking
was a focus of discussion. The fundamental issues with the parking proposal that the ARC
reviewed was that the applicant was requesting both a 30% parking reduction and a majority of
the parking spaces for both the office and residual uses in tandem. The general consensus with
this “double-dipping” proposal was that the parking was inadequate for the mix of uses and not
particularly functional. The main concern was that the tandem spaces were not freely available to
be shared by multiple users at the site which is the key tenet of allowing the shared and mixed
use parking reductions under the code.
Figure 9. Parking Layout Comparison
12-16-13
ARC plan
8-4-14
ARC plan
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 85
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 15
In response to the concerns with the earlier version of the project, the applicant modified the
project plans to go the podium building which enables a more efficient parking layout. The
differences between the two versions of plans are included on Sheet 19 of current plans (see
Figure 9 on the previous page).
Residential Parking Complies with Standards: With the current proposal, each of the nine
residential units would have allocated spaces consistent with code requirements. Each of the
three townhomes off of Morro Street is self-contained in that they have two parking spaces in
their own garages. The five sets of tandem spaces in the first level of the podium building
provide complying for the five townhomes in that building. The one-bedroom unit in the podium
building would have the single space adjacent to the tandem spots.
Office & Guest Parking: The remaining parking in the podium building consists of 17 spaces,
two motorcycle spaces, and both short-term (racks) and long-term bicycle parking (lockers). The
code required parking for the office and guest parking would be a total of 28.6 spaces (26.8 +
1.8). With approval of a 10% shared parking reduction, the requirement for the office and guest
spaces would be reduced to 25.74 spaces. With 10 short-term bicycle spaces provided beyond
the base requirement of 2, the additional 8 spaces would qualify the project to reduce the
automobile requirement by one additional space (one auto space for each additional 5 bicycle
spaces provided, up to a 10% reduction). Therefore, this would reduce the automobile parking
requirement down to 24.74 spaces.
A shared use parking reduction (10%) may be applied for projects with common parking areas 1,
which is the case for this project, however, approval of a mixed use parking reduction (up to an
additional 20%) requires finding the times of maximum parking demand from various uses to not
coincide 2 (e.g. residences primarily use a shared parking lot in the evening, night, and early
morning while commercial uses primarily use a shared parking lot in the middle of the day). The
10% reduction is generally supported if the criterion for multiple uses is met, and the additional
20% is discretionary dependent on the characteristics and parking demands of the mix of uses
Typically, the 30% parking reduction for a mixed use project would be taken off the total of the
project parking requirement which in this case is 47.1 spaces. The 30% parking reduction would
result in a requirement of 33 spaces, which is one space less than the 34 spaces provided.
However, given how the spaces are laid out and assigned in this project, the analysis separates
out the residential and office/guest spaces.
1 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.B: Shared parking reduction. Where two or more uses share common parking areas,
the total number of parking spaces required may be reduced by up to 10%, with approval of an administrative use permit.
Where shared parking is located on more than one parcel, affected parties must record an agreement governing the shared
parking, to the satisfaction of the Director.
2 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.C: Mixed-use parking reduction. By approving an administrative use permit, the
Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects sharing parking by up to 20%, in addition to the shared parking
reduction, for a total maximum parking reduction of 30%, upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from
various uses will not coincide.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 86
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 16
The Planning Commission found that the criterion for the 10% shared parking reduction is met,
but that the criterion for the additional 20% reduction for offset times of demand could not be
made since there would be overlap between the peak times of the residential and office uses.
Instead, the Planning Commission recommended that the additional parking differential be made
up by approval of an automobile trip reduction program 3. There is no upper threshold in terms of
a percentage set in the code for the automobile trip reduction program reduction. Therefore, the
remaining differential of 8 parking spaces between the 25 spaces required and 17 provided can
be approved through this provision of the code.
The Planning Commission supported the modified parking proposal as providing a compact and
efficient parking proposal which is appropriate for the site’s location adjacent to the downtown
core and a half-block outside of the in-lieu fee parking district and from the Marsh Street Parking
garage. Parking provided in the project given the site’s location within a half-block of both the
Marsh Street Parking structure and the Downtown Parking District where on-site parking is not
necessarily required and in-lieu fees can be paid.
Conclusion: Per the Planning Commission’s directive, staff supports approval of some parking
reductions to accommodate the parking provided. However, staff finds that the applicant’s
submitted transportation demand management plan (Attachment 7) has not yet demonstrated
how fewer parking spaces for site uses will be successfully managed to meet demand and not
cause impacts to surrounding properties.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On August 19, 2008, the San Luis Obispo City Council approved a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the prior version of the project. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines
allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if
only “minor technical changes or additions” have occurred in the project description since the
initial study was originally prepared. In this case, the revised project description is updated
through the Addendum approved by the City Council on June 10, 2014 and documentation is
provided that no new significant environmental impacts are created by the modified project. The
ARC may review the Addendum and MND for the project through a link on the City’s website
embedded in the staff report prepared for Item PH-1 on the 6-10-14 Council agenda.
3 Zoning Regulations section 17.16.060.D: Automobile trip reduction. By approving an administrative use permit, the
Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects implementing non-auto travel, particularly for commuting, when
it can be demonstrated that reduction of on-site parking will be safe, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or
cause a decline in quality of life. The applicant shall provide reasonable justification for the reduction, including innovative
project design, transportation demand management (tdm), or incentives, which will reduce single-occupant vehicle travel to
and from the site. These may include, but are not limited to programs such as car-sharing, employer-paid transit passes,
cashouts (i.e. trip reduction incentive plans), or off-peak work hours.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 87
Pacific Courtyards Project (ARC 96-13; 1321 & 1327 Osos Street)
Architectural Review Commission – August 4, 2014
Page 17
5.0 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There has been active participation by the public in the review of the project through both
testimony at various project hearings and written correspondences. Like the Addendum and
MND referenced in Section 4.0 on the previous page, the ARC may review previous
correspondences received for the project through a link on the City’s website embedded in the
staff report prepared for Item PH-1 on the 6-10-14 Council agenda. Attachment 8 contains a
letter from James Lopes on behalf of Save Our Downtown on the project.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the project, based on findings of
consistency of the design with the Community Design Guidelines and Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, and subject to conditions.
6.2. Deny the project based on inconsistency of the project design with the Community
Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Program because its massing and
architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town
Historic District.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution
Attachment 2: Vicinity Map & Reduced-size project plans
Attachment 3: 11-25-13 CHC follow-up letter, resolution & minutes
Attachment 4: 12-16-13 ARC Follow-up letter & minutes
Attachment 5: City Council Resolution No. 10531 approving rezoning and VTM 2928
Attachment 6: 6-23-14 CHC follow-up letter, resolution & minutes
Attachment 7: Applicant’s transportation demand management plan
Attachment 8: Letter from James Lopes on behalf of Save Our Downtown
Distributed to ARC: 11” x 17” colored project plans
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 88
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 89
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 90
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 91
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 92
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 93
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 94
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 95
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 96
RESOLUTION NO. 10576 (2014 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING APPEALS, AND DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO A
MIXED -USE PROJECT CONTAINING NINE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AND 8,050 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND APPROVING A
10% SHARED PARKING REDUCTION AND AUTOMOBILE TRIP
REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1321 & 1327
OSOS STREET (ARC 96 -13)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in Conference Room # 1, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
November 25, 2013, for the review of conceptual project plans and recommended denial of the
project to the Architectural Review Commission, based on a finding that the project is
inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because its massing, materials
and architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town Historic
District; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2013, for conceptual review of Planning
Application ARC 96 -13, a mixed -use project with nine dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office
floor area and continued the hearing with general direction to the applicant for project revisions;
and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee 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 June 23, 2014, for the review of revised project plans and recommended denial of
the project to the Architectural Review Commission, based on a finding that the project is
inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because its massing and
architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town Historic
District; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on August 4, 2014, for the purpose of considering revised plans for final
approval and continued action with six directional items; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on September 8, 2014, and granted final design approval to the mixed -use
project; and
R 10576
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 97
Resolution No. 10576 (2014 Series)
Page 2
WHEREAS, adjacent neighbors Alice Davis and Stewart and Diane Jenkins filed
separate appeals of the Architectural Review Commission's action on September 18, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
November 10, 2014, for the purpose of considering the appeals of the Architectural Review
Commission's action; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the
Architectural Review Commission hearings and actions, the Cultural Heritage Committee
hearings and actions, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
a) The project is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
because its massing and architectural design is not compatible with neighboring
buildings in the Old Town Historic District.
b) The project is inconsistent with guidance contained in the City's Community
Design Guidelines, which encourage projects that have proportions and design
details that complement surrounding structures.
c) Consistent with Municipal Code Section 17.64.010 A., the City Council finds that
there is good cause to allow the applicant to submit revised project plans within
one year of the City Council's action to deny the final project design.
d) The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 19, 2008.
On June 10, 2014, the City Council approved an Addendum to document the
revised project description and eliminate no longer relevant mitigation measures.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby upholds the appeals, and denies without
prejudice the Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final design approval to the
mixed -use project (ARC 96 -13) with nine dwellings and 8,050 square feet of office floor area,
with the following conditions:
Condition-
a) Plans for a revised project design shall be considered by both the Cultural
Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission at a joint public
hearing.
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 98
Resolution No. 10576 (2014 Series)
Page 3
b) The final decision of the project design shall be subject to review and approval of
the City Council.
Upon motion of Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh, Carpenter and Smith, and
Mayor Marx
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Vice Mayor Christianson
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day of November 2014.
r
Mayo'r , an Marx
ATTEST:
nthony J. 'ia, M
City Clerk
APPROVED AS
JJ.,.`i'iristine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this _Z t" day of _'„,,,.,cJ 20 %1-t
City Clerk
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 99
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a four-story, 31,471 square-foot office building with two-level parking garage on the south side of the main hospital building on the French Hospital campus located near the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1911 Johnson Avenue BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner (781-7168) E-mail: pricci@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 240-14 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final
approval to the project, based on findings, including findings supporting approval of a building
height variance, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant San Luis Obispo Physicians Health
Alliance (SLOPHA2), LLC
Representative Tim Ronda & Brian Starr, Studio
Design Group Architects, Inc.
Zoning O-S (Office Zone with the Special
Consideration overlay)
General Plan Office
Site Area 18 acres (overall hospital
campus)
Environmental
Status
A Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) of environmental impact
was approved by the City Council
on December 7, 1993.
SUMMARY
In 1993, the City approved a master plan for the French Hospital campus that anticipated the
ultimate build-out of the site with needed facilities for a range of different services. The plan
included four new buildings, an addition to the hospital, and a substantial expansion of site
parking. On March 15, 2013, Administrative Use Permit A 140-11 was approved amending the
original 1993 master plan including the sizes and locations of proposed buildings. The proposed
office building is one of the planned buildings included as part of the overall hospital master
plan.
The applicant is now requesting final architectural approval of the medical office building and
associated parking garage.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2014
Item Number: 2
ARC2 - 1
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project includes the construction of the new medical office building and parking garage on
the hospital campus as shown on the approved master plan. The ARC’s role is to review the
project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG).
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Administrative Use Permit A 140-11
In 1993, the City approved a master plan for the French Hospital campus that anticipated the
ultimate build-out of the site with needed facilities for a range of different services. The plan
included four new buildings, an addition to the hospital, and a substantial expansion of site
parking. Most of the additional parking was developed many years ago when a large medical
office building was proposed and permits reviewed. However, the planned office building on the
south side of the hospital near Pacific Medical Plaza was never constructed. The current
application for a medical office building is generally for a building of about the same size and in
the same location as this prior building.
Twenty years after the approval of the master plan, the hospital took another look at its future
facility needs and their locations. The applicant processed a use permit to allow the requested
modifications to the original master plan. On March 15, 2013, the Hearing Officer approved the
use permit at an administrative hearing (Attachment 4). The premise for reviewing the master
plan as a revision, rather than an entirely new project is that the overall square footage of the
project will not exceed originally approved building areas. The applicant hired a traffic engineer
to do a traffic analysis to confirm that the current mix of planned buildings would not create new
traffic impacts. The new traffic study concluded that modifications to the roadways and current
traffic levels did not affect the conclusions of the original analysis. The use permit documented
the reasons that the previous initial study for the original master plan was still valid. Mitigation
measures from the original initial study that were still relevant were incorporated as conditions of
approval in the new use permit.
The recently approved master plan still includes a total of four new buildings and an addition to
the hospital. The subject office building is one of the approved buildings. On July 1, 2013, the
ARC approved two of the other buildings envisioned in the master plan. The new office building
known more commonly as the Pavilion Building is currently under construction on the north side
of the hospital campus and will be three stories and have a total floor area of 17,591 square feet.
The second approved building was an urgent care clinic that will be a freestanding structure in
the front parking lot and will contain 5,450 square-foot of floor area. It will be located just to the
south of the existing hospital’s main entry, but construction has not begun on it yet.
ARC2 - 2
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 3
2.2 Site Information/Setting
The overall hospital campus property is about 18 acres in size and extends generally from
Johnson Avenue to the railroad tracks. The site is composed of several different properties, some
of which are under separate ownership, and has an irregular shape. The various property lines
and ownerships are called out on Sheet A1.0 of plans. The main hospital access is at the
stoplight at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. There is also a stoplight at Johnson Avenue and
Ella Street with access to the site from Ella Street.
The developed part of the hospital property is fairly flat, but there is a steep slope bank between
Johnson Avenue and the front parking lot, and another steep slope bank between rear parking
areas and the undeveloped property owned by the hospital to the west. The office building under
review as a part of this application is located on property currently owned by Dignity Health, but
a sale is pending to the project applicant, known as SLOPHA2, LLC. The project site is on
Parcel 4 which is to the south of the hospital and to the west of Pacific Medical Plaza.
Figure 1. Overall French Hospital Master Plan showing project site
The overall campus site development includes the one- and two-story French Hospital building,
the three-story Pacific Medical Plaza to the south of the hospital (separate ownership), and the
New MOB
Parking
Structure
ARC2 - 3
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 4
Ella Street medical condominiums further to the south (separate ownership). A 1,800 square-
foot modular building that serves as a business office is located on the north side of the hospital.
Surface parking fields surround buildings. Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the
west, and residential uses to the north, south and east.
2.3 Project Description
The new medical office building described on plans as the Medical Arts Building (Building E)
will be four stories, have a total floor area of 31,471 square feet, and is located west of the
Pacific Medical office complex on the south side of French Hospital. The proposed building site
is currently surface parking. The proposed office building will have a maximum building height
of 62’ (measured from average natural grade under the building footprint to the parapet height).
The previous master plan approval allowed new medical office buildings near the hospital to
have a maximum building height of 45’6”. Therefore, a Variance is being processed along with
the final design review of the building to allow the requested 62’ building height.
The new freestanding office building has been designed to coordinate with the surrounding
existing buildings. The main stucco building color is a gold color (Pale Pollen). The large wall
surfaces are relieved by stucco ‘J’ control joints to add some texture and pattern. The other main
surface material is a box-beam aluminum siding that is used on tower elements and the first
floor. Brushed aluminum is used on decorative columns, canopies, and trim pieces.
In conjunction with the office building, a two-level parking garage with a total of 112 spaces is
proposed. The garage will be located directly to the west of the office building. The basement
level is accessed from two entries off an internal driveway on the west end and includes 67
spaces. The upper floor of the parking garage is at the first floor level of the office building and
contains 45 parking spaces. The upper level is accessed from a sloped driveway off an internal
driveway on the south side. The two levels of the parking structure are distinct and do not have
an internal connection.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Building Design
When the ARC approved plans on July 1, 2013 for the Pavilion Office building on the northwest
side of the hospital and the urgent care facility near the front hospital entry, the applicant was
directed to pursue a “holistic architectural master plan for unifying the campus aesthetic”. To
this end, the design of the new office building uses many of the same colors and materials as the
Pavilion building and has a mass and scale similar to the adjacent Pacific Medical Plaza.
Chapter 3.4 of the Community Design Guidelines provides guidance regarding the building
design for offices, specifically Section C.2, which is excerpted below in bold followed by staff’s
analysis of the proposed design in italics.
ARC2 - 4
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 5
a. Depending upon adjacent land uses and building scale and mass, it may be
appropriate to place the first floor at the minimum setbacks, with upper floors
set back further.
This provision is more applicable to office zones on smaller lots where there may be
lower and/or residential structures in near proximity to the property lines. In this
case, the proposed building site is interior to the site and not near off-site buildings.
However, the internal building space on the fourth floor is smaller and stepped back
from lower floors which provides additional offsets and articulation consistent with
the intent of this guideline to reduce the apparent mass of larger structures.
b. Building surfaces over two stories high or 40 feet in length should provide
vertical and horizontal wall plane offsets.
Vertical articulation is provided by the offset massing of the fourth floor previously
mentioned, elevator towers, and taller wall projections that extend above the main
building floors.
A variety of different building details is utilized to provide horizontal articulation and
further help break up the apparent mass of the overall building through changes in
surface textures and recesses and projections along wall planes. The irregular building
footprint provides opportunities for the offsets and metal column and canopy details
provide a unifying theme and additional relief.
The described features give the building additional relief and provide some shadow. To
provide further definition, the plaster walls will be painted in a gold color (Pale Pollen)
in contrast to the clear anodized aluminum storefronts of the curtain walls and the box-
beam aluminum siding that is used on tower elements and the first floor.
Figure 2. West Elevation showing varied heights of building
ARC2 - 5
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 6
c. Office structure facades should have extensive window areas.
The modern office building includes extensive amounts of windows consistent with
this guideline.
d. The primary building entrance should be designed as a highly visible and
significant architectural feature.
The building entrance is located in the southeast corner and is oriented toward
surrounding parking and driveway areas. The entry doors are recessed back from
adjacent building walls. A landscaped island separates a covered porte-cochere
drop-off area in front of the entrance from driveways. This covered drop-off area is
required by the building code for a medical office building.
Figure 3. Perspective View highlighting the building entry
Staff finds that the proposed design is consistent with the guideline to make a visible
and interesting architectural statement for the entry. The landscaping plan (Sheet L-
1) indicates that enhanced paving will be used for the surface of the entry area below
the porte-cochere. Condition No. 11 is recommended calling for the details of the
enhanced paving to be called on building plans to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
The porte-cochere also serves the dual purpose of providing usable outdoor space at
the second floor level as a deck and garden. Details are included on an inset on Sheet
L-1. Staff supports this design and finds that it further highlights and enhances the
overall entry design.
ARC2 - 6
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 7
3.2 Building Height
As previously mentioned in the project description, a Variance is needed to allow the proposed
office building to have a maximum building height of 62’ (measured from average natural grade
under the building footprint to the parapet height). The previous master plan approval allowed
new medical office buildings near the hospital to have a maximum building height of 45’6”.
62’ is the maximum height of the building. However, the main four-story portion of the office
building is generally about 52' and the 10' beyond, which is not a continuous wall height, is for
equipment screening and elevator towers. Elevator towers and equipment screens are allowed by
the Zoning Regulations to extend a maximum of 10 feet above the maximum building height.
The proposed building elevation views on Sheets A2.6 & A2.7 show the outline of the adjacent
Pacific Medical Plaza beyond to illustrate the similarity in scale of the proposed and existing
buildings. The applicant also included photo-simulations to show the massing of the new
building in relationship to existing building and improvements. While the new building is taller,
it looks appropriate in context when viewed next to the existing office building at the interior of
the site and substantially set back from adjacent streets.
Because of the unique nature of hospitals being on larger sites, often taking up multiple blocks
and frontages, and their important and essential public service to the community, a precedent has
been set for several decades to support variance applications to allow buildings to exceed typical
height standards of the underlying zone. As an example, both the parking garage and a proposed,
but not yet built hospital tower at Sierra Vista were granted height variances. The hospital tower
if it is ever built would be the tallest structure in town with a total of 92 feet in height.
Given past precedent and the placement and design of the proposed office building, staff has
prepared findings in the attached draft resolution to support approval of the building height
variance, including:
1. The large size of the hospital campus and approved master plan;
2. The precedent to allow taller building for hospitals facilities given their importance to the
community; and
3. The minimal visual impacts of the added height because of its location on the interior of
the site near a like-sized building and removed from adjacent residential uses.
3.3 Parking
Site parking for the entire campus reflects years of development and is very complicated with
shared facilities between different entities. A major parking expansion was developed on the
west side of the hospital that added 270 parking spaces and was finalized in 2003. A total of 632
parking spaces are presently provided.
Sheet A1.0 of plans provides a parking summary that looks at existing facilities and their demand
and the added demand of the subject project. The new office building requires a total of 157
ARC2 - 7
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 8
parking spaces. The top portion of the table on Sheet A1.0 lists parking required for existing
facilities and the Pavilion Building under construction, and also includes the 157 spaces required
by this project. Required overall parking is 580 spaces.
Parking Provided
New Parking
- basement 67
- first floor 45
- Parcel 2 15
Subtotal 127
Existing Parking removed -110
Net New Parking 127-110 = 17 17
Existing Parking 632
Total Parking Provided 632 + 17 = 649 649
Total Parking Required 580
With its development, the two-level parking structure will create a total of 112 spaces. Another
15 spaces shown with purple shading on Sheet A1.0 will be added on the northwest side of the
campus. Therefore, a total of 127 parking spaces will be added with the project, and a total of
110 spaces removed, for a net addition of 17 spaces. Total parking provided would be 649
spaces (632 + 17 = 649). Therefore, the provided parking of 649 spaces after project
development surpasses City requirements of 580 spaces.
3.4 Parking Structure Design
The two-level, 112-space parking structure will be convenient for patients visiting the new
medical office building. It has a simple utilitarian design with rectilinear plaster-finished walls to
match the adjacent building. Garage entries on the west side have a simple, unadorned design
(see Figure 2 on Page 5).
Figure 5. South Elevation showing parking structure
The benefit of the design is that parked cars will be more effectively screened. Cars within the
basement will have some exposure from wall openings on the south side, but most of the vehicles
on the upper level will be screened by the structure walls.
ARC2 - 8
ARC 240-14; French Hospital Medical Office Building
Page 9
3.5 Screening of Roof-mounted Equipment
Sheets A2.8 & A2.9 include typical HVAC units to show how building parapets will screen
equipment from off-site views. Condition No. 9 is included requiring working drawings for a
building permit to provide additional detail to assure that equipment screening is adequate.
3.6 Lighting
Sheet A2.12 includes information on the locations of proposed site and building lighting.
Proposed soffit lights under canopies and low-scale bollard lights appear well-placed. However,
the free-standing pole lights on the upper level of the parking structure may cause light trespass
and glare if not properly shielded. Condition No. 8 is recommended to limit pole heights to 15
feet (21 feet is typical) because of proximity to residential uses and to require additional
shielding of fixtures depending on specific lighting details and photometrics.
3.7 Tree Removals
To accommodate construction, a total of 14 trees (9 eucalyptus, 3 camphor & 2 bottlebrush) will
need to be removed. Their locations are shown on the conceptual landscaping plan (Sheet L- 1).
The legend indicates that new tree planting will occur, but the exact number of replacement trees
is not entirely clear. Generally, a 1:1 ratio of compensatory tree planting for trees removed is
required with projects. Condition 11 calls for tree protection measures to be in place during
construction, and for 1:1 ratio compensatory tree planting to be shown in landscaping plans.
Additional guidance related to the trees is provided in Public Works Conditions 37 & 38.
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Some of the requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Use Permit
follow-up letter. Include in the attached draft resolution as conditions of approval are
requirements of Fire and Public Works.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced size project plans
4. Administrative Use Permit A 140-11 follow-up letter
Included in Commission member portfolios: project plans
ARC2 - 9
RESOLUTION NO. -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
GRANTING FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL TO A 31,471 SQUARE-FOOT
OFFICE BUILDING KNOWN AS THE MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING,
AND AN ASSOCIATED TWO-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND
APPROVING A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A
62-FOOT HIGH STRUCTURE AT FRENCH HOSPITAL
ARC 240-14 (1911 JOHNSON AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the applicant, SLOPHA, INC., on December 15, 2014, submitted a request
for architectural approval of a proposal to develop the 31,471 square-foot office building at 1911
Johnson Avenue, and associated two-level, 112-space parking structure; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing to review and discuss plans in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 15, 2014, for the purpose of evaluating
the project for final design review; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of
environmental impact on December 7, 1993 for the hospital master plan that adequately
evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby makes the following
findings in support of final approval of the project design:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy 3.4.2 C which
recommends that medical services should be located near hospitals.
2. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of those living and
working in the vicinity since the proposed location of the office building are internal to the
site and separated from nearby residences by parking areas, open space and landscaping.
3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Chapter 3.4 C of the Community Design
Guidelines that provides directives for offices, since it will create an attractive building that
is complementary to other site structures and provides vertical and horizontal wall plane
offsets, extensive window areas, and an articulated entry.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 10
Resolution No. -14
Page 2
4. The Architectural Review Commission approves a variance from property development
standards to allow a maximum building height of 62 feet for Building E, based on the following
findings:
a. The large size of the hospital campus and the master plan concept for its development,
which allow for greater controls and more detailed review over proposed and future
development of the site, along with the vital public service that the hospital and its
associated facilities provide the community, constitute circumstances which do not apply
generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning.
b. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, because
other hospital facilities are of a similar height of that proposed for Building E and a
precedent has been set with past approvals to allow taller buildings on hospital sites.
c. As evidenced by submitted elevations and photo-simulations, the variance will not
adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons working on the site or in the
vicinity, given the proposed siting of Buildings E near other similar facilities and
substantial separation from the closest residences.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration was adopted by the
Planning Commission with the approval of the original 1993 master plan. Approved
mitigation measures that are still relevant are included below as conditions of approval. A
new traffic analysis was conducted by Orosz Engineering Group dated December 31, 2012,
which documents that the conclusion of the original traffic analysis from 1993 performed by
Gerald Skiles (referenced in the original initial study) is still relevant that planned facilities
will not result in trip generation levels that will adversely affect baseline intersection
operations or Level of Service on Johnson Avenue. The new analysis made this conclusion
based on a trip generation comparison which took into consideration current conditions
including modifications to adjacent roadways.
Section 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval
to the office building and parking structure, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and
code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the
margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to
approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be
approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. All applicable conditions of Use Permit A 140-11 approving a master plan for development
of the hospital campus including the subject medical office building in the Office zone are
incorporated herein by reference.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 11
Resolution No. -14
Page 3
3. The color and material board presented at the meeting were supported by the Architectural
Review Commission. Any modifications to the approved palettes shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working
drawings.
4. All stucco and plastered surfaces shall have a smooth hand-finished appearance to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and not be a sprayed-on type of
application. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly show the details of all windows and
storefronts and canopy features to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
6. A separate permit shall be obtained for all building signage, which shall fully comply with
the requirements included in the City’s sign regulations.
7. The locations of all wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building
elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall be installed
at a height of 15 or less and complement building architecture. The selected fixture(s) shall
be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the
City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning
Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be
included as part of plans.
8. Proposed pole lights on the upper deck of the parking structure shall be limited in height to
15 feet, have properly shielded fixtures, and be in compliance with the City’s Night Sky
Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
9. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be
placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen
them. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will be
adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
10. Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosure shall be included in
working drawings for a building permit and shall be to the review and approval of the
Community Development and Utilities Departments.
11. A final landscaping plan including irrigation details and plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings for each building permit
for the permanent structures. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and
species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees, including required street trees, with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The
landscaping plan shall also include information on hardscape areas around the building, such
as the specific type of enhanced paving treatment in front of the building entry.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 12
Resolution No. -14
Page 4
12. The landscaping plan called for in Condition 11 submitted with building permit plans for the
building shall reference all existing trees to remain, trees to be removed, and new trees
proposed as compensatory planting. Trees to remain shall be protected during construction
to the review and approval of the City Arborist and appropriate trees protection notes shall be
included on the landscaping plan. Support for the removal of trees is based upon 1:1
compensatory planting being clearly shown on the plans submitted for a building permit to
the approval of the City Arborist and the Community Development Director.
13. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
14. The applicant shall provide for the professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area
including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping in a first class condition.
15. The overall site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All plant
materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary.
16. Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on site in accordance with Table 6.5
of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that
are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and located at least as
conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking space. Dimensioned locations and
details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project’s
construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in
compliance with manufacturers’ standards. A minimum four foot wide path of travel shall be
provided to all bicycle parking spaces.
Fire
17. The required fire sprinkler risers for the building shall be located in a room with exterior door
access. Other fire department equipment shall be located internal to buildings where feasible.
18. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a
minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 13
Resolution No. -14
Page 5
Public Works
19. The building plan submittal shall include consistency between all plan sheets. The
architectural site plan, civil plans, and landscape plans shall be consistent. The building plan
submittal should include the topographic survey included in the ARC submittal for reference.
20. The building plan submittal shall show and label all property lines, parcel boundaries, and
easements. The plans and supporting documentation shall include reference to all recorded
access and utility easements. Any required easements or modifications shall be recorded
prior to building permit issuance.
21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete utilities plan. Include the existing and
proposed site utility plans for reference. Show the location of any existing significant
drainage pipes or structures on the revised campus plan and detailed ARC plans for
reference.
22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan per city
engineering standards and the previous campus approvals. The plans should include an
overall site plan at a smaller scale show and note all existing and proposed drainage system
improvements. The building plan submittal should include reference to the campus Use
Permit conditions that have been satisfied by the phase 1 permit. Include reference to the
permit number(s).
23. The grading and drainage plan and report shall clarify whether any changes will be required
at the detention basin, to accommodate the proposed retaining walls, fencing, and additional
15 parking spaces provided near the basin.
24. The building plan submittal shall provide verification that the original drainage analysis
covered campus build-out and is in general conformance with the proposed Master Plan
changes. Alterations/expansions that may increase the site runoff shall be subject to the
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual if not otherwise included in the
original campus design approvals. A copy of the campus drainage report and/or update shall
be provided at the time of building permit application.
25. The building plan submittal shall provide verification that the original drainage analysis
covered campus build-out and is in general conformance with the proposed Master Plan
changes. Alterations/expansions that may increase the site runoff shall be subject to the
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual if not otherwise included in the
original campus design approvals. A copy of the campus drainage report and/or update shall
be provided at the time of building permit application.
26. This project is part of the larger campus entitlements. As such, the project is not subject to
the current Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. The architect of record or engineer of
record shall provide an entitlement summary to clarify that compliance is limited to the
previous regulations. This project is subject to the previous Low Impact Development
Standards. The civil plans and landscape plans shall show and note how the roof drainage
and drainage from the parking structure roof deck will be disconnected or otherwise
conveyed to landscape planters/basins, vegetated swales, or areas of porous paving prior to
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 14
Resolution No. -14
Page 6
discharge and collection in the campus drainage piping system. Runoff from trash enclosure
areas shall be treated as required per City Engineering Standard 1010.B.
27. The building plan submittal shall comply with City Engineering Standards for water quality
treatment due to the expansion of parking lot surfaces. This application for ARC for the new
Medical Arts building and the changes to the Master Plan should address any existing and/or
proposed water quality treatment Best Management Practices within a summary drainage
report.
28. The report and building plan submittal shall include any requirement for final inspection and
certification of the water quality controls and water quality controls for this campus. The
building plans shall include any required upgrades to the existing basin related to the metered
release of storm water. A final inspection and report from the engineer of record will be
required.
29. Fossil filter inserts (drain inserts) are only recognized as an acceptable BMP in conjunction
with other measures (treatment train) or as an upgraded or retrofit to an existing development
where other treatment options are not feasible. The use of drain inserts only shall be first
approved by the City.
30. The project drainage report and campus plans shall show and note all proposed water quality
treatment BMP’s in accordance with adopted standards. The proposed upgrades shall be
submitted with the first development proposal. A phasing plan may be proposed so that the
timing of the improvements will reasonably align with the construction, construction staging,
temporary uses, and overall development phasing plans.
31. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water treatment
program. An Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be developed for the existing and
proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater conveyance System (PSCS) agreement shall be
recorded in a format provided by the City prior to permit issuance or final inspection
approvals as applicable.
32. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water treatment
program. An Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be developed for the existing and
proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater conveyance System (PSCS) agreement shall be
recorded in a format provided by the City prior to permit issuance or final inspection
approvals as applicable.
33. Prior to submittal of a construction application, the property owner shall collaborate with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine whether or not the proposed
development is considered to be part of a larger “Common Plan of Development” and
whether a Stormwater Pollution prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. Provide either
verification from the RWQCB that a SWPPP is not required or a copy of a completed
SWPPP and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number shall be submitted with
construction plans. At a minimum, a water pollution control plan will be required.
34. The building plan submittal shall provide cross sections across the parking lot/parking garage
in both directions for reference.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 15
Resolution No. -14
Page 7
35. The building plan submittal shall show the development of the driveway and parking areas to
comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes,
drainage, and materials. Parking spaces with an obstruction on one or both sides, including
columns and walls shall be widened in accordance with the standards. The plans shall show
compliance with the parking structure access ramps for upsloping/downsloping driveways.
The plans shall clarify the scope of work within the existing parking lot needed for the
transitions.
36. The building plan submittal shall include a complete parking lot plan and landscape plan.
The plan shall show all existing and proposed parking spaces to remain or to be altered. The
plan shall include all directional signing and striping accordingly.
37. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk
diameter of 3” or greater. Trees located outside the building footprint shall be retained unless
otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Include the diameter and species of all
trees. Tree canopies should be generally be shown to scale for reference. The plan shall note
which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal.
38. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve
any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A
city-approved Arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures
shall be shown or noted on the building plans.
39. The project applicant shall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval
by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted
prior to the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings. In addition, the
contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the Construction
Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone numbers. The
Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and requirements:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck
trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours (e.g., 11:30 AM to 1:30
PM), detour signs if required, directional signs for construction vehicles, and designated
construction access routes.
b. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel
regarding when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring,
c. Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for
materials, equipment, and vehicles.
d. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize
impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and noise impacts to
surrounding neighbors.
e. The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following noise
reducing measures:
1.) Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 16
Resolution No. -14
Page 8
2.) All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided
by the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un-muffled exhaust pipes; and
3.) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible,
and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers
or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent possible.
f. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
g. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
h. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity.
i. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and
debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected.
j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking.
Utilities
40. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV
inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and
approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
41. The proposed sewer lateral shall be constructed of HDPE pipe consistent with City standards.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of December, 2014.
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 17
O-S
PF
R-3
R-2
R-2
R-3
R-2
R-2-SC-S-S-H
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-1R-3
R-2
R-3
R-1-PD
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-3
R-2
R-1
R-3
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2 O
R-2
R-2-H
R-3-H
R-3-H
R-2
R-3-H
R-2-H
O-S
R-3
R-2
C/OS
PFELLAJ
O
H
N
S
O
N
IRISLEFFT
O
R
O
LIZZIEGEORGEBUCHONSI
E
R
R
AISLAY F
I
X
L
IN
I
R
U
T
H
BI
N
N
SBRECKS
A
N
L
U
I
SPISMO
H
E
N
R
Y
P
E
N
N
Y
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
KRISTY
KENDRA
B
R
E
C
K
A
L
L
E
Y
IRISVICINITY MAP ARCH 0240-20141911 JOHNSON ¯
Attachment 2
ARC2 - 18
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
12/4/14French MOB DD 2.2.vwxMEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
1911 JOHNSON AVENUE, SAN LUIS OBISPO
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Project Information
T1.0
Land Use Zone O-S
Present Land Use O-S
Proposed Use
Occupancy B, I-2.1, S-2
Construction Type II-A
Stories 4 + Basement
Building Height 62'-0"
Allowable Building Height 35'-0" Max.
Fire Sprinklers Yes
Medical Office and Ambulatory Surgery Center
General Building Information
(Request Height Variance for 62'-0")
Medical Arts Building
1911 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo Physician's Health Alliance, LLC
750 Pismo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SLOPHA2
T1.0 Title Page
A1.0 Proposed Overall Campus Site Plan
A1.1 Proposed Overall Campus Master Site Plan -REFERENCE-
A1.2 Existing Overall Campus Master Site Plan -REFERENCE-
A2.1 Building Site Plan
A2.2 Basement Floor Plan
A2.3 First Floor Plan
A2.4 Second Floor Plan and Third Floor Plan
A2.5 Fourth Floor Plan and Roof Plan
A2.6 Elevations
A2.7 Elevations
A2.8 Building Section
A2.9 Site Sections
A2.10 Shadow Studies
A2.11 Green Building Checklist
A2.12 Colors and Materials
A2.13 Lighting Plan and Trash Enclosure
A2.14 Renderings
A2.15 Renderings
L-1 Conceptual Landscape Plans
C-1 Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan
Applicable Codes: 2013 CA Building Codes, San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Construction Type:II-A
Allowable Area:
Occupancy Allowable(Area Proposed Area
Basement S-2 39,000(s.f.27,409 s.f.
1st Floor I-2.1 15,000(s.f.11,367 s.f.
2nd Floor B 37,500(s.f.11,334 s.f.
3rd Floor B 37,500(s.f.11,334 s.f.
4th Floor B 37,500(s.f.4,975 s.f.
Allowable Height:
I-2.1 2 stories (located on first floor)
B 5 stories
Separation:
I-2.1 / S-2 2-hr
I-2.1 / B 2-hr
A.Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 507 of the CFC. An approved water
supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire
flow shall be determined using Appendix B of the CFC.
B.Rooms or areas containing controls for air-handling systems, automatic fire-protection
systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by
the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the
door to the room or area stating "Fire Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel". Fire
sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access.
C.Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and CBC. An
approved NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system will be required. Shop drawings and
specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. Fire main
and all associated controls shall be installed per NFPA 24 standards and city engineering
standards.
D.Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with
Chapter 34 of the CFC.
E.This project shall meet the following portions of the 2013 CBC Chapter 7A requirements:
Class A fire-rated roof assembly is required. Attic, roof, eve, and subfloor vents must be
designed to resist flame and ember intrusion, and must be corrosion resistant and
noncombustible. Building siding must be composed of noncombustible material.Attachment 3ARC2 - 19
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
LEGEND ASPHFIRELANEFH24" CMP
EL=245.94'
FL OUT
54" CMP
EL=247.28'
FL OUT
18" CPP
EL=254.11'
FL OUT
250
285
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295290290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
250
260 265270
2
5
5 285285 295305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295
320
290
295290290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
297
296
296
297
297
296
285290296296
297
296
300
295 3
1
0
285
280
275
270
26
5
2
6
0
255
265 270297
275
296
295
27
5
280
280290300
290
2
5
0
240 240240245
245245
250250250250255
255255
255260
260260260265265265265270270270270 275275280280BRECK STREETBRECK STREETPROPOSED OVERALL CAMPUS SITE PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
REF
NORTH
M.O.B. Overall Campus
Plan A1.0
0 125 250
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
PACIFIC
MEDICAL
PLAZA
ELLA ST.
MEDICAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
MODULAR
BUSINESS
OFFICE
JOHNSON AVENUEJOHNSON AVENUE
ELLA STREETFAIRVIEW STREET
FAIRVIEW STREET
IRIS STREETIRIS STREETPARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 6
PARCEL 7
B
E
NEW FHMC MOB (MEDICAL ARTS)
NEW - 15 PARKING SPACES PER
MASTER PLAN A1.1
12/4/14French Master Site Plan 3.2.vwxPARKING DECK: 34 SPACES
PARKING GARAGE: 67 SPACES
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS ROAD IN COMPLIANCE
W/ CH. 5 AND APPENDIX D, 2013 CFC.
Building/Use SF #Beds/Units
Parking
Calc/Ratio
Min. Parking
Required
French Hospital 83,000 112 N/A 173.0
Pacific Medical Plaza 48,000 N/A 1/260 [2]185.0
Modular Business Office 1,800 N/A 1/300 6.0
OR Expansion (Bldg D) [3]4,850 N/A N/A 0.0
New MOB (Bldg E)
Medical Office 31,471 N/A 1/200 157.0
Health Education and Technology
Pavilion (Bldg B)
Office 17,742 N/A 1/300 59.1
Sub-Total 186,863 580.1
Total Demand (per City Standards)186,863 112 580.1
FOOTNOTES
Proposed Area changes from 1993 Approved Master Plan are shown in Bold Type
[1] -Not Used-
[2] City allowed 1/260 parking ratio for mixed use of Medical Offices and Hospital uses
[3] Completed in 1996 (9,500 SF approved. 4,850 SF Constructed)
New Parking
First Floor 67
Second Floor 45
Parcel 2 15
Sub-Total 127
Existing Parking Removed -110
Net New Parking Sub-Total 17
Existing Parking (See A1.2)632
Total Parking Provided 649
Parking Required
Parking Provided
PARCEL OWNER
1, 2, 3, 7 DIGNITY HEALTH
4 DIGNITY (SLOPHA PENDING)
5 ROFFONI PMP LTD.
6 ELLA ST. OFFICES
Attachment 3ARC2 - 20
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building Proposed Overall Campus
Plan A1.1
12/4/14French Master Site Plan 3.2.vwxLEGEND ASPHFIRELANEFH24" CMP
EL=245.94'
FL OUT
54" CMP
EL=247.28'
FL OUT
18" CPP
EL=254.11'
FL OUT
250
285
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295290290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
250
260 265270
2
5
5 285285 295305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295
320
290
295290290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
297
296
296
297
297
296
285290296296
297
296
300
295 310
285
280
275
270
26
5
2
6
0
255
265 270297
275
296
295
27
5
28
0
280290300
290
2
5
0
240 240240245
245245
250250250250255
255255
255260
260260260265265265265270270270270 275275280280X XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXBRECK STREETBRECK STREETPROPOSED OVERALL CAMPUS MASTER SITE PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
REF
NORTH
0 125 250
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
PACIFIC
MEDICAL
PLAZA
ELLA ST.
MEDICAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
A
B
C
D E
MODULAR
BUSINESS
OFFICE
PROPOSED 17,550 S.F. TWO-STORY
HOSPITAL EXPANSION
PROPOSED 18,000 S.F. THREE-STORY
HEALTH EDUCATION & TECHNOLOGY PAVILION
& 17 PARKING SPACES
1993 CITY-APPROVED 6,000 S.F.
HOSPITAL OFFICE BUILDING
& 24 PARKING SPACES
1993 CITY-APPROVED 30,000 S.F. THREE-STORY
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGELIMINATE 1993 CITY-APPROVED
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (35,000 S.F.)
& ASSOCIATED PARKING EXPANSION
1993 CITY-APPROVED
HOSPITAL EXPANSION (6,000 S.F.)ASPHFIRELANEFH24" CMP
EL=245.94'
FL OUT
54" CMP
EL=247.28'
FL OUT
18" CPP
EL=254.11'
FL OUT
250
285
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295290290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
250
260 265270
2
5
5285
285 295305
310
315
310
305
315
305
29
5
320
290
295290290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
297
296
296
297
297
296
285290296296
297
296
300
295 3
1
0
285
280
275
270
2
6
5
2
6
0
255
265270297
275
296
295
27
5
28
0
280290300
290
2
5
0
240240240245
245245
250250250250255
255255
255260260260260265265265265270270270270275
275280280LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDINGS
PER APPROVED '93 MASTER PLAN
PROPOSED REALLOCATION OF
BUILDINGS B & C AREAS
PROPOSED TEMPORARY AUDITORIUM
(24 - 36 MONTHS)
PROPOSED PARKING SUPPORT FOR
BUILDING E, WHEN CONSTRUCTED
PROPOSED BRECK STREET CONNECTOR
ROAD CONSTRUCTED CONCURRENTLY
WITH BUILDING A
DUE TO REVISED
PARKING, THE 40 SPACES
SHOWN ON PARCEL 2
ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR
BUILDING E
9,500 S.F. HOSPITAL O.R.
EXPANSION
(COMPLETED)
PARKING LOT EXPANSION
(COMPLETED)
RE-LOCATE BULK OXYGEN STORAGE (REMOVE 3
PARKING STALLS), CONCURRENT WITH
BUILDING 'C' CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED 2,000 S.F.
TEMPORARY AUDITORIUM
JOHNSON AVENUEJOHNSON AVENUE
ELLA STREET15 PARKING SPACES CONCURRENT WITH
BUILDING 'E' CONSTRUCTION (PER U109-93)
B
F
PROPOSED 5,350 S.F.
EMERGENCY OUTPATIENT CLINIC
Revised '12 Master Plan
Parking Requirements
E
D
A
B
C
F
Building/Use SF #Beds/Units
Parking
Calc/Ratio
Min. Parking
Required
Existing Buildings
French Hospital 83,000 112 N/A 173.0
Pacific Medical Plaza 48,000 N/A 1/260 [2]185.0
Modular Business Office 1,800 N/A 1/300 6.0
1993 Approved Buildings to be retained
New Hospital Office Building
(Bldg A)6,000 N/A 1/300 20.0
OR Expansion (Bldg D) [3]4,850 N/A N/A 0.0
New MOB (Bldg E)30,000 N/A 1/200 150.0
2012 Requested Building Revisions
Proposed Hospital Expansion
(Bldg C) 17,550 22 1/bed 22.0
New Health Education and
Technology Pavilion (Bldg B)N/A
Office 13,000 N/A 1/300 43.3
Storage 5,000 N/A 1/1000 5.0
New Emergency Outpatient Clinic 5,450 N/A 1/200 27.3
Sub-Total 214,650 631.6
Ella Street Office Building [1]12,000 N/A 1/200 [4]20.0
Total Demand (per City Standards)226,650 134 651.6
Total parking spaces presently provided 603
Proposed new parking spaces to be added 96
Provided parking spaces to be lost -33
Grand Total of parking spaces as shown on this sheet 666
FOOTNOTES
Proposed Area changes from 1993 Approved Master Plan are shown in Bold Type
[1] '93 Approved Plan did not account for Ella Street MOB (46 spaces total; 26 on Ella site plus 20 on Campus)
Per Use Permit U 1100 and ARC 83-39, 20 spaces of the required 46 spaces are required "off-site"
(ie shared parking on the Campus)
[2] City allowed 1/260 parking ratio for mixed use of Medical Offices and Hospital uses
[3] Completed in 1996 (9,500 SF approved. 4,850 SF Constructed)
This proposal reallocates the 41,000 SF combined space of buildings "B" and "C" as shown on
the 1993 Master Plan as approved by the City of SLO. The total area of the revised Master
Plan (226,650 SF) is less than shown on the 1993 Master Plan (231,000 SF)
FAIRVIEW STREET
FAIRVIEW STREET
PROPOSED 40 PARKING SPACES
PROPOSED 20'-0" WIDE CONNECTOR ROADWAY
TO BRECK STREET, CONCURRENT WITH BUILDING
'A' CONSTRUCTION
IRIS STREETIRIS STREET(E) DETENTION
BASIN
(E) DETENTION
BASIN
(E) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS
(E) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS
8'-0" WIDE CLASS I BIKE PATH
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 6
PARCEL 7 FOR REFERENCE ONLYAttachment 3ARC2 - 21
ASPHFIRELANEFH24" CMP
EL=245.94'
FL OUT
54" CMP
EL=247.28'
FL OUT
18" CPP
EL=254.11'
FL OUT
250
285
305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295290290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
250
260 265270
2
5
5 285285 295305
310
315
310
305
315
305
295
320
290
295290290
295
285
290
295
285285
290
295
297
296
296
297
297
296
285290296296
297
296
300
295 3
10
285
280
275
270
2
6
5
2
6
0
255
265 270297
275
296
295
27
5
28
0
280290300
290
2
5
0
12"
12"
18"
12'
18"
24"
12"
12"
4"
12"
6"
18"
14"
12"TR
24"TR
18"
4"
TR
8"
10"
TR1
TR4
8"OAK
72"STUMP
12"STUMP
60"STUMP
48"STUMP
60"STUMP
24"STUMP
48"STUMP
60"STUMP
48"STUMP
240 240240245
245245
250250250250255
255255
255260260260260265265265265270270270270 27527528028060"STUMP
10"
12" TREE
13" TREE
12" TREE
13" TREE
19" EUC.
10" TREE
19" EUC.
21" EUC.15" EUC.
19" EUC.17" EUC.
15" EUC.
10" EUC.
19" EUC.
13" EUC.13" EUC.
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
EXISTING OVERALL CAMPUS MASTER SITE PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
REF
NORTH
Existing Overall Campus
Plan A1.2
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
PACIFIC
MEDICAL
PLAZA
ELLA ST.
MEDICAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
JOHNSON AVENUE
ELLA STREET0 125 250
(E) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS
(E) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS
(E) DETENTION
BASIN
(E) DETENTION
BASIN BRECK STREETBRECK STREETFAIRVIEW STREET
FAIRVIEW STREET
IRIS STREETIRIS STREET(E) SECURITY FENCING
(E) SECURITY FENCING
(E) SECURITY FENCING
(E) WELL HEAD & TANK
FOR REFERENCE ONLY12/4/14French Master Site Plan 3.2.vwx(E) TREES TO BE REMOVED
99
7
7
17
1717 17 17
110 EXISTING SPACES TO BE
REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT
(BUILDING E) INDICATED IN YELLOW
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 6
PARCEL 7
EXISTING PARKING:
PARCELS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7
623 SPACES
Attachment 3ARC2 - 22
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
BUILDING SITE PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Building Site Plan
A2.1
AS
P
H
FUELTANK
FIRE
LANE WINDSOCKFH24" CMPEL=245.94'FL OUT54" CMPEL=247.28'FL OUT18" CPPEL=254.11'FL OUT250J O H N S O N A V E.285305310315310305315305295
290290295285290295285285290295 36"PALM CLUMP14"CEDAR 36"PALM CLUMP36"CLUMP8"TREE8"OAKGUYGUYJP24"EUC28"EUC28"EUC24"TREE24"EUC 4"EUC28"EUC14"EUC24"EUC24"DEAD10"TWIN8"EUC 12"PEPPER DBL40"PALM16"EUC36"PALM24"PEPPER48"EUCCLUMP22"EUC CLUMP18"EUC
3"
O
A
K
5"
O
A
K
5"
O
A
K
3"O
A
K
16"PINE28"PEPPER40"PALM3"OAK3"OAK72"EUCCLUMP26"EUC
1
2
"
W
I
L
L
O
W
6"
D
B
L
E
U
C
6"
E
U
C
6
0
"
P
L
E
U
C
2
4
"
E
U
C
36"EUC CLUMP250260
2
6
5
270255 285
285295 305310315310305315305295320290295
290290295285290295285285290295
297296296297297296285 290 296
296297296300295310285280275270265260255 265270 297275296295275280280290
300290250
NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NOPARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
PACIFIC
MEDICAL
PLAZA
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
VAN ACCESSIBLE
7 SPACES
7 SPACES
11 SPACES
9 SPACES
11 SPACES
15 SPACES
2 SPACES
(E)
RESIDENTIAL
CONDOS
(E)
RESIDENTIAL
CONDOS
(E)
RESIDENTIAL
CONDOS
(E)
RESIDENCE
(E)
GARAGE
ELLA STREET
MEDICAL BUILDING
F.F. = 297.58'
TRASH ENCLOSURE
(2-BINS), SEE A2.13
SHADED AREA INDICATES EXTENT OF
BUILDING ENVELOPE AS PRESCRIBED
BY EASEMENT RECORDED IN SLO
COUNTY DOCUMENT #1994-030595
081632
01632 291.45'N.G.297'N.G.11.6% SLOPEF.F. = 296.00'
NEW
MEDICAL
ARTS
BUILDING
A A
B
B
43'-4"60'-6"43'-4"43'-10"
43'-8 5/8"43'-4"24'-0"43'-4"5'-2 5/8"53'-1 3/4"44'-0 3/4"68'-5 3/8"24'-0"15'-9"15'-9"(E) FIRE
HYDRANT T.B.R.
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
0 40 80 Attachment 3ARC2 - 23
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
ICU/C
C
U
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
OVERALL FLO
O
R
P
L
A
N
TYP @
COLUMN
UPMECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
MOTOR
CYCLE
MOTOR
CYCLE
MOTOR
CYCLE NOPARKINGNOPARKINGMOTOR
CYCLE
MOTOR
CYCLE
ELEV.
EQUIP.
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
STORAGE
VAN ACCESSIBLE
VAN ACCESSIBLE
MOTOR
CYCLE
A A
UP
VAN ACCESSIBLEEXPANSION JOINTEXPANSION JOINT19 SPACES
2 SPACES
12 SPACES
12 SPACES
2 SPACES
18 SPACES 2 SPACESTRASHNO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
ELEV ELEV60'-6"18'-6"23'-6"18'-6"10'-0"9'-0"
TOTAL PARKING:
67 SPACES
TYP
GARAGE
ENTRY
GARAGE
ENTRY
B
B
.
.
.
......
.
.
............
.
.
.
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Basement Floor Plan
A2.2 Attachment 3ARC2 - 24
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts BuildingICU/CCU EXPANSIONOVERALL FLOOR PLANA
S
P
H
FUELTANK
FIRE
LANE WINDSOCKFH24" CMPEL=245.94'FL OUT54" CMPEL=247.28'FL OUT18" CPPEL=254.11'FL OUT250J O H N S O N A V E.285305310315310305315305295
290290295285290295285285290295 36"PALM CLUMP14"CEDAR 36"PALM CLUMP36"CLUMP8"TREE8"OAKGUYGUYJP24"EUC28"EUC28"EUC24"TREE24"EUC 4"EUC28"EUC14"EUC24"EUC24"DEAD10"TWIN8"EUC 12"PEPPER DBL40"PALM16"EUC36"PALM24"PEPPER48"EUCCLUMP22"EUC CLUMP18"EUC3"OAK5"OAK5"OAK3"OAK16"PINE28"PEPPER40"PALM3"OAK3"OAK72"EUCCLUMP26"EUC12"WILLOW6"DBLEUC6"EUC60"PLEUC24"EUC36"EUC CLUMP250260265270 255285
285295 305310315310305315305295320290295
290290295285290295285285290295
297296296297297296285 290 296 296297296300295310285280275270265260255265270 297275296295275280280290 300290250NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
VAN ACCESSIBLE
08163201632
COVERED ENTRYELEC.RAMPRAMPDN
DN
EXPANSION JOINT
EXPANSION JOINT RAMPRAMPDN
RAMPDN
RAMPDN
DN
A A
UPDN
2 SPACES
ELEV ELEV
UPDNELEC.ELEV ELEVUPDN11 SPACES
7 SPACES
7 SPACES
9 SPACES
11 SPACES
TOTAL PARKING:
45 SPACES
B
B
± 4,154 S.F.
± 5,120 S.F.
FIRST FLOOR
F.F. = 297.00'
FIRE RISER ROOM W/ SIGNAGE:
"FIRE SPRINKLER RISER" + "FIRE
ALARM CONTROL PANEL"
FIRE RISER
KNOX BOX
F.D.C.
UNDERGROUND FIRE
LINE (SIZE TO BE
DETERMINED BY FIRE
SUPPRESSION ENGINEER)11.6% SLOPE1-HR WALL
1-HR WALL
.
.
.
......
.
.
............
.
.
.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
(±11,367 S.F.)
REF
NORTH
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
First Floor Plan
A2.3 Attachment 3ARC2 - 25
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
CORRIDOR
205
CORRIDOR
114
WOMENBATH
30" X 48"SIDEAPPROACH
30" X 48"FRONTAPPROACH
FLUSH
30" X 48"SIDEAPPROACHADA
ADA
A ATHIRD FLOOR
F.F. = 325.00'
LOBBY
LOBBY
UPDN
± 4,154 S.F.
± 5,532 S.F.
ELEV ELEV
UPDNB
B
152
151
STAFF LOUNGE
3
5
9410
7
8
1
11
1
6
2
.
.
.
......
.
.
............
.
.
.
SECOND FLOOR
PLANTER
PLANTER
A AF.F. = 312.00'COVERED ENTRYLOBBY
UPDN
± 4,154 S.F.
± 5,532 S.F.
ELEV ELEV
UPDNLOBBY
B
B
.
.
.
......
.
.
............
.
.
.
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Second & Third Floor
Plans
A2.4
0 20 4002040 Attachment 3ARC2 - 26
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
DECK
A-6.0
V
W
X
FOURTH FLOOR
ELEV
ELEV
LOBBY
DECK
A A
DN DNPLANTER
F.F. = 337.00'
MECH
MECH
± 1,472 S.F.
± 969 S.F.
ROOF
FOURTH FLOOR
F.F. = 338.00'
LOBBY
DN
± 2,825 S.F.
ELEV ELEVDNRESTROOMS
UP
B
B
(E)
(E)(E) (E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E) (E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)(E)
(E)
(E)
1
ICU/CCU RM #9
143
ICU/CCU RM #8
3
3
3
.
.
.
......
.
.
............
.
.
.
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
ROOF PLAN
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
REF
NORTH
ROOF PLAN
DECK
BELOW+62.00'+57.00'+55.00'+55.00'+52.00'+52.00'+55.00'+57.00'+57.00'+55.00'+52.00'+57.00'+57.00'+62.00'+52.00'+55.00'+52.00'+55.00'F.F. = +41.00'+52.00'+57.00'+59.00'+57.00'
+52.00'
+/- 52.00'+52.00'+62.00'
+55.00'
+55.00'
A A
F.F. = +41.00'
DECK
ROOF: +349.00'
F.F. = +338.00'
DN
B
B
TYPICAL ROOFTOP
EQUIPMENT
4'-6" HIGH PARAPET,
TYP.
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Fourth Floor & Roof Plans
A2.5
0 20 4002040
Attachment 3ARC2 - 27
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building CRS/VECTORWORKS COLOR CHARTWEST ELEVATION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
North & South Exterior
Elevations
A2.6
0 20 40
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF +296.50'+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT +285.8'PARKING GARAGEMECHANICAL
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"JOHNSON AVENUE
LEASE CORR.
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
ROOF
11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKING DRIVE
(N)
WALKWAY FRENCH HOSPITAL
EXISTING PARKING LOT +295.21'P L P L P L P L
P L P L P LP L +300.50'+313.80'(N)
PRK'G
P L
(E) GRADE
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00'
ROOF
+356.23'15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"62'-0"CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
+294.23' A.N.G.
PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA BEYOND
PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA BEYOND
EAST ELEVATION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
0 20 40
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF+296.50'+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT+285.8'PARKING GARAGEMECHANICAL
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"JOHNSON AVENUE
LEASECORR.
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
ROOF
11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKINGDRIVE
(N)
WALKWAYFRENCH HOSPITAL
EXISTING PARKING LOT+295.21'P LP LP LP L
P LP LP L P L+300.50'+313.80'(N)
PRK'G
P L
(E) GRADE
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00'
ROOF
+356.23'15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"62'-0"CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
+294.23' A.N.G.
OUTLINE OF PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA IN FRONT
1911
ADDRESS NUMBER:
5" HIGH X 1/2"
STROKE (MIN.)
(SEE A2.1)
297 - 291.45
2
356.23' - 294.23' = 62'
+291.45 = 294.23' Attachment 3ARC2 - 28
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
CRS/VECTORWORKS COLOR CHARTEXTERIOR PLASTERHORIZONTAL METAL SIDINGALUMINUM CURTAIN WALLFRAMING WITH AZUREBLUE GLAZINGNORTH ELEVATION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
SOUTH ELEVATION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
West & East Exterior
Elevations
A2.7
0 20 40
0 20 40
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF+296.50'+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT+285.8'PARKING GARAGEMECHANICAL
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"JOHNSON AVENUE
LEASECORR.
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
ROOF
11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKINGDRIVE
(N)
WALKWAYFRENCH HOSPITAL
EXISTING PARKING LOT+295.21'P LP LP LP L
P LP LP L P L+300.50'+313.80'(N)
PRK'G
P L
(E) GRADE
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00'
ROOF
+356.23'15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"62'-0"CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
+294.23' A.N.G.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF +296.50'+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT +285.8'PARKING GARAGEMECHANICAL
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"JOHNSON AVENUE
LEASE CORR.
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
ROOF
11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKING DRIVE
(N)
WALKWAY FRENCH HOSPITAL
EXISTING PARKING LOT +295.21'P L P L P L P L
P L P L P LP L +300.50'+313.80'(N)
PRK'G
P L
(E) GRADE
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00'
ROOF
+356.23'15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"62'-0"CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
+294.23' A.N.G.
OUTLINE OF PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA IN FRONT
PACIFIC MEDICAL
PLAZA BEYOND
1911
FRENCH HOSPITAL
BEYOND
Attachment 3ARC2 - 29
+285.00'
PARKING GARAGE MECHANICAL
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
CORRIDOR
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH 11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"+297.00'
F.F. 1ST FLOOR
+312.00'
F.F. 2ND FLOOR
+325.00'
F.F. 3RD FLOOR
+338.00'
F.F. 4TH FLOOR
+349.00'
ROOF
+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.4'-6"MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
A - BUILDING SECTION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Building Section
A2.8
0 20 40
Attachment 3ARC2 - 30
A - SITE SECTION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL
+349.00'
ROOF+296.50'+285.5'
F.F. BASEMENT+285.8'PARKING GARAGE MECHANICAL
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
LEASECORRIDORLEASE
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
TRASH 11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"JOHNSON AVENUE
ROOF
EXISTING PARKING LOT
P LP LP L P L+300.50'P L
(E) GRADE
CORRIDOR
+294.23' A.N.G.
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
+297.00'
FF 1ST FL.
LEASECORR.
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
LEASE CORRIDOR LEASE
DECK
PARKING GARAGE
ROOF
11'-6"15'-0"13'-0"13'-0"11'-0"3'-0"+297.64' FF
(E) GRADE
(E) PARKINGDRIVE
(N)
WALKWAYFRENCH HOSPITAL +295.21'P LP LP LP L+313.80'(N)
PRK'G
+312.00'
FF 2ND FL.
+325.00'
FF 3RD FL.
+338.00'
FF 4TH FL.
+349.00
ROOF
+285.5'
FF BASEMENT
+294.23' A.N.G.
B - SITE SECTION
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Site Sections
A2.9
0 40 80
0 40 80
Attachment 3ARC2 - 31
WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW STUDY: 9am
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
Medical Arts Building
Pacific Medical Plaza
French Hospital
Medical Arts Building
Pacific Medical Plaza
French Hospital
WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW STUDY: 12pm
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
Medical Arts BuildingMedical Arts Building
Pacific Medical PlazaPacific Medical PlazaFrench HospitalFrench Hospital
WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW STUDY: 3pm
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
Medical Arts Building
Pacific Medical PlazaFrench Hospital
Medical Arts Building
Pacific Medical PlazaFrench Hospital
French Hospital Medical Center CampusSan Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:Sept. 8, 2014These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building
Date: 9/9/14Time: 2:47:29 PMFile name: French MOB Shadow Studies 2.0.vwxMEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Winter Solstice
Shadow Studies
A2.10 Attachment 3ARC2 - 32
LEED-NC v3.0 Preliminary Project Checklist
3/19/10
Preliminary Review Only - Subject to Change
Yes ?No
15 Sustainable Sites 26 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Sedimentation Control Plan
1 Credit 1 Site Selection**1Project in not located on a prohibited site
5 Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity**5within 1/2 mile of neighborhood and 10 basic services
Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1
6 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation , Public Transportation Access**6within 1/4 mile of two or more bus lines
Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation , Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1
Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation , Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3
Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation , Parking Capacity 2
Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat 1
Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1
Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1
Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1
1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 150% of hardscape to have SRI of 29 or higher
1 Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1Roof material to have SRI of 78 or higher
1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1
Water Efficiency 10 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Required
Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping**2 to 4
Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2
Credit 3 Water Use Reduction **40%2 to 4
5 Energy & Atmosphere 35 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required
Y Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required
Y Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required
5 Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 19 20% improvement in building performance rating
Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy **1%1 to 7
Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2
Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2
Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 3
Credit 6 Green Power 2
7 Materials & Resources 14 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required
Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1 to 3
Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1
1 Credit 2 Construction Waste Management 1 to 2 recycle/salvage 50% of construction waste
1 Credit 3 Materials Reuse 1 to 2 salvaged, refurbished and reused materials for 5% of total materials cost
1 Credit 4 Recycled Content 1 to 2 recycled or post-consumer product equals 10% min. of total materials cost
2 Credit 5 Regional Materials 1 to 2 at least 20% of building materials come from within 500 miles of project site
1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 rapidly renewable materials account for 2.5% (min.) of building material cost
1 Credit 7 Certified Wood 150% of wood based materials to be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council
14 Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points Notes
Y Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required
Y Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required
1 Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1Install carbon dioxide monitoring systems
1 Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1 increse ventilation rates to occupied spaces by 30% above minimum required
1 Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan , During Construction 1 Develop Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for construction phase
1 Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan , Before Occupancy 1 Develop Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for pre-occupancy phase
1 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials , Adhesives & Sealants 1Indoor adhesives and sealants not to exceed VOC limits
1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials , Paints & Coatings 1Interior paints and coatings not to exceed VOC limits
1 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials , Flooring Systems 1Carpet installed shall not exceed VOC limits
1 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials , Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 1No added urea-formaldehyde resins
1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 Permanent entryway systems, sufficiently exhaust spaces, air filters of MERV 13 or better
1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1 Provide individual lighting controls for 90% of building occupants
1 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 1 Provide individual thermal comfort controls for 50% of the building occupants
1 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design 1 HVAC systems and building envelop to meet ASHRAE standards
1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1 Implement a thermal comfort survey of building occupants
Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views , Daylight 75% of Spaces 1
1 Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views , Views for 90% of Spaces 1Direct line of site to outdoor environment for 90% of all regularly occupied spaces
1 Innovation & Design Process 6 Points Notes
Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1
1 Credit 2 LEED® Accredited Professional 1LEED AP on design team
3 Regional Priority (93401 eligible credits indicated by **)4 Points Notes
1 Credit 1.1 Regional Priority: Site Selection - SSc1 1 per USGBC's list of Regional Priority Credits for Zip Code 93401
1 Credit 1.2 Regional Priority: Development Density & Community Connectivity - SSc2 1 per USGBC's list of Regional Priority Credits for Zip Code 93401
1 Credit 1.3 Regional Priority: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access - SSc4.1 1 per USGBC's list of Regional Priority Credits for Zip Code 93401
Credit 1.4 Regional Priority: Provide Specific Title 1
45 Project Totals (pre-certification estimates)110 Points
Yes ?No Certified 40-49 points Silver 50-59 points Gold 60-79 points Platinum 80-110 points
French Hospital - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
San Luis Obispo, CA
French Medical Arts Bldg
4/8/10
EQ C4.1 Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives & Sealants 1 pt.
• Indoor adhesives and sealants not to exceed VOC limits
EQ C4.2 Low-Emitting Materials: Paints & Coatings 1 pt.
• Interior paints and coatings not to exceed VOC limits
EQ C4.3 Low-Emitting Materials: Carpet Systems 1 pt.
• Carpet installed shall not exceed VOC limits
EQ C4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 1 pt.
• No added urea-formaldehyde resins
EQ C5 Indoor Chemical &Pollutant Source Control 1 pt.
• Install permanent entryway systems
• Sufficiently exhaust spaces which contain hazardous gases or
chemicals
• Install air filters of MERV 13 or better
EQ C6.1 Controllability of Systems: Lighting 1 pt.
• Provide individual lighting controls for 90% of the building occupants
EQ C6.2 Controllability of Systems: Thermal Comfort 1 pt.
• Provide individual thermal comfort controls for 50% of the building occupants
EQ C7.1 Thermal Comfort: Design 1 pt.
• HVAC systems and building envelop to meet ASHRAE Standards
EQ C7.2 Thermal Comfort: Verification 1 pt.
• Implement a thermal comfort survey of building occupants
EQ C8.2 Daylight & Views: Views for 90% of Spaces 1 pt.
• Direct line of site to outdoor environment for 90% of all regularly occupied spaces.
ID C2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 pt.
• Project team to include a LEED Accredited Professional
RP C1 Regional Priority 3 pts.
• Additional credits for achieving LEED credits in categories classified
as having environmental importance for San Luis Obispo
Point Total LEED Certified - 45 pts.
Certified: 40-49 Silver: 50-59 Gold: 60-79 Platinum: 80-110
French Medical Arts Bldg
4/8/10
• Improve energy performance by at least 20% above base level
MR P1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Req.
• Provide accessible areas for collection & storage of recyclable
materials
MR C2 Construction Waste Management: Divert 50% from Disposal 1 pt.
• Recycle/Salvage 50% of total construction debris
MR C3 Materials Reuse: 5% 1 pt.
• Use salvaged/reused materials for 5% of total materials cost
MR C4 Recycled Content: 10% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer) 1 pt.
• Use materials with recycled content for 10% of total materials cost
MR C5 Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured 2 pts.
• Source of 20% of total building materials shall be within 500 miles of
project site.
MR C6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 pt.
• Use rapidly renewable building materials for 2.5% of total building
materials cost.
MR C7 Certified Wood 1 pt.
• A minimum of 50% of wood shall be certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council
EQ P1 Minimum IAQ Performance Req.
• Each building to meet minimum requirements
EQ P2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required Req.
• Prohibit smoking in the buildings & within 25 feet of entries
EQ C1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 pt.
• Install carbon dioxide monitoring systems
EQ C2 Increased Ventilation 1 pt.
• Increase ventilation rates to occupied spaces by 30% above
minimum required
EQ C3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan: During Construction 1 pt.
• Develop Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for construction phase
EQ C3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan: Before Occupancy 1 pt.
• Develop Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for pre-occupancy
phase
4/8/10
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
LEED v.3
New Construction and Major Renovation
SS P1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Req.
• Sedimentation Control Plan
SS C1 Site Selection 1 pt.
• Project site will avoid prohibited locations
SS C2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 5 pts.
• Opt 1: Renovate a building on previously developed site
• Opt 2: previously developed site & within ½ mile of residential
neighborhood and basic services
SS C4.1 Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access 6 pts.
• Provide no new parking
SS C7.1 Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof 1 pt.
• 50% of hardscape to have SRI of 29 or greater
SS C7.2 Heat Island Effect: Roof 1 pt.
• 75% of roof surface to have SRI of at least 78
SS C8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 pt.
• Do not exceed exterior maximum lighting power densities
• Non-emergency interior lighting to be automatically turned off during
non-business hours
WE P1 Water Use Reduction Req.
• Reduce water use by 20% through low-flow fixtures
EA P1 Fundamental Commissioning of Bldg. Energy Systems Req.
• Designate a Commissioning Authority to review and oversee
completion of commissioning process activities.
• Owner will document Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR)
EA P2 Minimum Energy Performance Required Req.
• 10% improvement in building performance rating
EA P3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Req.
• Zero use of CFC-based refrigerants
EA C1 Optimize Energy Performance 5 pts.
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Green Building Checklist
A2.11 Attachment 3ARC2 - 33
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Colors & Materials
A2.12
COLORS & MATERIALS
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
BRUSHED ALUMINUM
CORRUGATED 'BOX' METAL SIDING
(PAC-CLAD-HWP, TO MATCH PAVILION)AZURE
CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM
VISTA PAINT #7889
Pale Pollen
(DARKER COLOR IS BODY
COLOR IN SHADOW)
NO SCALE Attachment 3ARC2 - 34
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Lighting & Trash Enclosure
A2.13
LIGHTING PLAN - PROPOSED
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
FIRE
LANE 285295
290
285295290295
290
296295NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKINGVAN ACCESSIBLE
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING RAMPRAMPDN
DN
EXPANSION JOINT
EXPANSION JOINT
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
RAMPRAMPDN
RAMPDN
RAMPDN
DN
NO
PARKINGTRASHNO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
A PARKING LIGHT
LITHONIA DSX0 LED 68 WATT, PHOTOCELL
20' MAX. HEIGHT
C RECESSED DOWNLIGHT
(OIL RUBBED BRONZE TRIM NOT SHOWN)
LITHONIA L7XLED T24 11 WATT, PHOTOCELL
B WALL PACK
ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS MLB-1
LED 42 WATT, MOTION DETECTOR
D BOLLARD
LITHONIA DSXB-LED 22 WATT, PHOTOCELL
TRASH ENCLOSURE
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING Attachment 3ARC2 - 35
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Renderings
A2.14
VIEW FROM ELLA STREET - PROPOSED
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
VIEW FROM ELLA STREET - EXISTING
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
VIEW FROM PARKING LOT - PROPOSED
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
VIEW FROM PARKING LOT - EXISTING
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE Attachment 3ARC2 - 36
French Hospital Medical Center Campus
San Luis Obispo, California
Sheet Title:Sheet Number:
These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Medical Arts Building MEDICAL ARTS
BUILDING
Renderings
A2.15
VIEW FROM ELLA STREET - PROPOSED
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE
VIEW FROM ELLA STREET - EXISTING
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING NO SCALE Attachment 3ARC2 - 37
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAFRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1
9-25-14
SCALE: 1”= 20’
ENLARGEMENT ‘A’: SECOND-FLOOR ROOF DECK AND GARDEN 1”= 20’
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PROPOSED
PARKING GARAGE
SEE ENLARGEMENT ‘A’ FOR SECOND FLOOR ROOF GARDEN
PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL
PROPOSED BUILDING
X
X
X
XXX
XX
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Attachment 3ARC2 - 38
Attachment 3ARC2 - 39
March 18, 2013
Dignity Health ETAL
French Hospital Medical Center
Attn.: Controller
1911 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 140-11: 1911 Johnson Avenue
Gentlemen:
On Friday, March 15, 2013, I conducted a public hearing on your request for a Use Permit
to allow revisions to the master plan for the development of the French Hospital campus at
the above-listed location.
After reviewing the information presented, I have approved your request, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. Development included in the proposed master plan will not adversely affect the
health, safety, and welfare of persons living at the site or in the vicinity, because the
project design and required review of certain future uses address the concerns of the
special considerations zone which are:
a. Types of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general
plan policies;
b. City noise standards are satisfied;
c. Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access
to the site, are provided; and
d. Open space is preserved.
2. The development is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. As conditioned, including the previously-approved height variance reaffirmed through
Finding No. 4, the proposal conforms to the general plan and meets zoning
ordinance requirements, including the concerns of the special considerations zone.
4. The Hearing Officer hereby reaffirms a variance from property development
standards to allow a maximum building height of 45.5 feet for Buildings B & E, based
on the following findings:
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 40
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 2
a. The large size of the hospital campus and the master plan concept for its
development, which allow for greater controls and more detailed review over
proposed and future development of the site, constitute circumstances which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning.
b. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning, because other hospital facilities are of the same or greater height than
that proposed for Buildings B & E.
c. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons
working on the site or in the vicinity, given the proposed siting of Buildings B & E
near other similar facilities and substantial separation from the closest residences.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration was adopted by the
Planning Commission with the approval of the original 1993 master plan. Approved
mitigation measures that are still relevant are included below as conditions of
approval. A new traffic analysis was conducted by Orosz Engineering Group dated
December 31, 2012, which documents that the conclusion of the original traffic
analysis from 1993 performed by Gerald Skiles (referenced in the original initial
study) is still relevant that planned facilities will not result in trip generation levels that
will adversely affect baseline intersection operations or Level of Service on Johnson
Avenue. The new analysis made this conclusion based on a trip generation
comparison which took into consideration current conditions including modifications
to adjacent roadways.
Conditions
Use Restrictions
1. Any substantial change to a proposed use or any new use at the site from that
shown on the approved master plan shall be subject to review and approval of an
Administrative Use Permit. Uses shall be limited to hospital facilities, physician
and health professional offices, outpatient medical services, and medical
laboratories. Residential patient care shall require the approval of an
administrative use permit.
2. Specific development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street shall require the approval
of an administrative use permit. Uses shall be restricted to those of a low intensity
such as residential care or offices related to the hospital where minimal public
access is required thereby decreasing traffic impacts. With development of the site
at 1615 Fairview Street, street access shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
3. The proposed temporary auditorium may remain in place for a maximum period of
three years from the date of final occupancy granted by the City through the
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 41
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 3
required building permit process. A single, one-year time extension may be
requested in writing prior to the expiration of the three-year approval period to
review and approval of the Community Development Director.
Planning Requirements
4. Specific site development envisioned by the master plan is subject to the review
and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Plans shall include all
information on the checklist for final architectural review.
5. Building and parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not
cast glare onto adjacent properties consistent with the requirements of the City’s
Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning
Regulations. The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval of the
Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the height and
type of lighting fixtures
6. The applicant shall update the submitted parking and trip-reduction management
program to provide an enhanced trip-reduction program that contains a
comprehensive list of actions to reduce auto use to the Community Development
Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
revised program shall include all of the measures included in the draft plan plus all
of the following measures, if not already included, and show in narrative and plan
view how these are met:
a. Provide lockable bicycle storage consistent with the standards specified in the
Zoning Regulations and Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2007).
b. Include showers and lockers in the project to encourage employees to ride
bicycles or walk to work.
c. Provide preferential parking places (closer to building entries) for employees
who carpool.
d. Provide an incentive program for employees who bicycle or walk to work.
7. The project shall maintain the final approved version of the parking and trip-
reduction management program as part of the long-term hospital operations. After
a final program is approved, any future changes to the program shall be submitted
to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Prior to the issuance of
building occupancy for new structures, the applicant shall designate a
Transportation Coordinator who will manage transportation programs for the
project and shall promote alternative modes of transportation. This coordinator will
be responsible for submitting annual reports to the Community Development
Director detailing current number of employees and the effectiveness of the trip-
reduction plan components in meeting objectives. New trip-reduction measures
shall be approved for implementation into the program if existing measures are
proven to be ineffective.
8. The applicant shall consider, as part of the trip-reduction program, more
aggressive parking management practices such as a valet service or onsite
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 42
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 4
shuttles to transport patients from remote parking spaces to various buildings and
converting the doctor-only parking spaces in the front parking lot to general parking
to accommodate more spaces near the urgent care clinic for faster turnover visits.
With implementation of these or similar parking management practices, the
Community Development Director may approve without a separate administrative
hearing up to a 10% shared parking reduction.
Construction Requirements
9. During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the
following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as
necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency will be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities
during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be
used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. Dirt stock pile areas (if any) should be sprayed daily as needed.
d. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
e. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or
should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
f. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak
hour emissions.
g. If determined to be needed, periodic washdowns or mechanical streetsweeping
of streets in the vicinity of the construction site shall be done.
10. Protective fencing shall be installed prior to, and maintained in place until
conclusion of, grading and development of parking lot areas to prevent excess soil
from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site.
Public Works
11. Complete public improvement plans will be required in conjunction with the
development of Building A. A separate public improvement plan application,
submittal, review, and inspection fee to the Public Works Department will be
required based on the City Engineering Standards and fee resolution in place at
the time of the submittal. Projects approved after September 6, 2013, may be
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 43
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 5
subject to additional post-construction storm water management regulations as
promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
12. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show compliance with the Floodplain
Management Regulations. Portions of this campus are located within the X-
shaded (XB or former B) flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). This area is not considered to be a Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA).
Although not subject to mandatory flood insurance requirements, any structures or
building appurtenances located within this zone of shallow flooding shall comply
with our local ordinance. The project drainage report could be used to clarify the
extent of the underlying flood zone(s) in relation to the existing and proposed
campus improvements. The building plans shall show the location and extent of
the XB zone for reference.
13. The existing drainage outlet to the Southerly drainage channel has partially failed.
The existing head-cut and non-erosive outlet shall be repaired or replaced to the
satisfaction of Public Works Director and Natural Resources Manager. A permit
application and repair plan shall be included with or submitted concurrently with the
first building permit application. The plan shall be approved prior to building permit
issuance and shall have all work complete prior to occupancy of the first building
unless otherwise approved for deferral by the City.
14. The final drainage report shall evaluate the pre vs. post development runoff for the
100-year storm event in accordance with the Waterways Management Plan
Drainage Design Manual. The current basin design and analysis appears to be
conservative but was based on prior standards that were limited to the 50-year
storm.
15. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water
treatment program. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be developed
for the existing and proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater Conveyance System
(PSCS) agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City prior to
permit issuance or final inspection approvals as applicable.
16. The report and building plan submittal shall include any requirement for final
inspection and certification of the water quality controls and water quantity controls
for this campus. It is unclear from the previous design and reports whether the
outlet controls (metering) for the basin had been installed. The building plans shall
include any required upgrades to the existing basin related to the metered release
of storm water. A final inspection and report from the engineer of record will be
required.
17. The building plan submittal for future development shall show and note compliance
with Engineering Standard 1010.B for Storm Water Quality Management. This
code requirement is applicable to new or redeveloped sites where the total area of
impervious driveway and parking surfaces is more than 5,000-square feet. An
upgrade to the existing facilities and improvements is required.
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 44
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 6
18. Fossil filter inserts (drain inserts) are only recognized as an acceptable BMP in
conjunction with other measures (treatment train) or as an upgrade or retrofit to an
existing development where other treatment options are not feasible. The use of
drain inserts only shall be first approved by the City.
19. The project drainage report and campus plans shall show and note all proposed
water quality treatment BMP’s in accordance with adopted standards. The
proposed upgrades shall be submitted with the first development proposal. A
phasing plan may be proposed so that the timing of the improvements will
reasonably align with the construction, construction staging, temporary uses, and
overall development phasing plans.
20. The final drainage report shall include the required post-construction storm water
treatment program. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be developed
for the existing and proposed facilities. A Private Stormwater Conveyance System
(PSCS) agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City prior to
permit issuance or final inspection approvals as applicable.
21. The report and building plan submittal shall include any requirement for final
inspection and certification of the water quality controls and water quantity controls
for this campus. It is unclear from the previous design and reports whether the
outlet controls (metering) for the basin had been installed. The building plans shall
include any required upgrades to the existing basin related to the metered release
of storm water. A final inspection and report from the engineer of record will be
required.
Erosion Control
22. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are
required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity
where clearing, grading, or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more
acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre, but which is part of a larger
common plan of development or sale, also requires a permit. Permits are required
until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction
Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit
a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State
Board under their recently-adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and
Tracking System (SMARTS).
23. Prior to submittal of a construction application, the property owner shall collaborate
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine whether or
not the proposed development is considered to be part of a larger “Common Plan
of Development” and whether a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will be required. Either verification from the RWQCB that a SWPPP is not required
or a copy of a completed SWPPP and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID)
number shall be submitted with construction plans. At a minimum, a water
pollution control plan will be required.
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 45
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 7
24. Plans for the proposed bikeway shall be included with or submitted concurrently
with the first building permit application. The plan shall be approved prior to
building permit issuance and shall have all work complete prior to occupancy of the
first building unless otherwise approved for deferral by the City. Record drawings
for the bikeway improvements shall be provided to the City per City Engineering
Standards for the Northerly reach where located within the proposed easement
and intended for maintenance by the City.
25. Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credits will be available with the first and subsequent
phases if necessary. The previous TIF analysis included this segment of the bike
path and assumed that 25% of the costs would be from the Citywide TIF. Any
allowable credit of up to 50% of the total calculated TIF for any one phase will be
applied to the respective building permits. A project cost estimate will be required
at the time of plan submittal. Final credits and/or reimbursements will not be
applied until final receipts and invoices are received and accepted by the City for
the completed improvements. If applicable, the applicant/owner will be responsible
for documenting compliance with current Prevailing Wage legislation for any areas
of construction related to a fee credit or reimbursement.
Open Space
26. A permanent open space, drainage, access, and bikeway easement(s) shall be
dedicated to the City for the open space areas as shown schematically on the
revised campus plans. The Northerly and Southerly open spaces shall be linked
by the narrower band that parallels the Westerly property line adjacent to the
UPRR right-of-way. The easement agreement shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director,
Natural Resources Manager, and the City Attorney. The final easement boundary
and delineation shall be based on the existing and proposed site improvements
including, but not limited to, security fencing, bikeway construction, grading and
slope bank locations, utility locations, and access driveway construction. The open
space and related easement agreement is not intended to be an exclusive
easement and the on-going maintenance responsibility of these areas, unless
otherwise noted, will remain with the underlying property owner(s).
27. If clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including any tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs are proposed, all work shall be to the
satisfaction of the City and any pertinent regulatory agencies.
28. To insure maintenance of the mature trees on the site, the heavily-wooded portions
not to be used for parking and/or building pads should be maintained as
permanent open space easements. Tree trimming and removal of small trees and
other vegetation as part of an on-going open space maintenance program is
encouraged and shall be to the review and approval of the Natural Resources
Manager.
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 46
A 140-11 (1911 Johnson Avenue)
Page 8
29. Concurrent with the recordation of the permanent open space easement, applicant
shall submit an Open Space Management Plan for the area which shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager, Fire Marshall, and
City Arborist. At a minimum, the plan shall address tree and vegetation
management and maintenance, fencing and trespass abatement, and on-going
monitoring and patrol to address protection of the riparian area and other natural
resources, fire hazards, and transient activity.
This use permit shall be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer if the City
receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer,
or Police Department employee, that includes information and/or evidence supporting a
conclusion that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations
applicable to the property or the operation of the business, has occurred. At the time of
the Use Permit review, to insure on-going compatibility of the uses on the project site,
conditions of approval may be added, deleted, modified, or the permit may be revoked.
The Hearing Officer may refer the complaint to the Planning Commission at his/her
discretion.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the
action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are
available in the Community Development Department or on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $268 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
If you have any questions, please call Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Doug Davidson
Hearing Officer
cc: SLO County Assessor’s Office
Brian Starr
762 Higuera Street, Suite 212
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 47
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
December 1, 2014
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy
Nemcik, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey-
Good
Absent: Commissioner Allen Root
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Contract
Planner Jaime Hill and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented. The vote to continue public hearing #3, 1911
Johnson Avenue, ARCH-0240-2014 was taken before public hearings #1 and #2.
MINUTES:
The minutes of November 17, 2014, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1299 Orcutt Road. ARCH-0224-2014; Conceptual review of the home building
designs of the West Creek Project in the Orcutt Specific Plan area; C/OS-SP/R-
2/R-4-SP zones; Robbins Reed, Inc., applicant. (Jaime Hill)
Contract Planner Hill presented the staff report, recommending continuation of the
project to a date uncertain and the provision of preliminary comments to the applicant
and staff regarding the overall project design.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Charles Braff of Robins:Reed introduced the project team and their vision for the site.
Debbie Rudd, of RRM Design explained the design process the applicant had gone
through, and their desire to get input from the ARC at this stage of project development.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 2
Scott Martin, project architect with RRM Design, explained the constraints of the site
and walked the commissioners through the project layout and architectural details.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Wynn stated that he does not want the applicant to assume he is giving final
approval to the site plan at this hearing because the applicant needs to provide more
information on the details of the plan. He noted that he is happy with the realignment of
“A” Street and stated that the linkages seem appropriate. He raised the question of
whether some of the multi-family parking should be covered carports, perhaps with solar
panels like those in place at local school parking lots.
Commr. Curtis stated that it is premature to comment on the site planning since the
Commission does not have detailed information and he is reluctant to give consent to
the site plan only to have a tentative map come back to the Commission with no
opportunity for changes. He added that he would like to have the chance to review the
map before it goes to the Planning Commission. He stated that another concern is that
the community room appears to be hidden behind two of the multi-family unit buildings
and does not occupy as prominent a location as it should. He added that he is unclear
if it serves all the housing or only the multi-family units. He stated that there should be
more covered parking for the multi-family units. He noted that “balanced site grading”
does not make it clear whether there is export or import of materials. He stated that it is
important to have Public Works approve the access road and the intersection.
Commr. Andreen stated that the placement of “A” Street makes sense. She added that
the project is going in the right direction but the Commission needs to see more
information about connections and details.
Commr. Ehdaie stated she likes the site plan but needs more information about access
between the multi-family units and the single family homes on the other side of the
creek. She added that she does not see paths between the buildings for the multi-
family units.
Commr. Wynn stated that Commr. Ehdaie was referring to the need for safe pedestrian
pathways from building to building in the multi-family section.
Commr. Nemcik stated that the grading on the north side is fine and there is no need for
covered parking there. She added that she would rather see solar panels on the roofs
of the buildings.
Commr. McCovey Good stated that the project is going in a good direction and she likes
the street realignment, the parkways, and the pedestrian access through the site. She
supported covered parking at least along Orcutt Road.
Commr. Wynn stated that he wanted to encourage access between the adjacent
development projects including pedestrian paths, and supported the direction of the
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 3
building design. He added that the elevations look like something new to this area that
fits the targeted demographic even though they are not Craftsman, California Bungalow,
or California Mission. He noted that while the materials are not yet known, the project is
moving in a strong direction that feels cohesive and workable and maintains cost
effectiveness for the target market. He strongly suggested that there be a third design
option for the larger single family homes because it will make a huge difference in the
street elevation.
Commr. Andreen stated she would feel more comfortable if there was one design for
the Traditional homes that looked like a simplified bungalow to show some fidelity to the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan. She added that the different designs could be tied together
with materials and colors. She noted that doing this would save trouble in the long run.
Commr. Wynn stated that doing that might water down the project and he prefers to
stay with the style presented.
Commr. Curtis pointed out, in reference to the recent chastisement of the Commission
for the appearance of not adhering to guidelines, that the OASP “strongly encourages”
the use of Craftsman, California Bungalow, and California Mission styles in order not to
put a strait jacket on creativity. He added that he feels somewhat uncomfortable
moving to a shed-roof modern design because the OASP does not specify that style.
He stated it is somewhat difficult to pull off a shed-roof design, especially at the lower
end of the economic spectrum, and he worries that it will not be durable enough to be
desirable in 5-10 years. He noted that he could see a modern design that respects the
three styles referenced in the OASP but the shed roofs are a little problematical. He
also noted that there are fairly strong policies in the OASP and in the City guidelines
about not having a long row of garages which is what is presented here with the single
family homes. He suggested that some of the homes have side entry garages.
Commr. Wynn suggested requiring that some of the garages be tandem parking.
Commr. Curtis added that shared driveways would be a way to reduce overall
pavement which, along with changing the row of garages, would make this less of a
suburban type development.
Commr. Ehdaie stated she supports the modern contemporary design as long as
durable materials are used and, in the next review, she wants to see a color board.
Commr. Nemcik supported the style but agreed with Commr. Curtis on the driveways
and garages. She complimented the parkway elevations that do not have garages in
the front and stated that she appreciates that this property is like a puzzle.
Commr. McCovey-Good stated she also likes the modern architectural style as long as
high quality materials are used, even though it is not expressly in keeping with the
OASP. She added that when the project comes back for a second review, she wants to
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 4
see all four sides of the structures. She agreed with the need to minimize the front-
loaded garages.
Commr. Wynn asked if staff knows what proportion of the required number of units in
the Orcutt Area will be in this development. He expressed concern about the lack of
variety in designs included in the OASP.
Contract Planner Hill noted that, in addition to highlighting the three specific styles, the
OASP talks about details and features, many of which are incorporated in this project.
Commr. Andreen again emphasized the need for a third more traditional style that
adheres to the OASP.
Commr. Curtis stated that although he appreciates the articulation in the present design,
it may be too much articulation and would benefit from some simplification. He noted
the need for a balance between articulation and sameness.
Commr. Wynn stated that the Commission does not have enough information on
amenities and solar access so discussion should be deferred to the next review.
Commr. McCovey-Good stated that the Commission should address the location of the
dog park and the blocking of the road that services the larger single family homes.
Commr. Wynn stated that, without benefit of topography and more information, he is still
a little unclear on this and on the connectivity between this and the adjacent projects.
Commr. McCovey-Good supported the cul-de-sac if it dead-ends into a park.
Commr. Ehdaie asked for the staff recommendation about this.
Contract Planner Hill stated that there is a required connection up to the next property
where about nine units may be built and the future access may be a private road, but
that the road by the single-family homes is not required to be a connecting road to
Azure Street in the other adjacent development. She noted that the applicant prefers to
block traffic on this road, but staff generally advocates for roads with through-circulation.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested asking for more information about adjacent properties,
“A” Street, circulation, the tentative map, lot design and grading, at the next review.
Commr. McCovey-Good stated that this information would be needed before the
Commission could provide feedback for these site features.
Commr. Curtis stated he prefers connectivity between streets rather than cul-de-sacs.
Commr. Wynn noted that, at a minimum, there should be pedestrian access where the
cul-de-sac ends.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 5
Commr. McCovey-Good summarized the recommendations of the Commission, as
mentioned above, including providing a site plan with topography, retaining walls, parks,
and realignment of the road. She noted there was a split in support of the covered
parking so it is not a requirement and item 5 on the list can be deleted. She added that
the pedestrian linkages looked maximized.
Commr. Wynn wondered if there could be a pedestrian bridge through the single-family
units, possibly between houses 10 and 11 that would provide a path between the single
and multifamily sections.
Commr. Ehdaie agreed with Commr. Wynn about the need for this pathway.
Commr. McCovey-Good continued her summary of recommendations. She noted the
need for a third elevation option for the Traditional single family residences and the
need to restrict, as much as possible, the front-loading garages. She stated that she
has trouble with limiting her thoughts based on the Commission being given a lashing
on one project.
Commr. Ehdaie stated the Commissioners represent the community so it is okay to
make comments about the design. She noted that the OASP says “strongly
encouraged” so it is not being explicit which makes a modern contemporary design
acceptable.
Commr. McCovey-Good added that the Commission is a pretty well-versed group and
the Commissioners should not second-guess themselves.
Contract Planner Hill suggested that it is helpful for those not present if the Commission
articulates the rationale for its recommendations.
Commr. Curtis stated the job of the Commission is to apply the OASP and the
guidelines and if Commissioners disagree with those, they should send a
recommendation to the City Council to amend the guidelines.
Commr. Wynn agreed and stated that this should be done as a separate action.
Commr. Curtis stated that the Commission should do this in order to allow the type of
design presented with this project.
Commr. Wynn agreed but stated it would be best to not be so specific to allow flexibility
in style.
Commr. Ehdaie stated that she strongly agrees that the Commission needs to apply the
Community Design Guidelines.
Senior Planner Ricci directed the discussion back to the recommendations and noted
that some components, such as site grading, fit into #7 while incorporation of a third
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 6
style would be in #8 as well as the garage issue. She added that #5, about the
carports, will be deleted.
Commr. Wynn suggested rewording #1 to note that this project must come back for a
second conceptual review.
Commr. Curtis strongly supported this change to #1.
The applicant stated that on the single-family lots, one of the reasons shared driveways
were not used was to avoid having retaining walls between every two houses. She
asked for the Commission's preference about the garages.
Commr. Andreen suggested a mix of shared driveways with retaining walls and front-
loaded garages.
Commr. McCovey-Good supported the front-loaded garages, not the retaining walls.
Commr. Wynn, agreed with Commr. McCovey-Good and suggested looking at a
tandem garage when designing a third floor plan.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Andreen, to continue the conceptual
review for this project to a date uncertain with the following directional items:
1. The applicant shall return to the ARC with modified plans for a second conceptual
review prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Vesting Tentative Map
(VTM).
2. Provide additional information required with a VTM, including more grading details
such as cut and fill quantities, retaining, and topographic maps.
3. Explore the possibility of adding a pedestrian linkage between the traditional single-
family homes and multi-family units across the creek, and showing pedestrian
connections between the multi-family buildings.
4. Work with the adjacent property owners regarding the proposed locations of street
and pedestrian linkages.
5. Clarify parking proposals throughout the project.
6. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-street
parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk).
7. Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of structures
and relationship to topography.
8. Incorporate a third model type for the traditional single-family products.
9. Explore different solutions to minimize the number of garage doors facing the street
with the traditional single-family products such as rear garages, side-loaded garages
and combined driveways. The ARC supported using retaining walls to
accommodate some combined driveways. The ARC suggested that some tandem
parking may be supported to minimize the width of driveways.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 7
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Root
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
2. 581 Higuera Street. ARCH-0300-2014; Conceptual review of a new, four-story
mixed-use project with approximately 13,000 square feet of retail space and 24
residential units; C-D zone; PB Companies, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
Associate Planner Cohen presented the staff report, recommending continuation of the
project to a date uncertain with direction to staff and the applicant on items to be
addressed in plans submitted for final approval.
Randy Alonzo, PB Properties, introduced the project team and explained how this site
fits into the larger overall project plan.
Ryan Petetit, PB Properties, described the overall design motivations for the three
planned buildings.
Joel Snyder, architect, explained the simple, elegant proportions and materials
proposed with the subject building. He asked for guidance from the ARC regarding the
fourth floor design.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Ron Batterson, SLO, architect and chair of the Jack House for the last 15 years, stated
he was speaking as an individual because he has concerns about the access to the
subterranean parking which will require a shear wall right on the property line where
there is a stand of redwoods planted by descendants of the Jack House people. He
added that the redwoods could not be saved if this wall is built. He noted that he hopes
there are alternative ways to access the underground parking.
Ken Schwartz, SLO, stated that he is reminding the Commission that it has a
responsibility to look at all the public sides of a building and what is missing in the
applicant's presentation is the perspective from the Jack House. He stated that he
objects strongly to developers who do not show the whole picture in a comprehensive
way. He added that the access to the underground parking will result in ramifications
for the character of the Jack House public space.
Victoria Wood, SLO, stated she is a co-owner of the Kaetzel House across Marsh Street
from the Jack House. She agreed that the Commission needs to look at this project in
total. She stated she is concerned about the scale and mass being too large on lower
Higuera and Marsh Streets.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 8
Cinda Fox, SLO, stated she is concerned about the scale of the project, specifically the
four-story height. She added that she loves the scale of the two-story Marsh Street
Commons and the downtown. She noted that this overall project will dwarf the Marsh
Street Commons and the Jack House so that the neighborhood will not feel intimate
anymore. She added that her neighbors in the Marsh Street Commons share her
concerns.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Wynn stated that the building is one story too tall. He noted that other buildings
reaching those heights have more of a street presence, and with the size goes the
height. He listed several downtown buildings as examples, including the courthouse
building. He supported the modern design of the first three stories and noted that this
design is similar to one in Seattle.
Commr. Curtis agreed with Commr. Wynn and stated that the Commission is obligated
to make decisions based on the guidelines and this building is taller and more bulky
than existing standards allow. He stated that he is hearing that people like the scale
and character of the City as it is. He noted that the guidelines also call for modulating
the upper floor heights and there are mechanisms the developer could use that would
minimize the verticality at the street frontage.
Commr. Ehdaie agreed with Commrs. Wynn and Curtis. She stated she wants to see a
reduced height more in keeping with the existing buildings of the neighborhood.
Commr. Andreen agreed with the other Commissioners but stated that she hopes the
loft look can be retained without chopping it up too much.
Commr. Wynn stated that the fourth level represents four units of living space and to
justify the height for that does not make sense. He asked if the extra height for four
additional units was necessary
Commr. Nemcik also agreed and stated that she wonders if bringing it down to 50 feet
would help and that this could probably be done without taking out a floor. She added
that the whole thing is too massive.
Commr. McCovey-Good stated she is not opposed to the height, that the project has a
nice pedestrian feel and most people will not notice the fourth floor. She added that, if
the fourth floor is removed, she hopes it stays in the same footprint.
Commr. Wynn stated that the project would be stronger without the contemporary
component. He described the building as being contemporary with a brick skin and 16-
foot lintels that gets more contemporary toward the inside of the site. He added that this
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 9
building has two fronts and both need to be reduced and, if height is added, he would
add it to the very center of the building.
Commr. Andreen stated that the contemporary center section breaks up the design and
is interesting and enlivening.
Commr. Curtis stated that the first three floors with the brick shell work well and he
prefers that to the modern elements added to the top. He added that he senses that the
fourth floor was not thought through as it lacks detail.
Commr. Ehdaie stated that she is not too sure about the fourth floor and prefers the
building without the contemporary feature of the fourth floor. She would like to see the
height and massing reduced.
Commr. Andreen stated the windows fit the style because it is the loft look, the windows
enhance the interior space, and the lantern effect will be nice at night.
Commr. Curtis agreed with Commr. Andreen.
Commr. Nemcik stated she likes the windows but wonders about the practicality of them
because they are a part of residential units. She added that she is having some issues
with the look of the project and described it as feeling odd or forced because it is a new
building made to look old.
Commr. Wynn stated that while he has the same concern about privacy with every unit
having floor-to-ceiling windows, he is OK with the windows. He noted that new
buildings are made to look old all the time because the City requires California
bungalow or Mission style.
Commr. Ehdaie questioned whether this style of window is appropriate for a city of this
size. She added that she has seen this loft style in bigger cities where the purpose of
the large windows is to see the urban view which is not available in San Luis Obispo.
Senior Planner Ricci stated there are loft buildings without views in big cities so she is
not sure this is a reason not to have the windows.
Commr. Curtis stated that he sees the large windows as a continuation of the basic form
of a masonry brick building and it is compatible with other buildings and designed to
harmonize with the downtown area.
Senior Planner Ricci summarized and noted that #2 would be stricken and replaced with
a statement to keep the building height to 50 feet or less and consider eliminating the
fourth floor.
Commr. Wynn stated it should just say eliminate the fourth floor and the other
Commissioners agreed.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 10
Senior Planner Ricci noted that #3 would not be required if the building is under 50 feet.
Commr. Wynn noted that the Jack House is on south side so it will not be shaded.
For #4, Commr. Wynn stated that “fourth floor” should be changed to “highest floor” and
otherwise leave #4 intact.
Senior Planner Ricci restated that the Commission is OK with the windows on the upper
floors.
Commr. Wynn stated that bulkheads make the downtown unique so he supports
keeping them. He noted that they could be added or subtracted as needed for tenants.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested this wording: “Bulkheads shall be provided for sections
with windows facing Higuera Street.”
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Wynn, to continue the meeting
past 9 p.m.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Root
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
Commr. McCovey-Good suggested adding a 12th item and Senior Planner Ricci
suggested this wording: “Provide expanded streetscape views and views from the Jack
House property.”
Commr. Wynn stated that the applicant can expect to hear a demand for a physical
model from a group of residents and this has always been true for large projects in the
downtown core.
Commr. Curtis requested an overall concept plan for the three properties, the
pedestrian connection and the parking.
Senior Planner Ricci responded that the plan is to come back separately for the other
two buildings and then come in with a comprehensive plan for all three projects.
Commr. Curtis, noting the impacts on the Jack House and the redwood trees, asked the
applicant to explore alternative locations for the driveway to the subterranean parking.
Commr. Ehdaie asked if this project is subject to a CEQA review.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 11
Senior Planner Ricci responded that an initial study has not been done and this project
is considered an infill development.
Commr. Ehdaie asked if there are any levels of review that pertain to the Commission,
such as aesthetics.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that for buildings under 50 feet, the Commission would
make a decision on aesthetics. She added that the Commission will need to look at the
redwood trees in detail as it is an impact on a biological resource.
In response to a request from the applicant to clarify the intent of the Commission's
comments on the top floor, Commr. McCovey-Good stated that there should be details
on the plans of the highest level.
Commr. Wynn stated that was also his intent and if there is a roof deck or terrace, or a
penthouse elevator that goes to that level, or even potential bathrooms that are
relatively small, those things should relate to the brick piece.
Commr. Ehdaie suggested changing “historical” to “predominant” in #4. The change
was made.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Curtis, to continue to a date
uncertain with the following directional items:
1. Submit complete plans with all of the required information on the City’s checklist for
final architectural approval.
2. Keep the building height to 50 feet or under and eliminate the fourth floor.
3. Include details on the design of the highest level to determine that it will look integral
with the rest of the building by drawing upon the predominant elements of the
structure and including compatible finish materials, colors, window treatments, and
roof lines.
4. Include bulkheads along all storefront windows that front along Higuera Street.
Storefronts that open as doors do not require bulkheads. .
5. Submit a sign program that includes information on the sizes, locations, colors,
materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for this building and the
overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of
proposed building. If a single application for final architectural review is pursued for
the larger project, then a comprehensive sign program that includes this site plus
other adjoining sites shall be submitted. Signage design may be tailored for
individual buildings, but site directional signs and tenant directory signs should have
a coordinated design.
6. Include detailed information on pedestrian pathways, wall and site lighting, location
of backflow prevention devices, and screening of mechanical equipment.
7. Provide details and locations of trash and recycling enclosures. Enclosures shall be
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 12
screened from street and off-site views and architecturally integrated with the design
of the project.
8. Provide a detailed parking calculation of the proposed subterranean parking for the
larger mixed-use project, as well as site plans that include the parking layout and
dimensions.
9. The applicant is encouraged to provide public art within the project rather than
paying the public art in-lieu fee.
10. Provide expanded streetscape views of the project and show how the proposed
structure relates to the Jack House property including views of the project from the
Jack House property.
11. Provide an overall concept plan for the whole project that includes: the subterranean
parking, the location of the driveway into the underground parking, the relationship of
the project with the redwood trees that border the Jack House property and the
subject site, and show all pedestrian access.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Root
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
3. 1911 Johnson Avenue. ARCH-0240-2014; Review of plans to construct a new
four-story medical office building including a two-level parking garage consistent
with the approved Master Plan for the French Hospital Medical Center site, a
building height variance, and reaffirmation of a previously-approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; O-S zone; SLOPHA, Inc., applicant.
(Pam Ricci)
Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, recommending continuation to a date
certain of December 15, 2014, to allow applicant to provide additional supplemental
information.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the Commission.
The following motion was done before consideration of the above two hearing items.
On a motion by Commr. Curtis, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie, to continue the hearing to
a date certain of December 15, 2014, to allow applicant to provide additional
supplemental information.
Draft ARC Minutes
December 1, 2014
Page 13
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Root
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast: December 15, 2014 at 4 p.m.: Miner’s property proposal,
new medical office building at French Hospital, homeless service center on
Prado Road, Pacific Courtyards joint meeting with Cultural Heritage Committee
5. Commission: Given the late hour, there were no specific communications to report.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary