Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-03-2016 Agenda Packet updated
Tuesday, May 3, 2016 4:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Page 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8 Property: Property 1: APNs 052-271-007; 070-241-013; 070-271-013; 073-321-008; 073-341-003; 073-341-028 Property 2: APNs 070-241-006; 070-241-027; 073-321-007 Property 3: APN 076-051-011 Negotiating Parties: City of San Luis Obispo: Katie Lichtig, Derek Johnson, J. Christine Dietrick, Shelly Stanwyck, Robert Hill, Jon Ansolabehere Miossi Brothers La Cuesta Ranch, Inc. (Property 1): Gabriel Miossi, Kathy Henderson, Sam Garkovich, Dell Hemingway Ahearn Family Revocable Trust (Property 2): Sandra Ahearn, Trustee The Trust for Public Land (Property 3): Becky Bremser, Tily Shue Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 3, 2016 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 3, 2016 Page 2 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Dan Rivoire CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION INTRODUCTIONS 1. CARLOS RUELAS - PUBLIC WORKS STREETS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR AND ALEXANDER FUCHS - PARKING SERVICES SUPERVISOR (GRIGSBY – 10 MINUTES) PRESENTATIONS 2. PRESENTATION BY TOURISM MANAGER CANO, PRESENTING THE VISIT CALIFORNIA POPPY AWARD FOR BEST OVERALL MARKETING PROGRAM TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND BARNETT COX & ASSOCIATES (BCA)+STUDIO GOOD FOR THE 2014-2015 TOURISM MARKETING CAMPAIGN (JOHNSON/CANO – 10 MINUTES) 3. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK (MARX/CANO – 5 MINUTES) Presentation of a Proclamation to Tourism Manager Cano, representing the City of San Luis Obispo, declaring May 1-7, 2016 as "National Tourism Week." 4. PRESENTATION BY SCOTT SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (HASLO), REGARDING THE HASLO UPDATE (SCOTT SMITH – 10 MINUTES) San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 3, 2016 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15 minutes total) The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items. CONSENT AGENDA A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit. 5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Recommendation Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 6. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND GRANT REQUEST OF $35,000 FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TO REHABILITATE 214 HIGHLAND DRIVE (CODRON/WISEMAN) Recommendation 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving an Affordable Housing Fund award for Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County.” 2. Approve modification to allow a reduced affordability term of fifteen (15) years. 7. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; UNITED STATES ET AL. EX REL. PEREZ V. STERICYCLE, INC. ET AL.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-CV-2390; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (DIETRICK/ANSOLABEHERE) Recommendation Approve and authorize the City Finance/IT Director to accept and deposit the settlement checks thereby consenting to the provisions of the settlement agreement between Relator Jennifer Perez and defendant Stericycle, Inc. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 3, 2016 Page 4 8. APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR THE CITIZENS’ REVENUE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (JOHNSON/PRICE) Recommendation 1. Revise the appointment process for the Citizens’ Revenue Oversight Commission (REOC) consistent with all other Advisory Bodies; and 2. Affirm the appointments of Council Members Ashbaugh and Christianson as the Council Liaison Subcommittee designated for the REOC. 9. LOSSAN AGREEMENT WITH SLO TRANSIT (GRIGSBY/ANGUIANO) Recommendation Approve an agreement with LOSSAN for a one-year pilot project to honor Pacific Surfliner passes on SLO Transit; which is to be reimbursed at regular fare rate for each ride. BUSINESS ITEMS 10. COUNTY WIDE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN (GRIGSBY/HUDSON – 30 MINUTES) Recommendation 1. Receive and comment on a report and presentation by San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ Staff regarding a County Wide Transportation Investment Plan; and 2. Conceptually approve the draft Transportation Investment Plan proposal and safeguards as approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Board on April 6, 2016. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 3, 2016 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TABLE 9 OF SECTION 17.22.010 OF THE CITY’S ZONING REGULATIONS TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT A NIGHT CLUB USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE IN THE AIRPORT AREA; CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A NIGHT CLUB LAND USE (LIVE ENTERTAINMENT) WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NIGHT CLUB (LIVE ENTERTAINMENT) AND OFF-SITE PARKING AT 855 AEROVISTA PLACE (SLO BREW) (CODRON/COHEN – 45 MINUTES) (PREVIOUSLY HEARD ON APRIL 19, 2016) Recommendation As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Table 9 of Section 17.22.010 of the City’s Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) conditionally permitting a night club land use within the Business Park (B-P) zone in the Airport Area Specific Plan Area (CODE -1316-2015)”; and 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Table 4.3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan allowin g a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone, approving a night club use permit with off-site parking in the Business Park zone at 855 Aerovista Place and adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact as represented in the staff report and attachments dated May 3, 2016 (CODE-1316-2015).” 12. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY NAOMI HOFFMAN) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S ZONE THAT INCLUDES EXCEPTIONS TO THE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK AND HEIGHT (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE) (CODRON/BELL – 60 MINUTES) Recommendation As recommended by the Architectural Review Commission, adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying the appeal of the design of a new single family residence in the R -1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) Zone that includes front yard setback and height exceptions, with a categorical exemption from environmental review, as represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments dated May 3, 2016 (40 Buena Vista Avenue SDU-1521-2015).” San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 3, 2016 Page 6 BUSINESS ITEMS 13. AMERICA IN BLOOM (JOHNSON/PRICE – 10 MINUTES) Recommendation Consider the City’s participation in the America in Bloom National Awards Program. 14. APPOINTED OFFICIALS’ COMPENSATION (IRONS – 10 MINUTES) Recommendation Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, providing a lump-sum retention incentive to the City Manager and City Attorney.” COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit—3 minutes each. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2) ADJOURNMENT Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room and Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 3, 2016 Page 7 LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100. Page intentionally left blank. Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Planning Technician SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND GRANT REQUEST OF $35,000 FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TO REHABILITATE 214 HIGHLAND DRIVE RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution approving an Affordable Housing Fund grant in the amount not to exceed $35,000 to Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County for home rehabilitation; and 2. Approve modification to allow a reduced affordability term of fifteen (15) years. DISCUSSION The Affordable Housing Fund (“AHF”) has been collected from commercial and residential developers to meet the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance “in-lieu” of those developers providing actual housing units. State planning and zoning law requires the fund to be used only for the purpose that it was established – to support affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo. These funds are awarded at the City Council’s sole discretion, based on previously adopted criteria (Attachment A). Requests for AHF support are evaluated by staff and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The project requesting funds is described below and evaluated for how it meets these criteria. Overview of Request Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County (“HFH”) is requesting a grant not to exceed $35,000 to rehabilitate one single family residence as part of their Home Rehabilitation and Home Preservation program (Attachment B). HFH’s Home Rehabilitation and Home Preservation program is intended to preserve the affordable housing stock in the County by helping low-income residents maintain their homes. Due to the high cost of housing in San Luis Obispo County, these programs are primarily serving senior, low-income homeowners of which 95% are single, senior women with health issues who rely on social security benefits. As a result, the program preserves low-income owner occupied housing units, and incorporates an aging in place program by assessing the homes for safety and compatibility with the physical needs of the owners. 6 Packet Pg. 8 This particular single family residence is located at 214 Highland Drive and owned by a low - income senior. The homeowner meets City and HFH low-income requirement (30-60% of the median income), and has passed HFH’s home inspection, financial review, family selection interviews, and Board approval for candidate selection. The homeowner has signed an agreement with HFH requiring the contribution of ownership interest through in-kind hard work, “sweat equity”, into the rehabilitation (Attachment C). Reduced Affordability Term Typically, AHF awards are required to provide affordability restrictions for a minimum of 30 years. HFH is requesting a deed restricted period of fifteen (15) years for this specific home rehabilitation project. Reasoning for the request is based on the homeowner’s age, compliance with HUD home preservation standards which recommends a 15 year affordability term, and because HFH will enter into a 15 year interest free loan with the homeowner for the remaining funds needed to complete the project. The following Housing Element policies and programs support the grant request including the reduced affordability term: Housing Element Program 1.4: Rehabilitate using Federal, State, and local housing funds, with the objectives of 30 single-family, 75 multi-family, 10 historic, and 20 mobile homes for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income homeowners and renters. Housing Element Policy 2.3: For housing to qualify as affordable, guarantees must be presented that ownership units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by state law, or for a shorter period under a housing rehabilitation agreement with the City. In addition, as a part of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City’s Quantified Objectives include rehabilitation of 75 low-income units, and financial assistance to 60 low-income units. The City’s rehabilitation objectives also include using the AHF to rehabilitate or preserve 35 low-income units. Should the homeowner sell the home to a non income eligible household before the end of the 15 year affordable requirement, the grant shall become immediately due and payable. If the homeowner remains in the home, or sells the home to a low-income household, no repayment of the grant shall be due. Award Criteria In making recommendations to the City Council for how AHF funds should be allocated, staff considers Council adopted criteria including eligibility, need, suitabil ity, timing, financial effectiveness and readiness (Attachment A). The following is an analysis of the request relative to the criteria. Eligibility: Use of the AHF for the requested purpose will increase or improve the City’s affordable housing inventory and promote General Plan policies regarding housing, as follows: 6 Packet Pg. 9 The project will rehabilitate and preserve a single family residence occupied by one, low - income senior. By providing the grant to HFH for rehabilitation, the required deed restriction will add one new dwelling to the City’s affordable housing inventory. The proposed award is consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policies 3.1, 3.7, and Programs 1.4, 3.9. Need: There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of unit to be assisted, as follows: The Housing Element includes policies and programs to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of affordable housing in the City. The project will help t he City meet its quantified objectives for rehabilitation projects for low-income households. In addition, the project implements key Housing Element policies and programs. Suitability: The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location both in terms of land use and design, as follows: The project will rehabilitate an existing, single family residence in the R-1 zone. The proposal does not involve any changes to the site or its surroundings and will involve minimal changes to the exterior of the home. In addition, the request assists the City to meet Housing Element rehabilitation goals. Timing: The project would better serve the City’s needs if it were built immediately as opposed to later, as follows: The timing of the award is critical because the homeowner has entered into a contract with HFH that schedules work to be completed by June 31, 2016. Housing rehabilitation projects keep the City’s affordable housing stock in sound, safe condition and avoid the risk of losing affordable housing to disrepair. If the project is delayed, required repairs could become more extensive. Financial Effectiveness: But for the requested assistance, the project would not be economically feasible; or AHF funding “leverages” significant additional funding from other sources, as follows: Financing for rehabilitation projects is extremely limited and the project will not be financially feasible in the near term without AHF support. The funds will leverage an additional $10,000 from HFH and 30 hours of contribution of ownership interest through in- kind hard work, “sweat equity”. Readiness: The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed, as follows: The rehabilitation project does not require discretionary approvals and is ready to proceed pending necessary building permits. HFH has already met with City building officials regarding needed permits and code compliance. 6 Packet Pg. 10 STATUS OF THE AHF A status report on the AHF is attached (Attachment D). The report indicates that if the proposed allocation is approved by the City Council, the fund will retain $1,107,388 to allocate to future affordable housing projects. Staff is recommending funding for the current request listed in the table below. The attached resolution (Attachment E) recommends funding for a total not to exceed $35,000. The proposed funding amounts to approximately 3% of the funds currently available to be allocated to new projects. Based on approximately one month of building permit activity, this amount of funding will be restored to the AHF by summer 2016. Current Requests AHF Available Balance $1,142,388 HFH – 214 Highland Drive 1 Unit $35,000 Current Request Total 1 Unit $35,000 Net Available for New Programs if Current Request Approved $1,107,388 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review per Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is an action to award funding. Each project awarded funding will be subject to CEQA at the time the project is filed. It can be seen with certainly that the proposed action to award funding will have no significant effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACTS The recommended allocations would be paid out of the AHF, which consists of in -lieu fees collected under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The fund may only be used for projects or purposes that create or support affordable housing within the City of San Luis Obispo. Based on prior expenditures and pending commitments, there will be a balance of $1,107,388 remaining in the AHF after this award. The project will have no impact on the General Fund. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not authorize AHF awards for the proposed project. This action is not recommended because the project appears to meet the criteria for AHF assistance and is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. 2. Do not authorize the reduced 15 year affordability term. This action is not recommended because the project cannot move forward with a longer term due to Habitat for Humanity requirements. 6 Packet Pg. 11 2. Approve an AHF award of a different amount. The City Council can approve awards for a different amount other than the recommendation. 3. Continue consideration of the proposed award. The City Council can direct staff to return with additional information regarding the funding request so that a final decision on the award amount can be made. Attachments: a - Resolution 9263 b - Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing Fund Grant Request c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement d - Affordable Housing Fund Status e - Draft Resolution 6 Packet Pg. 12 6.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: a - Resolution 9263 (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) 6.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: a - Resolution 9263 (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) 6.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: a - Resolution 9263 (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) 6.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: b - Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing Fund Grant Request (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) 6.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: b - Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing Fund Grant Request (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) 6.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: b - Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing Fund Grant Request (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) Homeowner Agreement THIS HOMEOWNER AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is signed on this _____ day of ________, 20__ between HFHSLOCO for Humanity for San Luis Obispo County (“HFHSLOCO”), a California nonprofit corporation with an address of P.O. Box 613 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, and Sharon Wood, 214 Highland Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (“Homeowner”). Background Statement (a) Homeowner is the owner of record and the primary occupant of a residence located at 214 Highland Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (the “Property”). (b) In keeping with its mission to provide decent, affordable housing for qualified families in San Luis Obispo County, State of California, HFHSLOCO provides various programs for home repair to qualified families on favorable terms. HFHSLOCO has selected Homeowner for participation in the following program(s) (“Program”): Home Rehabilitation In consideration of the mutual agreements set forth in this Agreement, HFHSLOCO and Homeowner agree as follows: 1. Work to be Performed on the Property. (a) Scope of Work. The work to be performed on the Property (the “Work”) is described in Exhibit A of this Agreement. Homeowner acknowledges that Homeowner has reviewed and approved the description of the Work. (b) No Future Work. Homeowner understands that HFHSLOCO is not undertaking to perform ongoing maintenance of the Property. Future maintenance and upkeep of the Property is solely the responsibility of Homeowner. (c) Certificate of Completion. Upon completion of the Work, Homeowner will be asked to sign a Certificate of Completion in the form attached as Exhibit B to this Agreement. 2. Sweat Equity. Homeowner and any additional able-bodied adult(s) (18 years or older) residing at the Property agree to contribute at least 30 total hours to the Work or, in the discretion of HFHSLOCO, other HFHSLOCO houses (“Sweat Equity”). Homeowner’s extended family and friends may contribute up to 15 hours of the required Sweat Equity. Homeowner acknowledges that Sweat Equity is a requirement of the Program and that no compensation will be paid to Homeowner or others for performance of Sweat Equity under any circumstances, including any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 8. 6.c Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) 3. Price and Payment. The total price for performance of the Work, including all labor, materials and other charges, will be no more than $45,000. Exhibit A: Preliminary Scope of Work has been developed using preliminary estimates of the prioritized items 1 through 13. Additional investigation, inspection, and research will be performed by HFHSLOCO as the project progresses to determine a final estimate of the project’s cost. An increase or decrease in the cost for each item listed in Exhibit A will determine what items can be completed. The overall scope of the work cannot be increased beyond the $45,000 HFHSLOCO will expend on the project. The price will be paid by Homeowner to HFHSLOCO through equal monthly installments over a term of 10-15 years. Homeowner’s obligation to pay the price will be evidenced by an interest-free promissory note in the amount of the price, payable by Homeowner to HFHSLOCO (the “Note”). The total price will be reduced by the total value/amount for in kind donations received by HFHSLOCO in services and material for this project. The Note will be secured by a mortgage in favor of HFHSLOCO. The mortgage will be recorded against the Property and will be subordinate to any mortgages currently recorded against the Property. 4. Insurance and Property Taxes. Homeowner agrees that Homeowner holds a valid homeowner’s insurance policy on the Property and that Homeowner is current in premium payments on such policy and that all property tax payment are current. 5. HFHSLOCO Warranties. For a period of one (1) year after the execution of the Certificate of Completion, HFHSLOCO will correct, at its own expense, any defects in the Work due to defective materials and/or workmanship. Homeowner will give HFHSLOCO written notice of any such defects promptly after discovery and, in any event, prior to expiration of the one (1)-year warranty period. This warranty does not cover loss or damage to personal property; loss or damage resulting from Homeowner’s failure to promptly notify HFHSLOCO of a problem; or normal wear and tear. HFHSLOCO will convey to Homeowner any warranties by manufacturers or suppliers on individual materials, products, or systems supplied by HFHSLOCO under this Agreement. 6. Schedule. HFHSLOCO will cooperate with Homeowner to prepare an estimated time schedule relating to the Work, and Homeowner will make the Property available for performance of the Work on the days required by the schedule. Subject to confirmation of the Work schedule and subject to delays due to inclement weather or other unforeseen events, HFHSLOCO shall use best efforts to commence the Work by February 15, 2016, and to complete the Work by June 31, 2016. 7. Right of Entry. Homeowner understands that a portion of the Work will be performed within Homeowner’s residence. Accordingly, Homeowner agrees that HFHSLOCO and its agents, contractors, employees and volunteers may have access to the interior of the Property for the purpose of: (i) inspecting, measuring and gathering information related to the Work; (ii) installing, implementing, constructing, or otherwise performing activities related to the Work; and (iii) performing any other such actions as are reasonably contemplated by the Program and this Agreement. 8. Termination of Agreement. 6.c Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) (a) If Homeowners requests that work be stopped on the project before completion of the work to be performed (as outlined in Exhibit A), the Homeowner must pay in full the amount that HFHSLOCO has expended, financially committed to, and any penalties for the work completed or committed to as of the date that the Homeowner notifies HFHSLOCO that she wishes the work to be stopped and terminates the agreement. (b) HFHSLOCO’s acceptance of Homeowner as a HFHSLOCO partner family was based on the information contained in Homeowner’s application. If HFHSLOCO determines that the information contained in Homeowner’s application was materially inaccurate or if there is a materially negative change in Homeowner’s financial situation, such as the loss of employment, HFHSLOCO reserves the right to terminate this Agreement. Homeowner should notify HFHSLOCO as soon as possible if there is a significant change in Homeowner’s financial situation. In addition, HFHSLOCO reserves the right to terminate this Agreement (a) if any of Homeowner’s obligations under the Agreements are not fulfilled, including the requirements under Section 2 or Section 3 of the Agreement. (c) Limitation of Liability. Neither HFHSLOCO nor its agents, contractors, directors, employees, officers, volunteers or other representatives shall have any liability or responsibility for any damages, loss or injury of any kind, direct or indirect, to any person or to any property in any way caused by or resulting from the performance of the Work in connection with this Agreement, except as caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of HFHSLOCO or any of the above-designated persons. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to the extent that HFHSLOCO is found liable for property damage to the Property in accordance with this Section 9, HFHSLOCO shall compensate Homeowner only for the reasonable documented cost of necessary repairs. (d) No Responsibility for Mold. HFHSLOCO will not perform mold remediation services or provide any evaluation of mold conditions at the Property. Neither HFHSLOCO nor its agents, contractors, directors, employees, officers, volunteers or other representatives shall have any liability or responsibility whatsoever for any damages, loss or injury of any kind, direct or indirect, related in any way to mold. (e) Photograph/Video Release. Homeowner grants and conveys in perpetuity to HFHSLOCO all right, title and interest in any and all photographic images, printed interviews or statements, and video or audio recordings made by HFHSLOCO and/or its agents, contractors, directors, employees, officers, volunteers and other representatives in the course of performing the Work, including, but not limited to, any royalties, proceeds or other benefits derived from such photographs, printed materials or recordings. (f) Miscellaneous. This is a legally binding contract. You may seek legal counsel before executing this Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between HFHSLOCO and Homeowner and supersedes any and all prior oral or written statements or agreements regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. There are no promises, agreements, conditions, undertakings, warranties or representations, oral or written, express or implied, between the 6.c Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) parties, other than as set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement may only be changed by a written agreement signed by HFHSLOCO and Homeowner. Homeowner may not assign its rights under this Agreement. (g) Cooling Off Period Notice. You, the buyer, may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight of the third business day after the date of this transaction. See the attached notice of cancellation form for an explanation of this right. 6.c Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above. Homeowner: Habitat for Humanity Affiliate: Sharon Wood Habitat for Humanity for San Luis Obispo Co _____________________________________ ______________________________________ Print Name: ___________________________ Print Name: ____________________________ Date: ________________________________ Title: _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ 6.c Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) Exhibit A: Preliminary Scope of Work 1. Replace and relocate locate electrical panel currently located in closet. 2. Inspect and service furnace; repair as necessary. 3. Install new comp. shingle roof, aluminum gutters and downspouts, and associated flashing over existing roof assumed single layer comp. shingle. 4. Repair driveway drainage (solution TBD). 5. Install R-30 BATT floor insulation throughout home. 6. Install new dual-pane windows throughout house and new dual-pane sliding patio doors at the master bedroom and dining room. 7. Scope and inspect supply and drain lines; repair leak at master shower and elsewhere as necessary. 8. Install new wall oven and above-the-range microwave. 9. Install fire-rated man door with self-closer between garage and dining room. 10. Repair front door interior trim and add weather stripping. 11. Replace fence in backyard and repair retaining wall. 12. Clean-up front yard landscaping in conjunction with drainage repair. 13. Scrap and paint fascia all around; possibly install new drip edge and gutters. 14. All necessary design, engineering, and permitting for the below listed items. Note: HFHSLOCO will not perform mold remediation services or provide any evaluation of mold conditions at the Property. Neither HFHSLOCO nor its agents, contractors, directors, employees, officers, volunteers or other representatives shall have any liability or responsibility whatsoever for any damages, loss or injury of any kind, direct or indirect, related in any way to mold. 6.c Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) Exhibit B: Certificate of Completion I certify that the work set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement has been completed in its entirety and to my satisfaction. Homeowner: Sharon Wood ____________________________________ Print name: ___________________________ Date: ________________________________ [Insert additional homeowner names and signature lines if applicable] 6.c Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) Exhibit C: NOTICE OF CANCELLATION* *Only required in certain circumstances – see Section 13 and associated footnote in the Agreement. Notice of Cancellation [enter date of transaction] (Date) You may CANCEL this transaction, without any Penalty or Obligation, within THREE BUSINESS DAYS from the above date. If you cancel, any property traded in, any payments made by you under the contract or sale, and any negotiable instrument executed by you will be returned within TEN BUSINESS DAYS following receipt by the seller of your cancellation notice, and any security interest arising out of the transaction will be cancelled. If you cancel, you must make available to the seller at your residence, in substantially as good condition as when received, any goods delivered to you under this contract or sale, or you may, if you wish, comply with the instructions of the seller regarding the return shipment of the goods at the seller's expense and risk. If you do make the goods available to the seller and the seller does not pick them up within 20 days of the date of your Notice of Cancellation, you may retain or dispose of the goods without any further obligation. If you fail to make the goods available to the seller, or if you agree to return the goods to the seller and fail to do so, then you remain liable for performance of all obligations under the contract. To cancel this transaction, mail or deliver a signed and dated copy of this Cancellation Notice or any other written notice, or send a telegram, to Habitat for Humanity for San Luis Obispo County, at 189 Cross Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 NOT LATER THAN MIDNIGHT OF [insert actual date - 3 business days from Date above]. I HEREBY CANCEL THIS TRANSACTION. (Date) _________________________________________ (Buyer's signature) ______________________________ 6.c Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: c - HFH Home Rehabilitation Program - Homeowner Agreement (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) City of San Luis Obispo Fiscal Status of Affordable Housing Fund March 23, 2016 - Point in Time Status Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Expenditures Fiscal Year In-Lieu Fees Interest Rents BEGIN funds reimbursement BEGIN reuse funds* BEGIN City matching funds*Total (Note 2)Beginning Ending 2000-01 (Note 1)193,700 8,200 201,900 201,900 2001-02 464,900 20,000 484,900 201,900 686,800 2002-03 747,800 28,300 776,100 (215,000) 686,800 1,247,900 2003-04 60,500 8,500 69,000 (30,000) 1,247,900 1,286,900 2004-05 323,300 32,500 355,800 (30,000) 1,286,900 1,612,700 2005-06 1,863,700 68,500 1,932,200 1,612,700 3,544,900 2006-07 627,200 160,500 787,700 (530,000) 3,544,900 3,802,600 2007-08 682,400 155,600 838,000 (630,000) 3,802,600 4,010,600 2008-09 465,700 199,700 1,400 666,800 (892,500) 4,010,600 3,784,900 2009-10 (21,300) 32,600 9,000 270,000 290,300 (3,407,600) 3,784,900 667,600 2010-11 332,800 16,000 3,900 30,000 382,700 (39,800) 667,600 1,010,500 2011-12 848,800 21,900 870,700 (112,700) 1,010,500 1,768,500 2012-13 182,700 700 183,400 (30,000) 1,768,500 1,921,900 2013-14 777,300 12,700 100,955 117,857 1,008,812 (47,000) 1,921,900 2,883,712 2014-15 159,602 9,193 86,430 93,121 348,346 (697,000) 2,883,712 2,535,058 2015-16 479,776 5,760 485,536 (569,423) 2,535,058 2,451,171 Cumulative Total 8,188,878 780,653 14,300 300,000 187,385 210,978 9,682,194 (7,231,023) 2,451,171 BEGIN Grant Down Payment Assistance - Program Income (65,805) City Down Payment Assistant - Program Income (210,978) Subtotal of funds available for future down payment assistance (276,783) Commitment to the General Fund Transfer (52,000) Commitment for Iron Works Approved 2015 #10632 not yet funded (920,000) Commitment for 2-22-16 SLO County Housing Trust Fund Operating Expenses, not yet funded (60,000) Total Available of New Programs at February 29, 2016 1,142,388 NOTES 1.2000-01 is the first year that in-lieu fees were received. 2.Expenditure Summary To-Date Year Purpose Amount TTl by Year 2004-05 Operating Support: SLO County Housing Trust Fund 30,000 30,000 2006-07 People's Self-Help Housing: Villas at South Higuera 500,000 2006-07 Operating Support: SLO County Housing Trust Fund 60,000 560,000 (Two-Year Commitment) 2007-08 Housing Authority, Humbert Project 600,000 600,000 2008-09 First time home buyers' program 34,400 2008-09 Habitat for Humanity 332,500 2008-09 SLO County Housing Trust 30,000 2008-09 3591 Sacramento #53 310,100 2008-09 Laurel Creek BEGIN funds 185,500 892,500 2009-10 Wineman hotel 1,500,000 2009-10 First time home buyers' program (refund)(9,300) 2009-10 Laurel Creek BEGIN funds 514,500 2009-10 Housing Authority, Humbert Project 109,900 2009-10 Aids Support Remodel 82,800 2009-10 Village at Broad 1,034,400 2009-10 3592/3594 Broad Street 174,700 2009-10 3591 Sacramento #53 600 3,407,600 2010-11 Housing Trust Fund 30,000 2010-11 3591 Sacramento #53 3,100 2010-11 3592/3594 Broad Street 6,700 39,800 2011-12 3591 Sacramento #53 1,200 2011-12 3212 Rockview 38,800 2011-12 3592/3594 Broad Street - 2011-12 Judson Terrace Termite Repair 42,700 2011-12 Housing Trust Fund 30,000 112,700 2012-13 Housing Trust Fund 30,000 30,000 2013-14 Housing Trust Fund 30,000 2013-14 Transfer to General Fund- for housing program administration costs 17,000 47,000 2014-15 Housing Trust Fund 30,000 2014-15 313 South Street 650,000 2014-15 Transfer to General Fund- for housing program administration costs 17,000 697,000 2015-16 860 On the Wye 352,029 2015-16 First time home buyers' program Loans (Begin Program)121,580 2015-16 Affordable Housing Loan 95,814 569,423 Total 7,231,023 7,231,023 Revenues Fund Balance 6.d Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: d - Affordable Housing Fund Status (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND AWARD FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo met in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 3, 2016 for the purpose of considering a request for Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) assistance; and WHEREAS, the project proposed by Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County (HFH) meets the eligibility criteria established by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed project recommended for funding at this time is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said meeting. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council does hereby adopt the foregoing recitals and make the following findings in support of the proposed Affordable Housing Fund awards: 1. Eligibility: The project will increase or improve the City’s affordable housing inventory and promote General Plan policies regarding housing, as follows: The project will rehabilitate and preserve a single family residence occupied by one, low - income senior. By providing the grant to HFH for rehabilitation, the required deed restriction will add one new dwelling to the City’s affordable housing inventory. The proposed award is consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policies 3.1, 3.7, and Programs 1.4, 3.9. 2. Need: There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of unit to be assisted, as follows: The Housing Element includes policies and programs to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of affordable housing in the City. The project will help the City meet its quantified objectives for rehabilitation projects for low-income households. The rehabilitation of this unit allows a low-income senior the opportunity to remain a homeowner as opposed to finding a unit in the limited affordable senior rental housing options. 3. Suitability: The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location both in terms of land use and design, as follows: 6.e Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: e - Draft Resolution (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ The project will rehabilitate an existing, single family residence in the R-1 zone. The proposal does not involve any changes to the site or its surroundings and will involve minimal changes to the exterior of the home. In addition, the request assists the City meet Housing Element rehabilitation goals. 4. Timing: The project would better serve the City’s needs if it were built immediately as opposed to later, as follows: The timing of the award is critical because the homeowner has entered into a contract with HFH that schedules work to be completed by June 31, 2016. Housing rehabilitation projects keep the City’s affordable housing stock in sound, safe condition and avoid the risk of losing affordable housing to disrepair. If the project is delayed, required repairs could become more extensive. 5. Financial Effectiveness: But for the requested funding, the project would not be feasible; or the project leverages significant additional funding from other sources, as follows: Financing for rehabilitation projects is extremely limited and the project will not be financially feasible in the near term without AHF support. The funds will leverage an additional $10,000 from HFH and 30 hours of contribution of ownership interest through in- kind hard work, “sweat equity”. 6. Readiness: The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed, as follows: The rehabilitation project does not require discretionary approvals and is ready to proceed pending necessary building permits. HFH has already met with City building officials regarding needed permits and code compliance. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the above action will not have a significant impact on the environment, as defined by §15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt from environmental review. SECTION 3. Affordable Housing Fund Award to Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County. The City Council does hereby approve an Affordable Housing Fund grant not to exceed $35,000, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall obtain at least three bids for the work to be accomplished. 2. Distribution of the approved award shall be made only after an invoice is submitted from the approved contractor with the lowest reasonable bid for the work, up to the total cost of the project, or $35,000, whichever is less. 3. All construction permits must be obtained for any repair work that requires permitting and inspection, to the approval of the City’s Chief Building Official. 6.e Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: e - Draft Resolution (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ 4. Prior to release of any portion of the AHF award, the homeowner shall enter into an affordability agreement with the City for affordable low-income housing located at 214 Highland Drive for a term of 15 years, which will be recorded against the title of the property. 5. Prior to the release of any portion of the AHF award, HFH shall enter into an AHF Grant Agreement with the City. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3rd day of May, 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 6.e Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: e - Draft Resolution (1302 : AHF Request of $35,000 for Habitat for Humanity) Page intentionally left blank. Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Prepared By: Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; UNITED STATES ET AL. EX REL. PEREZ V. STERICYCLE, INC. ET AL.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-CV- 2390; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS RECOMMENDATION Approve and authorize the City Finance/IT Director to accept and deposit the settlement checks thereby consenting to the provisions of the settlement agreement between Relator Jennifer Perez and defendant Stericycle, Inc. DISCUSSION On March 29, 2016, the City Attorney’s Office received two letters from the California Attorney General Office informing the City that it was entitled to certain settlement funds related to the Perez v. Stericycle, Inc. case in the total amount of $24,493.31. These funds stem from a settlement agreement reached in a False Claims Act whistleblower complaint against Stericycle Inc., alleging that this company improperly increased its service price to certain governmental customers from January 1, 2003 until June 30, 2014, without the consent or contractual authorization of such customers, resulting in an overpayment for certain products and services. The total settlement amount is $28.5m and the above amount represents the City’s pro-rata share. The proposed settlement terms are standard and straightforward. By accepting and depositing the checks, the City agrees to waive and release Stericycle, Inc. from any claims of overcharging the City for products and services for that period of time, as asserted in the underlying lawsuit. It should be noted that the City, as well as many other local agencies, were not included as plaintiffs in the complaint. However, as stated in the letter from the Attorney General, during negotiation the settlement was expanded to provide relief to local government and that the amount of the checks represent approximately two times the amount of estimated losses. FISCAL IMPACT The checks will be deposited into the City’s General Fund as miscellaneous revenue. 7 Packet Pg. 31 ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not authorize the Finance/IT Director to accept and deposit the settlement checks. This is not recommended because the City is not actively pursuing a claim against Stericycle, Inc. and, as noted by the Attorney General’s Office, the amount of this settlement amount exceeds the City’s estimated loss. Attachments: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire 7 Packet Pg. 32 7.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: a - Stericycle Settlement.City of SLO (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) 7.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: b - Stericycle Settlement.Fire (1321 : Notice of Settlement Agreement; Stericycle) Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Lee Price, Interim City Clerk SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR THE CITIZENS’ REVENUE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Revise the appointment process for the Citizens’ Revenue Oversight Commission (REOC) consistent with all other Advisory Bodies; and. 2. Affirm the appointments of Council Members Ashbaugh and Christianson as the Council Liaison Subcommittee designated for the REOC. DISCUSSION Background Currently there is one vacancy and two anticipated vacancies in June on the REOC. On March 15, 2016, the City Council considered the three applications received but deferred making appointments at that time and directed the City Clerk to further advertise and re cruit for more applicants. At that same meeting, the Council directed the City Clerk’s Office to come back to Council with any recommendations in order to make the timing of the appointment process for the REOC consistent with other advisory bodies. In anticipation of this effort, the Council designated Council Member Christianson and Council Member Ashbaugh to serve as liaisons to the REOC. Proposed Process Changes The Advisory Body Handbook, adopted by Council Resolution, specifies the basic elements of the appointment process for advisory bodies, and is briefly summarized as follows: 1. Applicant seeking appointment or reappointment to an advisory body shall file an application in the Office of the City Clerk. 2. Applicants are expected to read and become familiar with the Handbook. 3. Applicants shall be interviewed by a Council Liaison Subcommittee (CLS) and current Chair of the specific advisory body. 4. The CLS submits to the full City Council recommendations for appointments. The City Clerk’s Office has historically opened an annual advisory body recruitment effort in 8 Packet Pg. 61 Mid-November with an application closing date around the end of January. Interviews are typically conducted in February and appointments in March. Terms of Office, generally specified in the Bylaws for the City’s advisory bodies, begin April 1st and elections of a chair and vice chair are usually made at the first meeting following the appointments. In the case of REOC, one year-terms for the chair and vice chair begin with the first meeting following the start of each fiscal year (July 1). Given the milestones in the schedule for the Financial Plan process, maintaining the practice of reorganizing and selecting a chair and vice chair in July for the REOC has merit. If the City Council moves to approve the Staff recommendations as outlined above, there is no need to make any amendments to the Ordinance establishing the REOC nor the Advisory Body Handbook. A simple motion to approve the recommendations will provide the Staff with enough and appropriate direction resulting in the REOC following the timing of the City’s annual advisory body recruitments FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with these changes. 8 Packet Pg. 62 Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager SUBJECT: LOSSAN AGREEMENT WITH SLO TRANSIT RECOMMENDATION Approve an agreement with LOSSAN for a one-year pilot project to honor Pacific Surfliner passes on SLO Transit; which is to be reimbursed at regular fare rate for each ride. DISCUSSION Background In February 2015, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) issued a call for projects for the 2015 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP). The TIRCP was intended to make cap-and-trade funding available to support a small number of transformational transit and passenger rail projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Applications for the TIRCP were due April 10, 2015, with selected projects announced on June 30, 2015. CalSTA has awarded the Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) $1.675 million in Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program grant funds to support the Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Program. This program will allow Pacific Surfliner passengers to transfer more seamlessly to connecting public transit services along the entire Pacific Surfliner route. The TIRCP grant will enable the LOSSAN Agency to initiate a Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Program (Program) on a one-year pilot basis. The Program will allow Pacific Surfliner passengers to transfer to 11 connecting transit services for free by presenting a valid Pacific Surfliner ticket. Each participating transit agency will be reimbursed by the LOSSAN Agency on a quarterly basis for the number of Pacific Surfliner passengers carried subject to a reimbursement agreement and a negotiated average base fare. With Pacific Surfliner service to San Luis Obispo, LOSSAN has invited SLO Transit and neighboring Regional Transit Authority to participate in the one-year pilot program. Using a “special key” located on the SLO Transit farebox, drivers will be able to record when they honor a valid ticket from a Pacific Surfliner passenger for transfer to the local SLO Transit system. Quarterly reports will be prepared, with necessary backup to be used as the basis for invoicing LOSSAN at SLO Transit’s average fare rate of $1.25 per trip. 9 Packet Pg. 63 FISCAL IMPACT There are no significant fiscal impacts expected for the Transit Enterprise Fund as all rides provided to Pacific Surfliner passengers are reimbursed to SLO Transit at its current fare rate of $1.25. There could however be a moderate increase in ridership, and fares collected, if the program is successful. ALTERNATIVES Deny participation in LOSSAN agreement Negotiate a modified LOSSAN agreement as directed by Council Attachments: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement 9 Packet Pg. 64 Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX BETWEEN LOS ANGELES – SAN DIEGO – SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY AND City of San Luis Obispo’s SLO Transit FOR FACILITATING TRANSFERS BETWEEN PACIFIC SURFLINER INTERCITY RAIL SERVICE AND LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (Agreement), is effective as of this 1st day of July 2016, by and between the Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, 600 S. Main St., Orange, California, 92863, a joint powers authority (hereinafter referred to as “LOSSAN AGENCY”), and the City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, California, 93421, a public corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "SLO Transit"), each individually known as “Party” and collectively known as “Parties”. RECITALS: WHEREAS, LOSSAN AGENCY is a joint powers authority charged with local management and oversight of the state-funded, Amtrak-operated Pacific Surfliner intercity rail service between San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties per the terms of an interagency transfer agreement with the State of California effective July 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit, both provide public transportation services operating to, within, or through the six-county, 351-mile Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo rail corridor (hereinafter referred to as “LOSSAN rail corridor”; and WHEREAS, Amtrak currently operates 23 daily state-funded Pacific Surfliner intercity trains on portions of the LOSSAN rail corridor per an operating contract with LOSSAN AGENCY serving 31 stations; and / 9.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, in the absence of this Cooperative Agreement, passengers purchasing an Amtrak Pacific Surfliner train ticket and desiring to transfer to SLO Transit’s service must pay a separate fare on SLO Transit’s, service; and WHEREAS, LOSSAN AGENCY applied for and was awarded a Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program grant in the amount of One Million Six Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($1,675,000) to support a Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Program (hereinafter referred to as “PROGRAM”) for a one-year demonstration period; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to facilitate transfers between the Parties’ services and thereby provide greater convenience and mobility for public transportation users in the region; and WHEREAS, LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit both desire to provide a fully coordinated public transit service for the benefit of the public, in compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 130262; and WHEREAS, this Agreement defines the specific terms, conditions, and roles and responsibilities between LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit only as they relate to the PROGRAM and no other purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual obligations set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. COMPLETE AGREEMENT A. This Agreement, including any attachments incorporated herein and made applicable by reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the term(s) and conditions(s) of this Agreement between LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit and it supersedes all prior representations, understandings, and communications. The invalidity in whole or in part of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of other term(s) or conditions(s) of this Agreement. The above referenced Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference herein. 9.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 3 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. LOSSAN AGENCY’s failure to insist on any instance(s) of SLO Transit performance of any term(s) or condition(s) of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of LOSSAN AGENCY’s right to such performance or to future performance of such term(s) or condition(s), and SLO Transit’s obligation in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this Agreement shall not be binding upon LOSSAN AGENCY except when specifically confirmed in writing by an authorized representative of LOSSAN AGENCY by way of a written amendment to this Agreement and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. C. SLO Transit failure to insist on any instance(s) of LOSSAN AGENCY’s performance of any term(s) or condition(s) of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of SLO Transit right to such performance or to future performance of such term(s) or condition(s), and LOSSAN AGENCY’s obligation in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this Agreement shall not be binding upon SLO Transit except when specifically confirmed in writing by an authorized representative of SLO Transit by way of a written amendment to this Agreement and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement specifies the roles and responsibilities of the Parties as they pertain to the PROGRAM. Both LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit agree that each will cooperate and coordinate with the other in all activities covered by this Agreement and any other supplemental agreements that may be required to facilitate purposes thereof. ARTICLE 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOSSAN AGENCY LOSSAN AGENCY agrees to the following responsibilities for PROGRAM: 1. LOSSAN AGENCY shall pay complete and accurate invoices submitted by SLO Transit on a quarterly basis within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. / ARTICLE 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SLO Transit 9.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SLO Transit agrees to the following responsibilities for PROGRAM: 1. Commencing as of the date of this Agreement, SLO Transit shall honor valid Amtrak Pacific Surfliner fare media for a single one-way boarding on its connecting transit services originating from, or destined to, a Pacific Surfliner station on the routes identified in Exhibit A, under the following conditions: a. One-way and round-trip Amtrak Pacific Surfliner paper and electronic tickets valid for the same calendar date of travel will be honored as valid fare media for one-way boardings on SLO Transit service to or from a Pacific Surfliner station. b. Valid ten-trip and monthly Amtrak Pacific Surfliner tickets will be honored as valid fare media for one-way boardings on SLO Transit service to or from a Pacific Surfliner stations. c. SLO Transit shall be reimbursed as provided herein based on the average fare for a one-way trip on its transit service, as indicated in Exhibit A. d. For purposes of counting transferring passengers, the number of passengers transferring to SLO Transit service from a Pacific Surfliner train, or to a Pacific Surfliner train from SLO Transit service shall be defined as the number of transferring passengers from whom no fares were collected by SLO Transit service due to presentation of a valid Amtrak Pacific Surfliner paper or electronic ticket. 2. SLO Transit shall track the number of passengers transferring to SLO Transit services using a valid Pacific Surfliner ticket utilizing ridership counts conducted by SLO Transit operators via farebox reconciliation methods. / / / 9.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 5 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. SLO Transit shall submit quarterly invoices to LOSSAN AGENCY for reimbursement for all recorded transfers using a Pacific Surfliner ticket. Each invoice shall include the following information: a. Agreement Number L-X-XXXX; b. The time period covered by the invoice; c. The number of transfers recorded and the reimbursement rate specified in Exhibit A; d. Itemized expenses including support documentation incurred during the billing period; e. Invoice Certification signed by an authorized representative of SLO Transit; Certification statement shall be as follows: “I hereby certify that invoice(s) dated ______ for the period covering _______ to _____ are true, complete and correct statements of reimbursable costs and progress. The backup information included with the invoices is true, complete and correct in all material aspects. All payments due and owing to subcontractors and suppliers have been made, if applicable. Timely payments will be made to subcontractors and suppliers from proceeds of the payment covered by the certification, if applicable. The invoices do not include any amounts which (Insert Name of the firm) intends to withhold or retain from a subcontractor or supplier unless so identified on the invoices, if applicable.” f. Invoices shall be submitted to: Accounts Payable LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency 600 S. Main St. Orange, CA 928638. g. Such other information as requested by LOSSAN. / 9.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 6 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ARTICLE 5. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Disagreements concerning the number of passengers transferring between Pacific Surfliner and SLO Transit services shall be resolved by making a good faith effort to create a joint survey team, to include representatives of both LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit, whose task would be to conduct a passenger survey to verify transfer rates. 2. Each party shall cooperate in the dissemination of information to the public regarding the PROGRAM and the services offered by the other party, including, but not limited to, printed collateral materials at stations and onboard transit and rail vehicles, social media posts, digital marketing, and on-board announcements. 3. Each party shall notify the other within thirty (30) days in advance of adopting any fare changes that might affect reimbursement rates or any aspect of transfer privileges. ARTICLE 6. DELEGATED AUTHORITY The actions required to be taken by SLO Transit in the implementation of this Agreement are delegated to its _Transit Manager_, or designee, and the actions required to be taken by LOSSAN AGENCY in the implementation of this Agreement are delegated to LOSSAN AGENCY’s Managing Director or designee. ARTICLE 7. MAXIMUM OBLIGATION Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit mutually agree that LOSSAN AGENCY’s maximum cumulative payment obligation hereunder shall be __10,000____ Dollars ($10,00.00), unless agreed to and amended by both Parties. ARTICLE 8. AUDIT AND INSPECTION SLO Transit shall maintain a complete set of records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Upon reasonable notice, SLO Transit shall permit the authorized representatives of the LOSSAN AGENCY to inspect and audit all work, materials, books, accounts, and other data and records of SLO Transit related to PROGRAM for a period of four (4) years after final payment, or until any on-going audit is completed. For purposes of audit, the date of completion of this Agreement shall 9.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 7 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 be the date of LOSSAN AGENCY’s payment of LOSSAN AGENCY final billing (so noted on the invoice) under this Agreement. LOSSAN AGENCY shall have the right to reproduce any such books, records, and accounts. The above provision with respect to audits shall extend to and/or be included in contracts with SLO Transit contractor. ARTICLE 9. INDEMNIFICATION A. To the fullest extent permitted by law, LOSSAN AGENCY shall defend (at LOSSAN AGENCY’s sole cost and expense with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to SLO Transit), indemnify, protect, and hold harmless SLO Transit, its officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgments, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, penalties, and expenses including legal costs and attorney fees (collectively “Claims”), including but not limited to Claims arising from injuries to or death of persons (LOSSAN AGENCY’s employees included), for damage to property, including property owned by SLO Transit, or from any violation of any federal, state, or local law or ordinance, alleged to be caused by the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of LOSSAN AGENCY, its officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. B. To the fullest extent permitted by law, SLO Transit shall defend at SLO Transit sole cost and expense with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to LOSSAN AGENCY), indemnify, protect, and hold harmless LOSSAN AGENCY, its officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgments, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, penalties, and expenses including legal costs and attorney fees (collectively “Claims”), including but not limited to Claims arising from injuries to or death of persons (SLO Transit employees included), for damage to property, including property owned by LOSSAN AGENCY, or from any violation of any federal, state, or local law or ordinance, alleged to be caused by the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of SLO Transit, its officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance 9.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 8 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of this Agreement. C. The indemnification and defense obligations of this Agreement shall survive its expiration or termination. ARTICLE 10. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS A. Term of Agreement: This Agreement shall be effective on _July 1, 2016__, and shall be in full force and effect through __June 30, 2017__, or until grant funds are exhausted. B. Termination: In the event either Party defaults in the performance of their obligations under this Agreement or breaches any of the provisions of this Agreement, the non-defaulting Party shall have the option to terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days' prior written notice to the other Party. C. Termination for Convenience: Either Party may terminate this Agreement for its convenience by providing thirty (30) days' prior written notice of its intent to terminate for convenience to the other Party. D. LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statues, ordinances and regulations of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the PROJECT. E. Legal Authority: LOSSAN AGENCY and SLO Transit hereto consent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said Parties and that, by so executing this Agreement, the Parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. F. Severability: If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, to any extent, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and each term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. G. Counterparts of Agreement: This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute the same agreement. Facsimile signatures will be permitted. 9.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 9 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 H. Force Majeure: Either Party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by an unforeseeable cause beyond its control, including but not limited to; any incidence of fire, flood; acts of God; commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government; national fuel shortage; or a material act or omission by the other Party; when satisfactory evidence of such cause is presented to the other Party, and provided further that such nonperformance is unforeseeable, beyond the control and is not due to the fault or negligence of the Party not performing. I. Assignment: Neither this Agreement, nor any of the Parties’ rights, obligations, duties, or authority hereunder may be assigned in whole or in part by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party in its sole and absolute discretion. Any such attempt of assignment shall be deemed void and of no force and effect. Consent to one assignment shall not be deemed consent to any subsequent assignment, nor the waiver of any right to consent to such subsequent assignment. J. Governing Law: The laws of the State of California and applicable local and federal laws, regulations and guidelines shall govern this Agreement. Venue for any action arising out of this Agreement shall be Orange County, California. K. Litigation fees: Should litigation arise out of this Agreement for the performance thereof, the court shall award costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party. L. Notices: Any notices, requests, or demands made between the Parties pursuant to this Agreement are to be directed as follows: To SLO Transit To LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY Transit Agency Name LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency 919 Palm St. San Luis Obispo CA, 93421 600 South Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 Attention: Gamaliel Anguiano Attention: CA’s Name 9.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 10 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Transit Manager CA’s Title Cc: Jason Jewell Finance Manager Phone: (805) 781-7121 E-mail: GAnguiano@slocity.org Phone: (714) 560 – XXXX E-mail: XXXX@octa.net This Agreement shall be made effective upon execution by both Parties. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 9.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 11 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement No. L-X-XXXX to be executed on the date first written above. SLO Transit LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY By: ___________________________ By: __________________________________ Gamaliel Anguiano Jennifer Bergener Transit Manager Managing Director APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _________________________ By: __________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick James M. Donich City Attorney General Counsel Dated : _________________________ Dated : ____________________________ Exhibit A: Scope of Services 9.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) AGREEMENT NO. L-XXXXX Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT A Scope of Services SERVICES HONORING AMTRAK PACIFIC SURFLINER TICKETS AS OF JULY 1st, 2016 As per Cooperative Agreement between LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN AGENCY), and CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S , SLO TRANSIT shall be reimbursed at the rate stated in Table 1 below for each boarding using a valid Pacific Surfliner ticket. SLO TRANSIT shall accept valid Amtrak Pacific Surfliner paper and electronic tickets for a single one-way boarding on fixed-route bus service; and will be reimbursed on routes/lines listed below that provide connecting service to and from Pacific Surfliner station(s). Station Route Name/Number Reimbursement Rate Per Boarding $1.25 LOSSAN AGENCY ______________________________ ___________ Jennifer Bergener Date Managing Director SLO Transit ______________________________ _____________ Gamaliel Anguiano Date Transit Manager Distribution: Xxxxxxxx 9.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: a - Pacific Surfliner Transit Transfer Agreement (1305 : LOSSAN Agreement With SLO Transit) Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Darryl, Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager SUBJECT: COUNTY WIDE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and comment on a report and presentation by San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ Staff regarding a County Wide Transportation Investment Plan; and 2. Conceptually approve the draft Transportation Investment Plan proposal and safeguards as approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Board on April 6, 2016. Background On May 3, 2016 the Council will receive a presentation from SLOCOG staff regarding the SLOCOG Board’s approval to place a ½ cent Sales Tax on the November ballot for transportation related purposes. Tax revenues traditionally used for improvement, operation, and maintenance of public transportation infrastructure has been sharply declining over the past decade. There are several factors involved, including significant improvements in auto fuel efficiency, the non -inflationary structure of the Gas Tax, and a decline in the upward trend of total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). In 2013 the American Society of Civil Engineers graded the nation’s road infrastructure at a D. They also estimated the economic impact of America’s failing infrastructure by 2020 at $1,060 on each family per year with a loss of 877,000 jobs, and a drop in U.S. exports by $28 billion. The funding landscape for transportation infrastructure is continuing to worsen. On March 30th, 2016 the California Transportation Commission announced that as a result of significant declines in the price-based excise tax the Commission made the difficult decision to delete $754 million in currently programmed State Transportation Improvements (See attachment B). They also made the finding that no new projects can be justified at this time, when agencies are forced to delete already programmed projects. To address these issues people in many areas have enacted self-help tax initiatives to help fund various transportation programs and projects at the local level. There are many Counties and Cities in California that have chosen to tax themselves for transportation services and not rely solely on the State and Federal funding sources that are not reliable. 10 Packet Pg. 77 At its meeting in April, the SLOCOG Board received presentations from its consultant on the results of outreach and polling. After receiving the information on the extensive outreach efforts and favorable polling results, the Board approved the informational conceptual investment plan and directed staff to work with member jurisdictions to develop the final Transportation Investment Plan, Ordinance and Safeguards for evaluation to place on the November 2016 ballot for voter consideration. In its current form, the proposed Measure (estimated at $25 M/yr County-wide) includes the following provisions: 1. 50% of the Funding to Local Agencies for Roadway Improvements o San Luis Obispo share is approximately $2 M/year 2. 25% of the Funding for Regional Projects o San Luis Obispo project East-West connections in the southern portion of the City (such as Prado to Broad, Prado Overpass, Tank Farm Road, etc.) 3. 15% of the funds for Regional Bike and Pedestrian projects o San Luis Obispo would have candidate projects in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan 4. 10% of the funds for Transit o San Luis Obispo would have candidate projects and services for SLO Transit 5. Sunset: 9-year duration, 6. Safeguards such as an Oversight Committee & Reporting responsibilities, 7. No provisions for amendments to the Transportation Investment Plan, 8. A dedicated funding sources for Local Road Repairs and Transportation Improvements which is based on a formula (ensures local jurisdictions receive projects and benefits from this funding), 9. The four major funding programs are: Local Road Repairs and Transportation Improvements, Regional Projects, Bike & Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity, and Public Transportation. FISCAL IMPACTS There are no immediate impacts from the action to conceptually support the County-wide Transportation Investment Plan or supporting placing this matter on the ballot in November. The City would receive about $2 million per year over the 9 year life of the measure should it be passed by the voters. Additionally there are many traffic congestion relief, bike, pedestrian and transit projects that would be eligible for funding if this measure passed. ALTERNATIVES The Council may choose not support a County wide transportation investment program. Based on SLOCOG’s market research, without unanimous agency support a self-help initiative would not likely pass. 10 Packet Pg. 78 Attachments: a - County Wide Trans Invest Plan b - AASHTO News Release 10 Packet Pg. 79 ADDENDUM: A-1B-4 10.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: a - County Wide Trans Invest Plan (1320 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan) ADDENDUM: A-1B-5 10.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: a - County Wide Trans Invest Plan (1320 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan) With Gas Tax Receipts Falling, California Cuts Project Funding $754M Over Five years 2016-02-01 AASHTO Journal, 29 January 2016 With revenue falling from the state's motor fuel taxes, the California Transportation Commission approved a transportation program for the next five years that cuts $754 million from projected available funding. A commission announcement said that "marks the largest scaling back of the state's transportation program since the creation of the current funding structure nearly 20 years ago." The action came after Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature could not agree on a new revenue plan for road and bridge investments last year. The commission's Jan. 21 decision also came as Brown, in his State of the State address that day, renewed his call for lawmakers to decide on a new infrastructure funding plan. "We have no choice but to maintain our transportation infrastructure," Brown said. "Yet, doing so without an expanded and permanent revenue source is impossible. That means at some point, sooner rather than later, we have to bite the bullet and enact new fees and taxes for this purpose. Ideology and politics stand in the way, but one way or another the roads must be fixed." Brown also said California has a "staggering" deferred infrastructure maintenance backlog of $77 billion, and "most of that is in our roads, highways and bridges." The 11-person California Transportation Commission is an oversight body responsible for programming and allocating funds for highway, passenger rail and transit improvements throughout California. It also advises and assists the state's transportation secretary and the Legislature in formulating policies and plans for California's transportation programs. The panel said it made the programming decision "after careful review of current and projected financial information from numerous sources," and emphasized that this will require withdrawing funds it previously committed to some projects. 10.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: b - AASHTO News Release (1320 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan) "The action that the commission is being forced to make given the shortfall in projected revenue will have a dramatic effect on transportation projects being proposed for construction across the state. Typically, transportation projects are funded from multiple sources. The total impact of the defunding of projects will likely run into the billions." It said the effects go "beyond just meeting the transportation needs of Californians, as every $1 billion in highway and transit investment supports 13,000 jobs, not to mention higher costs associated with project delays." Commission Chair Lucy Dunn said: "What this means is that almost every county in California that relies on this source of funding for projects that improve traffic and air quality will have to cut or delay projects indefinitely. "The commission adopted the most optimistic scenario we could make in good conscience," she said, "in the hope agreement will be reached on a number of reforms and new funding increases currently under consideration by the Legislature. But failing that, I fear we will be faced with even more draconian cuts next year." It incorporated the big funding reductions in the latest State Transportation Improvement Program document for future state highway, intercity rail and transit improvements. The financial outlook revisions, it said, "are the result of anticipated additional reductions in a portion of the gasoline excise tax, which is the major source of state funding for the program. While just a few years ago the price-based part of the gas tax yielded 18 cents a gallon in revenue, last year it had dropped to 12 cents. Now the commission projects that it will "fall another 2 cents a gallon for the coming fiscal year and that stabilization of this source may take longer than expected." The STIP document is updated every two years, and the commission is required by law to estimate the amount of funding expected to be available for it. "In August of this past year," it said, "the commission approved a funding estimate for the 2016 program based on previous revenue forecasts that eliminated the capacity to add any new projects to the program. More recent projections, however, point to a worsening financial picture and a significant drop in the dollars expected to be available for projects in the 2016 plan. This will require the commission to rescind funding previously committed to projects." This entry was posted in General News, Legislative / Political, News. Bookmark the permalink. 10.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: b - AASHTO News Release (1320 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan) © 2016 - TSP2 10.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: b - AASHTO News Release (1320 : Countywide Transportation Investment Plan) Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TABLE 9 OF SECTION 17.22.010 OF THE CITY’S ZONING REGULATIONS TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT A NIGHT CLUB USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE IN THE AIRPORT AREA; CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A NIGHT CLUB LAND USE (LIVE ENTERTAINMENT) WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NIGHT CLUB (LIVE ENTERTAINMENT) AND OFF -SITE PARKING AT 855 AEROVISTA PLACE. RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Introduce an Ordinance amending Table 9 of Section 17.22.010 of the City’s Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) conditionally permitting a night club land use within the Business Park (B-P) zone in the Airport Area Specific Plan Area (CODE-1316-2015) (Attachment A); and 2. Adopt a Resolution amending Table 4.3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan allowing a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone, approving a night club use permit with off-site parking in the Business Park zone at 855 Aerovista Place and adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact as represented in the staff report and attachments dated May 3, 2016 (CODE-1316-2015) (Attachment B). DISCUSSION Situation Due to a notification error, the City Council will rehear a proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to conditionally allow night club uses within the Business Park zone and consider a use permit to allow a night club (live entertainment) and off-site parking at 855 Aerovista Place. The applicant, Auzco Development, LLC (SLO Brew), is requesting a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations and the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to allow a night club (live entertainment) as an allowed use, with Planning Commission approval, in the Business Park (BP) zone. As part of this request the applicant is requesting a use permit for the SLO Brew 11 Packet Pg. 85 Production Facility located at 855 Aerovista in the BP zone of the AASP in order to have the opportunity to provide live entertainment as an accessory use to their facility. The proposed night club (live entertainment venue) will operate on specific days, hours and be located indoors. The hours of operation include Fridays from 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. All concerts and other large events will take place indoors in the “indoor event space” (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1: SLO Brew site plan Previous Review On April 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the item and approved the project on a 4-1 vote (Ashbaugh) with additional conditions of approval. The additional conditions clarified the difference between the indoor event space for concerts, and the outdoor patio area where ambient music would be allowed. In the original proposal, the large roll-up doors to the indoor event space were proposed to be open to the patio seating area during concerts (see attachment C, April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report). Following public testimony and deliberation by the City Council, it was decided that the doors must remain closed during concerts to ensure that the residential areas east of Broad Street would not be impacted by noise from the venue. The additional conditions added to the use permit include: Events on Friday shall not begin before 7:30 p.m. 11 Packet Pg. 86 The indoor night club venue use shall include measures to reduce sound, including, but not limited to, insulated walls, acoustic panels on the ceiling and wall and specialized acoustic curtains. All concerts shall be held in the indoor night club venue. The doors and windows of the facility shall be closed during all events. Ambient music outdoors shall be prohibited after 9:00 p.m. Notification The project has received a substantial amount of public exposure due to coverage in the Tribune newspaper. Two front-page articles have enabled area residents to become aware of the proposal and many have submitted written correspondence for City consideration. The public hearing on April 19 was well attended and the decision makers benefitted from the input of 12 speakers for and against the proposal. Although participation and general awareness of the project has been high, a rehearing has been scheduled because of a defect in the noticing of the project. The minimum legal notification requirement for the project requires the City to send written notification to occupants and property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries. No notification went out for this project at all due to an unfortunate miscommunication between staff members. For this rehearing, staff sent out over 700 postcards, including notices to all residential properties bounded by Tank Farm Road, the railroad tracks, the southern City limit line, and Broad Street. City staff has confirmed that the notification error was an isolated circumstance and the issue that resulted in the error has been corrected. Attachments: a - Ordinance Introduction b - Resolution c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report 11 Packet Pg. 87 O ______ ORDINANCE NO. (2016 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 9 OF SECTION 17.22.010 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS) CONDITIONALLY PERMITTING A NIGHT CLUB LAND USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK (B-P) ZONE IN THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (CODE-1316-2015) WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the applicant, SLO Brew Investors, LLC, submitted an application to request an amendment to Table 9 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.22.010 to allow a night club land use (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) within the Business Park zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 1055 Monterey Street, Room D170, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2015, and recommended approval of the amendments to the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 February 10, 2016, and recommended approval of the amendments Table 9 of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.22.010 to allow a night club land use within the Business Park zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 3, 2016, considered the request of the an amendment to Title 17(Zoning Regulations) and the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a night club land use (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) within the Business Park zone with a use permit (CODE-1316-2015); and, WHEREAS, the City Council 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 ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the City or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the amendments are consistent with the General Plan and directly implement City goals and policies. SECTION 2. Action. Table 9 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.22.010 is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 11.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: a - Ordinance Introduction (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 O ______ SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The City Council has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (“MND”) for this project which was adopted by Resolution No. ______ (2016 Series) together with all comments received during the public review period, and, on the basis of the whole record before it, hereby finds that (1) potentially significant environmental effects were identified but mitigation measures to be included and incorporated into the text amendments to avoid or reduce the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the text amendment will have a significant effect on the environmental; and (3) the MND reflects the City of San Luis Obispo’s independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 4. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end the provisions hereof are severable. SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____________ 2016, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of 201 6, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ 11.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: a - Ordinance Introduction (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 O ______ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 11.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: a - Ordinance Introduction (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 4 O ______ TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued P ermit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Club, lodge, private meeting hall D D A D A/D D D D Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC D D D D D(12)PC D 17.08.060 Commercial recreation facility - Outdoor PC PC Educational conferences D D D D 17.08.010.C.6 Fitness/health facility D A D D PC A A D Golf Course PC Library, museum PC D D D D Library, branch facility D D D D Night club D D D D D D PC (14)Chapter 17.95 Park, playground D D A A A A D D A A A Public assembly facility PC D D D D PC Religious facility PC D D D D A D D D A D(7)D(7)D(7) PC PC School - College, university campus PC School - Elementary, middle, secondary PC PC D D PC D School - Specialized education/training PC A/D A/D A A A Special event D D D D D D D D D 17.08.010 Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC PC Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.D D A/D A/D A PC A Theater PC(8)D D D D Chapter 17.95 Theater - Drive-in PC PC RESIDENTIAL USES Boarding/rooming house, dormitory PC D D D Chapter 17.20 Caretaker quarters A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A D Convents and monasteries PC A A D Fraternity, sorority PC PC High occupancy residential use D D Home occupation H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 17.08.090 Live/work units A A A A A 17.08.120 Mixed-use project A A A A A A PC PC 17.08.072 A A A A A A A A Mobile home park A A A A Multi-family dwellings A A A A D D A A A A A A A/D A/D A/D D A A A A A D A/D A/D D Residential hospice facility PC PC D PC PC D Rest home A A A A A D A/D A/D D Single-family dwellings A A A(2)A A A A D D Secondary dwelling units A A A A A Chapter 17.21 Work/live units D D 17.08.120 Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above H = Home Occupation Permit required Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table. Mobile home as temporary residence at building site Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer residents Residential care facilities - 7 or more residents School - Boarding school, elementary, middle, secondary School - College, university - Satellite classroom facility EXHIBIT A 11.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: a - Ordinance Introduction (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 5 O ______ Notes to Table 9: 1. Ozone - All uses. A Use Permit is required for the conversion of residential structures to non-residential uses. In order to approve a Use Permit, the Director shall first find that: a. The location, orientation, height, and mass of new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas; and b. The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to local st reets in nearby residential areas; and c. The project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas. 2. R-1 zone - Multiple dwellings. Except for condominiums, the construction of more than one dwelling on a parcel in the R-1 zone requires Administrative Use Permit approval. R-1 density standards apply. 3. C-N zone - Limitations on floor area. A general retail use in the C-N zone shall not exceed a gross floor area of 2,000 square feet for each establishment, or a combined floor area of all general retail establishments within a shopping center of 25 percent of the total floor area in a shopping center with a gross floor area of 15,000 square feet or more; and shall not exceed 50 percent of the total floor area in a shopping center with a gross floor area of less than 15,000 square feet. The Administrative Use Permit may provide for exceptions to the floor area limitations above. For general retail uses with a floor area greater than 2,000 square feet on a parcel not located within a shopping center, an Administrative Use Permit shall be required to insure consistency with policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and compatibility with surrounding uses. 4. C-S and M zones - Required findings for offices. The approval of an office facility in the C-S or M zone shall require that the review authority first find that: a. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area; b. The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones; c. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to nois e, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing; d. The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with offices; and e. The project will not create a shortage of C-S- or M-zoned land available for service commercial or industrial development. 5. C-R zone - Auto sound system installation. Auto sound installation services may be approved only as an accessory use to the retail sales of auto sound systems on the same site. Use Permit review shall consider parking space displacement, noise from the operation, and the appearance and visibility of the installation area. 6. Parking as a principal use. Use Permit approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. A multi-level parking facility shall require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 7. Religious facilities. a. C-S zone requirements. Use Permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise, truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors. A Use Permit may be approved only when the religious facility will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely EXHIBIT A 11.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: a - Ordinance Introduction (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 6 O ______ future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use Permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. b. C-T and M zone requirements. A religious facility use may be allowed only inside an existing building. 8. PF zone - Theaters. Only non-profit theaters are permitted. 9. Day care centers. Allowed by right where accessory to a church or school, or where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees, providing the primary use meets City parking standards. 10. Groceries, Liquor, Specialty Foods in the CN Zone. In the C-N zone, grocery, liquor and specialty food stores less than 3,000 square feet are allowed. Such uses with a gross floor area between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet are allowed with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. Stores between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet may be approved by Planning Commission Use Permit. In order for a use permit to be approved by the Hearing Officer or by the Planning Commission, the deciding body must find that the proposed use is compatible with surrou nding uses and the surrounding neighborhood, and that the use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Commercial designation as discussed in the General Plan. 11. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: a) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. b) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. c) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. d) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. e) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services. f) The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical service and will not result in other lease spaces being under -utilized because of a lack of available parking. 12. C-S zone - Required findings for Indoor Commercial Recreational Facilities. Commercial indoor recreational uses in the C-S zone shall not include less than 10,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment. The approval of an indoor commercial recreational facility in the C -S zone shall require that the review authority first find that: a) The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function; b) The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area; c) The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones; d) The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with recreational facilities; and EXHIBIT A 11.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: a - Ordinance Introduction (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 7 O ______ e) The project will not create a shortage of C-S -zoned land available for service commercial development. 13. Safe Parking. Safe parking is only allowed in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones when accessory to a public assembly use, such as a club, lodge, private meeti ng hall or religious facility. Safe parking is prohibited as a primary use in the R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4 zones and in all applicable zoning districts on properties that contain residential uses as the primary use. 14. Night club use in the BP zone. Night clubs shall be allowed only in the BP zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan. Refer to the Allowed uses, Table 4.3, of the Airport Area Specific Plan for more information. EXHIBIT A 11.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: a - Ordinance Introduction (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) RESOLUTION NO. (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 4.3 OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWING A NIGHT CLUB USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE, APPROVING A NIGHT CLUB USE PERMIT WITH OFF-SITE PARKING IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE AT 855 AEROVISTA PLACE AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 3, 2016 (CODE-1316-2015) WHEREAS, the applicant, on May 5, 2015, submitted an application to amend the Airport Area Specific Plan and for a use permit to allow a night club (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) with off-site parking at 855 Aerovista Place; and WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 1055 Monterey Street, Room D170, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2015, and recommended approval of amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 February 10, 2016, and recommended approval of the amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan and night club use permit with off-site parking within the Business Park zone at 855 Aerovista Place; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 3, 2016, considered the request to amend the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a night club use within the Business Park zone and for a night club use permit with off-site parking within the Business Park zone at 855 Aerovista Place (CODE-1316-2015); and, WHEREAS, the City Council 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 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: Airport Area Specific Plan 1. The Amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan conditionally permitting a night club use within the Business Park Zone is consistent with the General Plan policies and will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City. 11.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Night club 2. As conditioned, the use will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people living or working in the vicinity because conditions on the Use Permit approval will minimize noise impacts, impacts to police resources, and there are no nearby residential uses. 3. Locating a live indoor/outdoor entertainment use outside of the downtown is appropriate because currently no sites exist downtown that would allow for live indoor/outdoor entertainment for a large number of people without impacting other uses. The location of a night club within the business park zone, near the airport, is appropriate because the use is not impacted by airport noise and is not located near residential uses. 4. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with Section 4.2.1 of the Airport Area Specific Plan because the proposed use is supportive of the primary activity and part of the promotion of the SLO Brew Production Facility. 5. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. 6. The property owner has agreed to conditions of approval that place restrictions on their use of the property to insure that nuisances and significant burdens on police resources do not occur. 7. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the project site and with existing and potential uses in the vicinity which include offices, a gym, and a beer brewing facility. Conditions of approval have been adopted to minimize potential disturbances to neighboring properties. Off-site Parking 8. Off-site parking is acceptable at this location because proposed off-site parking is within a zone where the use is allowed, within 300 feet of the use, and is not separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. 9. Off-site parking is acceptable at this location because the site on which the parking is located is owned by the party controlling the use. SECTION 2. Amendment of Airport Area Specific Plan. Table 4.3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. Action on Use Permit. The City Council hereby approves the use permit for a night club use at 855 Aerovista Place (CODE-1316-2015), based on the above and subject to the following conditions: 11.b Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ Planning Division 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. Hours of operation for the proposed use shall not be outside the hours from 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Fridays and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday and Sundays. Changes in the hours of operation shall require an amendment to this use permit or require an additional use permit as determined by the Community Development Director. 3. An off-site parking agreement that satisfies parking requirements shall be signed and recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to occupancy. A minimum of 61 parking spaces shall be provided in an off-site parking location located within 300 feet of the subject location. 4. If parking availability becomes impacted, the City retains the right to require additional parking mitigation measures, including but not limited to revocation of this use permit, limiting occupancy loads or additional off-site parking agreements with adjacent property owners. 5. No wedding ceremonies or other similar noise-sensitive events and/or activities are allowed on the outdoor portions of the property, and any indoor uses must comply with applicable density restrictions within the Airport Land Use Plan. 6. The combination of amplified music, voice and crowd noise on the subject site from the indoor event venue shall not exceed 90 dBA at 20 feet from the speakers as specified in the Noise Analysis prepared by David Lord, which exceeds the City’s Noise Ordinance requirement for the use. All outdoor speakers shall be oriented inward to the site away from residences to the east of Broad Street at all times. 7. Building plans submitted for the indoor night club venue use shall include measures to reduce sound, including, but not limited to, insulated walls, acoustic panels on the ceiling and wall and specialized acoustic curtains. 8. All concerts shall be held in the indoor night club venue. The doors and windows of the facility shall be closed during all events. 9. Ambient music outdoors shall be prohibited after 9:00 p.m. 10. No approval for modifications, decorations or active use of the rock is expressly granted or implied through the approval of the use permit. 11.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 4 R ______ 11. The patio will be maintained in an orderly manner, and will be properly supervised and controlled at all times to prevent alcoholic beverages from leaving the area. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the applicant. 12. The applicant is responsible at all times for verifying the legal age of patrons, for monitoring patrons’ on site alcohol consumption, and for declining to serve alcohol to patrons who demonstrate signs of intoxication or impairment associated with alcohol consumption, based on training that is to be provided to all staff. 13. The night club shall not exceed a maximum number of 600 persons in attendance to any event. 14. To address complaints and minimize the need for police response to minor issues, an owner or manager shall be on premises at all times, and shall be available to be contacted by a City representative and/or adjacent property owner or tenant. The applicant shall provide and regularly update contact information to the City’s Police, Fire, and Community Development Departments and adjacent property owners and tenants. 15. All employees shall attend ABC LEAD Training or equivalent training. 16. The applicant shall be responsible for an on-going security/safety plan that incorporates regular training to accommodate changes in personnel. The applicant shall be responsible for managing outdoor crowds and queuing as a result of this use and the site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. 17. The applicant shall manage/patrol outdoor crowds and queuing as a result of this use. An orderly line of patrons awaiting entry that does not block public access on, or use of, the sidewalk shall be maintained. This queue shall not block egress from any exits or the patio seating area exit. 18. Business shall be conducted in a manner that will not violate any provisions of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors (§25658), maintaining the public health, morals, convenience, and safety (§25601); and taking reasonable steps to correct any objectionable conditions on the premises and immediately adjacent to the premises (§24200). 19. The maximum posted occupant load for each space shall not be exceeded at any time. This permit is strictly limited to allow only the occupant load for the premises as approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Occupant loads approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall be posted at all times. 20. This Use Permit shall be reviewed at a Planning Commission hearing if the City receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police Department employee, which 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 11.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 5 R ______ 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 Use Permit may be revoked. 21. Upon a significant change to the business as identified in the applicant’s project description, final security plan, and Staff Report dated May 3, 2016 the Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use Permit is necessary. 22. No structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or permanent in nature shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to air navigation, as defined by the ALUP. 23. Any use is prohibited that may entail characteristics which would potentially interfere with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport, including: creation of electrical interference with navigation signals or radio communication between the aircraft and airport; lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting; glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport; uses which attract birds and create bird strike hazards; uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke; and uses which entail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of aircraft (e.g., exterior laser light demonstrations or shows). 24. Avigation easements will be recorded for each property developed within the area included in the proposed local action prior to the issuance of any building permit or conditional use permit. 25. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. 26. This use permit for a Night Club use at 855 Aerovista Place shall not be effective until the effective date of Ordinance No. ___________ (2016 Series) amending Title 17 of the City’s Zoning Code conditionally permitting Night Club land uses within the Business Park zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan Area. Transportation Department 27. Due to peak hour congestion levels along the Broad Street Corridor events shall not be permitted Friday before the hours of 7:30 p.m. 11.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 6 R ______ Building Department 28. The project requires a building permit for change of use and/or occupancy. Additional requirements will be included when an application for that building permit is submitted for review. Fire Department 29. The building permit submitted for the change of use and/or occupancy shall show occupancy load calculations for nightclub/music use and for other proposed uses of the building room(s) use based on 5, 7, and 15 square feet per occupant. Occupancy load calculations shall be submitted by a state-licensed architect. 30. The applicant shall submit a written safety policy/plan for maintaining the maximum occupant load in the assembly areas of the building (to avoid overcrowding) for any nightclub/music use. 31. The building permit submitted for the change of use and/or occupancy shall clarify if this mezzanine is proposed for a B occupancy or an Assembly occupancy (mezzanine on east side of building specifies an Assembly occupancy with only one stairway). 32. Any/all changes to the current/proposed building plans shall be in compliance with the 2013 California Building Code, including any required occupancy separations. SECTION 4. Environmental Determination. The City Council has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (“MND”) together with all comments received during the public review period, and, on the basis of the whole record before it, hereby finds that (1) potentially significant environmental effects were identified but mitigation measures to be included avoid or reduce the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmental would occur; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) the MND reflects the City of San Luis Obispo’s independent judgment and analysis. Based on the foregoing, the Council hereby adopts the proposed MND with incorporation of the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs: Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure T-1: Night club use permit events shall not be permitted on Fridays between the before the hours of 7:30 pm. Monitoring Plan, T-1: The hours of operation shall be included as part of the business license application and will be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval for the use permit. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. 11.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 7 R ______ Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this ____ day of ___________________, 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 11.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Table 4.3 – Allowed Uses Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit Footnotes (see end of table) Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Bar/tavern D D D1 Club, lodge, private meeting hall D Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC PC D Commercial recreation facility – Outdoor PC PC Fitness/health facility A A A1 Night club D PC3,9 Park, playground D Public assembly facility PC PC Religious facility8 D D2 School – Specialized education/training8 A A D Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP RESIDENTIAL USES Caretaker quarters7 A A A D EXHIBIT A 11.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Numbered Notes to Table 4.3: 1. These activities are considered secondary uses for business parks. Within a development project site, their combined floor area shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. Some are also subject to limits on individual floor area, as shown in the body of the table. Floor area limitations shall not apply to bank headquarters. 2. Use permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zone s because of noise, truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors. A use permit may be approved only when the church will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. 3. In the C-S zone, nightclubs must contain a minimum of four thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. In the BP zone, no minimum floor area is required for nightclubs. The required use permit process for both the C-S and BP zones shall address parking, neighborhood compatibility and security issues. 4. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: a) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. b) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. c) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. d) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. e) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services. f) The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized because of a lack of available parking. 5. Allowed by right only in the S-1c and S-2 aviation safety areas (as defined in the ALUP), where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees. Larger facilities for employees may be approved by the Planning Commission, if allowed by the Airport Land Use Commission. 6. Broadcast studios are allowed by right except that an administrative use permit is required to permit any on-site antennas, dishes, or transmission towers; or any radio, microwave other type of airbound transmission from the project site or any other site within the Airport Area. 7. Caretakers quarters shall have a maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet and shall not be allowed in aviation safety area S -1a or the runway protection zone, as defined in the ALUP. 8. These uses are identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan as noise-sensitive, specific sound-attenuation requirements may apply. Refer to the ALUP for more information. EXHIBIT A 11.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ 9. Nightclub uses proposed in the BP zone shall meet the standards and requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan, and shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. All tall structures shall be reviewed by the Air Traffic Division of the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over San Luis Obispo County to determine compliance with the provisions of FAR Part 77. In addition, applicable construction activities must be reported via FAA Form 7460-1 at least 30 days before proposed construction or application for building permit. EXHIBIT A 11.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: b - Resolution (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Meeting Date: 4/19/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TABLE 9 OF SECTION 17.22.010 OF THE CITY’S ZONING REGULATIONS TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT A NIGHT CLUB USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE IN THE AIRPORT AREA; CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A NIGHT CLUB LAND USE (LIVE INDOOR/OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT) WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NIGHT CLUB (LIVE INDOOR/OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT) AND OFF-SITE PARKING AT 855 AEROVISTA PLACE. RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Introduce an Ordinance to amend Table 9 of Section 17.22.010 of the City’s Zoning Regulations to allow a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone in the Airport Area with a use permit (Attachment A); and 2. Adopt a Resolution amending the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone and approving a use permit for a night club (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) and off-site parking for SLO Brew at 855 Aerovista and adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact (Attachment B). REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant, Auzco Development, LLC (SLO Brew), has applied for a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations and the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to allow a night club (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) as an allowed use, with Director’s approval, in the Business Park (BP) zone. As part of this request the applicant is requesting a use permit for the SLO Brew Production Facility located at 855 Aerovista Place in the BP zone of the AASP in order to have the opportunity to provide live entertainment as an accessory use to their facility. The request was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and found to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The Planning Commission reviewed the text amendment s and use permit for SLO Brew and recommended the City Council approve the request. 11.c Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) DISCUSSION Background 1. Previous Entitlements The project at 855 Aerovista Place has received two previous entitlements: a. February 2, 2015: The ARC reviewed and approved a new commercial building for SLO Brew Production Facility and other light manufacturing and warehousing uses, and a restaurant use. b. February 6, 2015: The Community Development Director reviewed and granted approval of a use permit for a Tasting Room (Bar/Tavern) within the Business Park zone as part of the SLO Brew Production Facility. The approved Tasting Room hours are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. 2. Airport Land Use Commission Review On December 16, 2015 the proposed text amendment and use permit for the SLO Brew production facility was referred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency or inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The ALUC determined that the proposed text amendment and the request for a night club use permit for the SLO Brew facility were consistent with the ALUP. The Commission recommended a series of conditions be applied to any night club use permit approvals, as well as a number of conditions for the SLO Brew night club use permit. The findings and conditions associated with the determination of consistency can be found in Attachment D (Notice of Airport Land Use Commission Action) and have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance and resolution (Attachments A & B). 3. Planning Commission Review On February 10, 2016 the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the request for the proposed text amendments and use permit for the SLO Brew production facility at 855 Aerovista Place. The PC recommended that the use permit requirement of the text amendment be elevated to require PC approval, as opposed to an administrative level. In a 6:1 vote, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the text amendment establishing a night club as an allowed use with PC approval and a night club use permit for the SLO Brew facility at 855 Aerovista (Attachment C, Planning Commission Resolutions, Attachment K, Planning Commission Draft Minutes). Project Information 1. Airport Area Specific Plan Business Park (BP) zoning is found only within the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plan boundaries. Figure 1 highlights the location of the BP zone within the AASP. The BP zone contains sites that are built out, vacant or have active entitlements. The portion of the BP zone 11.c Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) located to the southwest part of the AASP (indicated with cross hatch lines on Figure 1) is currently under review as part of Avila Ranch. Figure 1: Land use designations for the AASP; Business Park zone; Business Park zone under review as a part of Avila Ranch. 2. Project Description – Zoning Regulations Text Amendment and the Airport Area Specific Plan Text Amendment The applicant is requesting a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations and the AASP to allow a Night Club as an allowed use, with Director’s approval, in the BP zone. 3. Project Description – Night club at SLO Brew Production Facility The SLO Brew Production Facility is being constructed in the Aerovista Business Park in the BP zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan. SLO Brew Production Facility would like the opportunity to provide live entertainment on Friday evenings and Saturdays and Sundays as an accessory use to their production facility and restaurant (Attachment E, Project Description). The SLO Brew Production Facility includes: 3,047 square foot entertainment venue, 6,496 square foot brewery production facility, 1,250 square foot kitchen, 1,579 square foot beer tasting/restaurant area, 600 square foot outdoor dining area, 15,444 square foot lease space, and 1,746 square feet of office and mezzanine area. The Aerovista Business Park is composed of four parcels with a combined total acreage of 9.94 acres. The SLO Brew parcel alone is 3.47 acres in size (Attachment F, Vicinity Map). Attachment G shows the business park site plan and the location of SLO Brew and the adjacent structures. In addition to the SLO Brew facility, the Aerovista Business Park also includes four, 11.c Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) two-story office buildings which house a variety of professional offices (i.e. doctor’s office, tax services, government offices, etc.), and a fitness facility with a combined total of 444 parking spaces. Staff estimates a total of 666 people occupy the site when all of the lease spaces are occupied (calculation based on a rate of 1.5 persons per parking space). The majority of these businesses operate from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant is proposing on a limited basis (Friday through Sunday) to host events with live music around the existing rock outcropping in the outdoor patio area and inside the facility (Attachment G, Site plan). The applicant is requesting the ability to host weddings (ceremonies would be indoors only), concerts or other large party events. Events would be scheduled only on Friday evenings, 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and Saturdays and Sundays, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. with no more than a maximum attendance of 600 people. Project Analysis 1. Amending the Zoning Regulations and the Airport Area Specific Plan Zoning Regulations and the AASP Section 17.100.N of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code defines a night club as – “a facility providing entertainment, examples of which include live or recorded music and/or dancing, comedy, disc jockeys, etc., which may also serve alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.” In this particular request, the proposed use is not for a typical night club business that operates every night with late hours and dancing. Instead, the reason for delineating the requested use as a night club is to allow for the ability to provide live music and entertainment as an accessory use to the brewery and restaurant on Friday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays. Currently night clubs are allowed with a use permit within several zones that are located throughout the City including the Community Commercial (C-C), Downtown Commercial (C- D), Retail Commercial (C-R), Tourist Commercial (C-T), Service Commercial (C-S) and the Manufacturing (M) zones.1 According to Chapter 17.49 of the Municipal Code, the BP zone “is intended to provide for research and development, light manufacturing, and business services that are compatible with each other and with airport operations.” The AASP further states that “activities that are supportive of, or accessory to, the primary activities may be allowed as well. The City recognizes that businesses locating in areas designated Business Park often combine product development, promotion, manufacturing, and distribution at a single facility.”2 The request of a night club to allow live entertainment as part of or accessory to an allowed use within the Business Park is consistent with the intention of the language of the AASP. Staff is recommending additional language be added to the AASP Allowed Uses (Table 4.3) to include parameters of review for future night club uses. The text amendment includes recommended requirements from the ALUC that all night club uses be referred to the ALUC and that any proposed night club use shall address parking, neighborhood compatibility and security issues (Attachment B, Exhibit A – AASP Specific Plan Text Amendment). The proposed Title 17 1 Zoning Regulations, Table 9. 2 AASP Section 4.2.1. 11.c Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) (Zoning Regulations) text amendment includes a footnote that clarifies that the night club use is only allowed in the BP zone of the AASP with Planning Commission approval (Attachment A, Exhibit A – Zoning Regulations Text Amendment). General Plan Policies One of the General Plan’s Community Goals states that the City is to: “Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government; education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment; cultural, professional, medical, and social services; community organizations; retail trade3.” The Land Use Element (LUE) specifically states that Downtown is the community’s urban center serving as the cultural, social, entertainment, and political center of the City for its residents. Entertainment facilities, such as night clubs, are to be in the Downtown.4 Although the LUE encourages night clubs in the Downtown, the Zoning Regulations include opportunities for night clubs to be located outside of Downtown as noted previously. The applicant is not proposing a night club as a primary use, but rather as an accessory to allowed uses (e.g. brewery and restaurant) within the BP zone. This is an important distinction because the proposed use is not a bar, will not function on a nightly basis, but is limited to certain days and hours of operation, and is focused on providing a venue for live entertainment/music for the community and for special events such as wedding receptions. The location of the SLO Brew production facility and restaurant with an accessory night club use for limited live entertainment within the business park zone, near the airport, is appropriate because the use is not impacted by airport noise and is located more than 800 feet from the nearest residential uses. This is consistent with C-S or M zoned land within the City that is located near residential uses such as Broad Street and Aero Drive (across the street from the proposed site), the South Broad Street Area, Orcutt Road and the railroad tracks and Sacramento Drive. 2. Night club use permit for SLO Brew Production Facility at 855 Aerovista The proposed live indoor/outdoor entertainment component of the brewery/restaurant at the SLO Brew Production Facility is considered an accessory use to the production facility. Staff has evaluated the proposed night club use and provided recommended conditions of approval to 3 Land Use Element. Community Goals: Society and Economy, p. 1-20. 4 Land Use Element Policies 4.1, 4.3, and 4.8: 4.1. Downtown’s Role: Downtown is the community’s urban center serving as the cultural, social, entertainment, and political center of the City for its residents, as well as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoo ds. The City wants its urban core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and public investments in the Downtown support each other. Downtown should also provide a wide variety of professional and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is a preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and commercial portions of Downtown should be a major tourist destination. D owntown's visitor appeal should be based on natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, entertainment and numerous and varied visitor accommodations. 4.3. Entertainment and Cultural Facilities: Cultural facilities, such as museums and galleries should be Downtown. Entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs and theaters shall be in the Downtown. 4.8. Downtown as Focal Point: The Downtown should remain the focus for nighttime entertainment, cultural events and related activities. It should be a pleasant and safe place at all times. 11.c Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) address any potential impacts (density, security, noise, traffic, etc.) to ensure the project is compatible with neighboring uses. Public Comment On February 25, 2016, the Tribune published an article regarding the proposed live music venue. Following the article, the City received a large amount of written correspondence related to the request. Most of the correspondence expressed concerns regarding noise from the venue, or that the use might exasperate traffic conditions on Broad Street. The following areas have been analyzed for the project in consideration of the concerns expressed, and conditions of approval are recommended to ensure that use is conducted in a manner that is compatible with the immediate surroundings and the residential uses located across Broad Street. Density The applicant proposes to have approximately 600 square feet of outdoor dining space and 3,047 square foot of indoor event space to be available for live entertainment. Events at the site will have no more than 600 people at any given time. The ALUC reviewed the proposal and found it to be consistent with the density standards of the ALUP and the Airport Area Specific Plan which allows 120 persons per acre.5 Traffic Analysis The applicant is proposing hours of operation three days a week; Friday 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. These proposed hours are outside the hours of operation for the majority of the uses on site, as noted previously, which operate from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Initial Study identified that traffic could result in significant but mitigatable impacts related to the performance of circulation along Highway 227/Broad Street during the peak traffic hours of 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m. As such, staff has included Condition No. 23 which requires that events shall not be permitted on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to mitigate impacts of additional traffic during peak hours along Broad Street (Attachment B, Council Resolution). Additionally, per Condition No. 24, vehicle trips associated with the subject property shall be less than 35 per hour (the base trip generation for the brewer y manufacturing and restaurant use excluding the event use) on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. If the number of trips exceeds the 35 trips per hour threshold during this period, then the events permitted under this use permit related to the night club use shall be further prohibited on Friday night up until 8:00 pm or prohibited on Friday nights altogether, at the discretion of the Public Works Director. The idea behind this condition is to determine if patrons are coming to the facility during Friday peak traffic hours because of the live entertainment (i.e. the number of actual trips exceeds the trip estimate/ threshold for the underlying brewery/restaurant use). If that threshold is exceeded, it would be assumed that individuals who otherwise would not be patronizing the brewery/restaurant are arriving early for the music event during peak hour traffic. Condition No. 24 mitigates that impact by giving the Public Works Director the ability to further prohibit night club use on Fridays nights until 8:00 p.m. or on Friday nights altogether. 5 AASP Table 4.6 11.c Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Security & Circulation The applicant has provided a detailed security plan that is included as Attachment H (Security Plan). The security plan includes a queuing plan and details of the duties and responsibilities of all staff. During events, attendants will establish queuing lines and temporary signage to not impede existing foot traffic and direct patrons to the appropriate event area. The areas where queues will be formed are shown on the security plan (Attachment H, pg 5). All staff shall be required to be trained to verify legal age of patrons, monitoring patrons’ on-site alcohol consumption, denying service of alcohol to patrons who demonstrate signs of intoxication, and attend ABC LEAD Training. Parking As part of this use-permit, the applicant is requesting an off-site parking agreement to allow parking for the night club to expand off-site onto the neighboring properties of the Aerovista Business Park. The night club use requires 61 parking spaces. The Zoning Regulations stipulate that a use permit for off-site parking may be approved when off-site parking is located within 300 feet of the use, and the site on which the parking is located is owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use (MC 17.16.060 E). The neighboring properties are owned by the same owner and consist mainly of offices that require parking Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The night club use will operate at alternate hours to the office uses. Noise The applicant has provided a Noise Study (Attachment I) performed by Mr. David Lord of 45dB.com. Existing sound levels were measured continuously on the proposed site at 10-second intervals over a 24-hour period for three days (Thursday June 19, 2015 to Saturday 21, 2015). An acoustic model with sound level contours was generated for the site based on topography, noise sources and measured sound level values. From this model, the study provided future sound level contours with a maximum of 600 persons, and amplified music and voice with no more than 90 dBA6 at 20 feet from the speakers. The result of this analysis is shown in Figure 2. The sound level deceases from 90 dBA to 58 dBA before intersecting with sound produced from Broad Street/ Highway 227 (with a sound level of 76 dBA). For an idea of common sound levels, 50 dBA is equivalent to a refrigerator running; 60 dBA is a sound level similar to normal conversation at a 3-foot distance; and 70 dBA is equivalent to the sound of a shower or vacuum cleaner. Jet flyover at 1,000 feet is 100 dBA. As mentioned previously, the site is largely surrounded by office uses, which will be closed during the hours of the live entertainment, the San Luis Obispo Airport and associated facilities. The Noise Study concludes that the proposed outdoor entertainment is compatible with the 6 A-weighted sound level. The ear does not respond equally to all frequencies, but is less sensitive at low and high frequencies than it is at medium or speech range frequencies. Thus, to obtain a single number representing the sound level of a noise containing a wide range of frequencies in a manner representative of the ear’s response, it is necessary to reduce the effects of the low and high frequencies with respect to the medium frequencies. Th e resultant sound level is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dBA. The A-weighted sound level is also called the noise level. 11.c Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Airport Land Use Plan and complies with the City’s noise regulations (Attachment I, Noise Study, pg. 15), which was also confirmed by the Airport Land Use Commission. The nearest residential development is more than 800 feet from the subject site. Based on the information provided in the Noise Study, the project does comply with the City’s Noise Element, in that it will not expose residents to unacceptable noise levels. However, it is possible that under certain atmospheric conditions, and depending on other noise levels, sound generated by events at SLO Brew may be heard across Broad Street in residential outdoor areas, or even indoors if a window or door is open. While the noise levels would not exceed City thresholds from an environmental impact perspective, the noise may still be considered unwanted by residents. As a result, conditions of approval are proposed that limit amplification and specif y that outdoor speakers must be oriented inward to the site to reduce the likelihood of sound travelling into the adjacent neighborhood (Condition No. 6). A condition of approval is also established requiring review of the use permit if complaints are received based on the noise generated from events on the project site (Condition No. 16). Figure 2: Future sound level contours with a maximum of 600 persons, with amplified music and voice, which do not measure greater than 90 dBA at 20 feet from speakers. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by the Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities Departments. Their conditions have been incorporated in the ordinance and the resolution. 11.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW After further review by staff and the City Attorney’s office it was determined that an Initial Study should be completed for full compliance with CEQA. An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment J). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to transportation/traffic will be less than significant. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project because no construction or improvements are required as a part of the requested Text Amendment or Use Permit. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Deny the Ordinance to amend Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) to allow a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone in the Airport Area with a use permit and a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact and the Resolution amending the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a Night Club land use within the Business Park zone and approving a use permit for a night club (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) and off-site parking for SLO Brew at 855 Aerovista and adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. Attachments: a - Ordinance Introduction b - Resolution c - Planning Commission Resolutions 2-10-16 d - ALUC Action (December 16, 2015) e - Project Description f - Vicinity Map g - Site Plan h - Security Plans i - Noise Study j - SLO Brew initial study k - PC Draft Minutes 02-10-2016 11.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) O ______ ORDINANCE NO. (2016 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 9 OF SECTION 17.22.010 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS) CONDITIONALLY PERMITTING A NIGHT CLUB LAND USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK (B-P) ZONE IN THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (CODE-1316-2015) WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the applicant, SLO Brew Investors, LLC, submitted an application to request an amendment to Table 9 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.22.010 to allow a night club land use (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) within the Business Park zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 1055 Monterey Street, Room D170, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2015, and recommended approval of the amendments to the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 February 10, 2016, and recommended approval of the amendments Table 9 of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.22.010 to allow a night club land use within the Business Park zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 19, 2016, considered the request of the an amendment to Title 17(Zoning Regulations) and the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a night club land use (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) within the Business Park zone with a use permit (CODE-1316-2015); and, WHEREAS, the City Council 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 ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the City or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the amendments are consistent with the General Plan and directly implement City goals and policies. SECTION 2. Action. Table 9 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.22.010 is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 11.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 O ______ SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The City Council has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (“MND”) for this project which was adopted by Resolution No. ______ (2016 Series) together with all comments received during the public review period, and, on the basis of the whole record before it, hereby finds that (1) potentially significant environmental effects were identified but mitigation measures to be included and incorporated into the text amendments to avoid or reduce the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the text amendment will have a significant effect on the environmental; and (3) the MND reflects the City of San Luis Obispo’s independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 4. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end the provisions hereof are severable. SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____________ 2016, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of 201 6, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ 11.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 O ______ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 11.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 4 O ______ TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued P ermit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Club, lodge, private meeting hall D D A D A/D D D D Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC D D D D D(12)PC D 17.08.060 Commercial recreation facility - Outdoor PC PC Educational conferences D D D D 17.08.010.C.6 Fitness/health facility D A D D PC A A D Golf Course PC Library, museum PC D D D D Library, branch facility D D D D Night club D D D D D D PC (14)Chapter 17.95 Park, playground D D A A A A D D A A A Public assembly facility PC D D D D PC Religious facility PC D D D D A D D D A D(7)D(7)D(7) PC PC School - College, university campus PC School - Elementary, middle, secondary PC PC D D PC D School - Specialized education/training PC A/D A/D A A A Special event D D D D D D D D D 17.08.010 Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC PC Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.D D A/D A/D A PC A Theater PC(8)D D D D Chapter 17.95 Theater - Drive-in PC PC RESIDENTIAL USES Boarding/rooming house, dormitory PC D D D Chapter 17.20 Caretaker quarters A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A D Convents and monasteries PC A A D Fraternity, sorority PC PC High occupancy residential use D D Home occupation H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 17.08.090 Live/work units A A A A A 17.08.120 Mixed-use project A A A A A A PC PC 17.08.072 A A A A A A A A Mobile home park A A A A Multi-family dwellings A A A A D D A A A A A A A/D A/D A/D D A A A A A D A/D A/D D Residential hospice facility PC PC D PC PC D Rest home A A A A A D A/D A/D D Single-family dwellings A A A(2)A A A A D D Secondary dwelling units A A A A A Chapter 17.21 Work/live units D D 17.08.120 Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above H = Home Occupation Permit required Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table. Mobile home as temporary residence at building site Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer residents Residential care facilities - 7 or more residents School - Boarding school, elementary, middle, secondary School - College, university - Satellite classroom facility EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 5 O ______ Notes to Table 9: 1. Ozone - All uses. A Use Permit is required for the conversion of residential structures to non-residential uses. In order to approve a Use Permit, the Director shall first find that: a. The location, orientation, height, and mass of new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas; and b. The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to local st reets in nearby residential areas; and c. The project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas. 2. R-1 zone - Multiple dwellings. Except for condominiums, the construction of more than one dwelling on a parcel in the R-1 zone requires Administrative Use Permit approval. R-1 density standards apply. 3. C-N zone - Limitations on floor area. A general retail use in the C-N zone shall not exceed a gross floor area of 2,000 square feet for each establishment, or a combined floor area of all general retail establishments within a shopping center of 25 percent of the total floor area in a shopping center with a gross floor area of 15,000 square feet or more; and shall not exceed 50 percent of the total floor area in a shopping center with a gross floor area of less than 15,000 square feet. The Administrative Use Permit may provide for exceptions to the floor area limitations above. For general retail uses with a floor area greater than 2,000 square feet on a parcel not located within a shopping center, an Administrative Use Permit shall be required to insure consistency with policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and compatibility with surrounding uses. 4. C-S and M zones - Required findings for offices. The approval of an office facility in the C-S or M zone shall require that the review authority first find that: a. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area; b. The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones; c. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to nois e, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing; d. The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with offices; and e. The project will not create a shortage of C-S- or M-zoned land available for service commercial or industrial development. 5. C-R zone - Auto sound system installation. Auto sound installation services may be approved only as an accessory use to the retail sales of auto sound systems on the same site. Use Permit review shall consider parking space displacement, noise from the operation, and the appearance and visibility of the installation area. 6. Parking as a principal use. Use Permit approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. A multi-level parking facility shall require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 7. Religious facilities. a. C-S zone requirements. Use Permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise, truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors. A Use Permit may be approved only when the religious facility will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 6 O ______ future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use Permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. b. C-T and M zone requirements. A religious facility use may be allowed only inside an existing building. 8. PF zone - Theaters. Only non-profit theaters are permitted. 9. Day care centers. Allowed by right where accessory to a church or school, or where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees, providing the primary use meets City parking standards. 10. Groceries, Liquor, Specialty Foods in the CN Zone. In the C-N zone, grocery, liquor and specialty food stores less than 3,000 square feet are allowed. Such uses with a gross floor area between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet are allowed with the approval of an Administrative Use Pe rmit. Stores between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet may be approved by Planning Commission Use Permit. In order for a use permit to be approved by the Hearing Officer or by the Planning Commission, the deciding body must find that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood, and that the use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Commercial designation as discussed in the General Plan. 11. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: a) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. b) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. c) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. d) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. e) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services. f) The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical ser vice and will not result in other lease spaces being under -utilized because of a lack of available parking. 12. C-S zone - Required findings for Indoor Commercial Recreational Facilities. Commercial indoor recreational uses in the C-S zone shall not include less than 10,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment. The approval of an indoor commercial recreational facility in the C -S zone shall require that the review authority first find that: a) The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function; b) The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area; c) The project location or access arrangements will not significant ly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones; d) The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with recreational facilities; and EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Ordinance No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 7 O ______ e) The project will not create a shortage of C-S -zoned land available for service commercial development. 13. Safe Parking. Safe parking is only allowed in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones when accessory to a public assembly use, such as a club, lodge, private meetin g hall or religious facility. Safe parking is prohibited as a primary use in the R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4 zones and in all applicable zoning districts on properties that contain residential uses as the primary use. 14. Night club use in the BP zone. Night clubs shall be allowed only in the BP zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan. Refer to the Allowed uses, Table 4.3, of the Airport Area Specific Plan for more information. 11.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) RESOLUTION NO. (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 4.3 OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWING A NIGHT CLUB USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE, APPROVING A NIGHT CLUB USE PERMIT WITH OFF-SITE PARKING IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE AT 855 AEROVISTA PLACE AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 19, 2016 (CODE-1316-2015) WHEREAS, the applicant, on May 5, 2015, submitted an application to amend the Airport Area Specific Plan and for a use permit to allow a night club (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) with off-site parking at 855 Aerovista Place; and WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 1055 Monterey Street, Room D170, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 16, 2015, and recommended approval of amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 February 10, 2016, and recommended approval of the amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan and night club use permit with off-site parking within the Business Park zone at 855 Aerovista Place; and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 19, 2016, considered the request to amend the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow a night club use within the Business Park zone and for a night club use permit with off-site parking within the Business Park zone at 855 Aerovista Place (CODE-1316-2015); and, WHEREAS, the City Council 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 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: Airport Area Specific Plan 1. The Amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan conditionally permitting a night club use within the Business Park Zone is consistent with the General Plan policies and will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City. Night club 11.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ 2. As conditioned, the use will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people living or working in the vicinity because conditions on the Use Permit approval will minimize noise impacts, impacts to police resources, and there are no nearby residential uses. 3. Locating a live indoor/outdoor entertainment use outside of the downtown is appropriate because currently no sites exist downtown that would allow for live indoor/outdoor entertainment for a large number of people without impacting other uses. The location of a night club within the business park zone, near the airport, is appropriate because the use is not impacted by airport noise and is not located near residential uses. 4. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with Section 4.2.1 of the Airport Area Specific Plan because the proposed use is supportive of the primary activity and part of the promotion of the SLO Brew Production Facility. 5. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. 6. The property owner has agreed to conditions of approval that place restrictions on their use of the property to insure that nuisances and significant burdens on police resources do not occur. 7. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the project site and with existing and potential uses in the vicinity which include offices, a gym, and a beer brewing facility. Conditions of approval have been adopted to minimize potential disturbances to neighboring properties. Off-site Parking 8. Off-site parking is acceptable at this location because proposed off-site parking is within a zone where the use is allowed, within 300 feet of the use, and is not separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. 9. Off-site parking is acceptable at this location because the site on which the parking is located is owned by the party controlling the use. SECTION 2. Amendment of Airport Area Specific Plan. Table 4.3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. Action on Use Permit. The City Council hereby approves the use permit for a night club use at 855 Aerovista Place (CODE-1316-2015), based on the above and subject to the following conditions: Planning Division 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, 11.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. Hours of operation for the proposed use shall not be outside the hours from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Fridays and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday and Sundays. Changes in the hours of operation shall require an amendment to this use permit or require an additional use permit as determined by the Community Development Director. 3. An off-site parking agreement that satisfies parking requirements shall be signed and recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to occupancy. A minimum of 61 parking spaces shall be provided in an off-site parking location located within 300 feet of the subject location. 4. If parking availability becomes impacted, the City retains the right to require additional parking mitigation measures, including but not limited to revocation of this use permit, limiting occupancy loads or additional off-site parking agreements with adjacent property owners. 5. No wedding ceremonies or other similar noise-sensitive events and/or activities are allowed on the outdoor portions of the property, and any indoor uses must comply with applicable density restrictions within the Airport Land Use Plan. 6. The combination of amplified music, voice and crowd noise on the subject site shall not exceed 90 dBA at 20 feet from the speakers as specified in the Noise Analysis prepared by David Lord, which exceeds the City’s Noise Ordinance requirement for the use. All outdoor speakers shall be oriented inward to the site away from residences to the east of Broad Street at all times. 7. The patio will be maintained in an orderly manner, and will be properly supervised and controlled at all times to prevent alcoholic beverages from leaving the area. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the applicant. 8. The applicant is responsible at all times for verifying the legal age of patrons, for monitoring patrons’ on site alcohol consumption, and for declining to serve alcohol to patrons who demonstrate signs of intoxication or impairment associated with alcohol consumption, based on training that is to be provided to all staff. 9. The night club shall not exceed a maximum number of 600 persons in attendance to any event. 10. To address complaints and minimize the need for police response to minor issues, an owner or manager shall be on premises at all times, and shall be available to be contacted 11.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 4 R ______ by a City representative and/or adjacent property owner or tenant. The applicant shall provide and regularly update contact information to the City’s Police, Fire, and Community Development Departments and adjacent property owners and tenants. 11. All employees shall attend ABC LEAD Training or equivalent training. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for an on-going security/safety plan that incorporates regular training to accommodate changes in personnel. The applicant shall be responsible for managing outdoor crowds and queuing as a result of this use and the site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. 13. The applicant shall manage/patrol outdoor crowds and queuing as a result of this use. An orderly line of patrons awaiting entry that does not block public access on, or use of, the sidewalk shall be maintained. This queue shall not block egress from any exits or the patio seating area exit. 14. Business shall be conducted in a manner that will not violate any provisions of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors (§25658), maintaining the public health, morals, convenience, and safety (§25601); and taking reasonable steps to correct any objectionable conditions on the premises and immediately adjacent to the premises (§24200). 15. The maximum posted occupant load for each space shall not be exceeded at any time. This permit is strictly limited to allow only the occupant load for the premises as approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Occupant loads approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall be posted at all times. 16. This Use Permit shall be reviewed at a Planning Commission hearing if the City receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police Department employee, which 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 Use Permit may be revoked. 17. Upon a significant change to the business as identified in the applicant’s project description, final security plan, and Staff Report dated February 10, 2016 the Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use Permit is necessary. 18. No structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or permanent in nature shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to air navigation, as defined by the ALUP. 19. Any use is prohibited that may entail characteristics which would potentially interfere 11.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 5 R ______ with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport, including: creation of electrical interference with navigation signals or radio communication between the aircraft and airport; lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting; glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport; uses which attract birds and create bird strike hazards; uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke; and uses which entail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of aircraft (e.g., exterior laser light demonstrations or shows). 20. Avigation easements will be recorded for each property developed within the area included in the proposed local action prior to the issuance of any building permit or conditional use permit. 21. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. 22. This use permit for a Night Club use at 855 Aerovista Place shall not be effective until the effective date of Ordinance No. ___________ amending Title 17 of the City’s Zoning Code conditionally permitting Night Club land uses within the Business Park zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan Area. Transportation Department 23. Due to peak hour congestion levels along the Broad Street Corridor events shall not be permitted Friday between the hours of 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. 24. Vehicle trips associated with the subject property shall be less than 35 per hour (the base trip generation for the brewery manufacturing and restaurant use excluding the event use) on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. If the number of trips exceeds the 35 trips per hour threshold during this period, then the events permitted under this use permit related to the night club use shall be further prohibited on Friday night up until 8:00 pm or prohibited on Friday nights altogether, at the discretion of the Public Works Director. Building Department 25. The project requires a building permit for change of use and/or occupancy. Additional requirements will be included when an application for that building permit is submitted for review. Fire Department 26. The building permit submitted for the change of use and/or occupancy shall show 11.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 6 R ______ occupancy load calculations for nightclub/music use and for other proposed uses of the building room(s) use based on 5, 7, and 15 square feet per occupant. Occupancy load calculations shall be submitted by a state-licensed architect. 27. The applicant shall submit a written safety policy/plan for maintaining the maximum occupant load in the assembly areas of the building (to avoid overcrowding) for any nightclub/music use. 28. The building permit submitted for the change of use and/or occupancy shall clarify if this mezzanine is proposed for a B occupancy or an Assembly occupancy (mezzanine on east side of building specifies an Assembly occupancy with only one stairway). 29. Any/all changes to the current/proposed building plans shall be in compliance with the 2013 California Building Code, including any required occupancy separations. SECTION 4. Environmental Determination. The City Council has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (“MND”) together with all comments received during the public review period, and, on the basis of the whole record before it, hereby finds that (1) potentially significant environmental effects were identified but mitigation measures to be included avoid or reduce the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmental would occur; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) the MND reflects the City of San Luis Obispo’s independent judgment and analysis. Based on the foregoing, the Council hereby adopts the proposed MND with incorporation of the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs: Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure T-1: Night club use permit events shall not be permitted on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. Monitoring Plan, T-1: The hours of operation shall be included as part of the business license application and will be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval for the use permit. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure T-2: Vehicle trips associated with the subject property shall be less than 35 per hour (the base trip generation for the brewery manufacturing and restaurant use excluding the event use) on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. If the number of trips exceeds the 35 trips per hour threshold during this period, then the events permitted under this use permit related to the night club use shall be further prohibited on Friday night up until 8:00 pm or prohibited on Friday nights altogether, at the discretion of the Public Works Director. Monitoring Plan, T-2: Within one year of the effective date of this use permit and annually thereafter, City staff will periodically conduct traffic counts during Friday events to determine the number of trips associated with the Subject property on Friday night between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 11.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 7 R ______ . Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this ____ day of ___________________, 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 11.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Table 4.3 – Allowed Uses Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit Footnotes (see end of table) Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Bar/tavern D D D1 Club, lodge, private meeting hall D Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC PC D Commercial recreation facility – Outdoor PC PC Fitness/health facility A A A1 Night club D PC3,9 Park, playground D Public assembly facility PC PC Religious facility8 D D2 School – Specialized education/training8 A A D Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP RESIDENTIAL USES Caretaker quarters7 A A A D EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Numbered Notes to Table 4.3: 1. These activities are considered secondary uses for business parks. Within a development project site, their combined floor area shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. Some are also subject to limits on individual floor area, as shown in the body of the table. Floor area limitations shall not apply to bank headquarters. 2. Use permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise, truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors. A use permit may be approved only when the church will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. 3. In the C-S zone, nightclubs must contain a minimum of four thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. In the BP zone, no minimum floor area is required for nightclubs. The required use permit process for both the C-S and BP zones shall address parking, neighborhood compatibility and security issues. 4. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: a) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. b) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. c) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. d) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. e) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services. f) The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized because of a lack of available parking. 5. Allowed by right only in the S-1c and S-2 aviation safety areas (as defined in the ALUP), where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees. Larger facilities for employees may be approved by the Planning Commission, if allowed by the Airport Land Use Commission. 6. Broadcast studios are allowed by right except that an administrative use permit is required to permit any on-site antennas, dishes, or transmission towers; or any radio, microwave other type of airbound transmission from the project site or any other site within the Airport Area. 7. Caretakers quarters shall have a maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet and shall not be allowed in aviation safety area S -1a or the runway protection zone, as defined in the ALUP. 8. These uses are identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan as noise-sensitive, specific sound-attenuation requirements may apply. Refer to the ALUP for more information. EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ 9. Nightclub uses proposed in the BP zone shall meet the standards and requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan, and shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. All tall structures shall be reviewed by the Air Traffic Division of the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over San Luis Obispo County to determine compliance with the provisions of FAR Part 77. In addition, applicable construction activities must be reported via FAA Form 7460-1 at least 30 days before proposed construction or application for building permit. EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and 11.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 11.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015 TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1) C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Club, lodge, private meeting hall D D A D A/D D D D Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC D D D D D(12) PC D 17.08.060 Commercial recreation facility - Outdoor PC PC Educational conferences D D D D 17.08.010.C.6 Fitness/health facility DADDPCAAD Golf Course PC Library, museum PC D D D D Library, branch facility DDDD Night club D D D D D D Chapter 17.95 Park, playground D D A A A A D D A A A Public assembly facility PC D D D D PC Religious facility PC D D D D A D D D A D(7) D(7) D(7) PC PC School - College, university campus PC School - Elementary, middle, secondary PC PC D D PC D School - Specialized education/training PC A/D A/D A A A Special event DDDDDDDDD 17.08.010 Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC PC Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.D D A/D A/D A PC A Theater PC(8)D D D D Chapter 17.95 Theater - Drive-in PC PC RESIDENTIAL USES Boarding/rooming house, dormitory PC D D D Chapter 17.20 Caretaker quarters A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A D Convents and monasteries PC A A D Fraternity, sorority PC PC High occupancy residential use D D Home occupation H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 17.08.090 Live/work units A A A A A 17.08.120 Mixed-use project A A A A A A PC PC 17.08.072 AAAAAA AA Mobile home park A A A A Multi-family dwellings A A A A D D A A A A A A A/D A/D A/D D A A A A A D A/D A/D D Residential hospice facility PC PC D PC PC D Rest home A A A A A D A/D A/D D Single-family dwellings A A A(2) A A A A D D Secondary dwelling units A A A A A Chapter 17.21 Work/live units D D 17.08.120 Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above H = Home Occupation Permit required Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table. Page 102 Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer residents Residential care facilities - 7 or more residents School - Boarding school, elementary, middle, secondary School - College, university - Satellite classroom facility Mobile home as temporary residence at building site ' EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015 Page 106 Notes to Table 9: 1. Ozone - All uses.A Use Permit is required for the conversion of residential structures to non-residential uses. In order to approve a Use Permit, the Director shall first find that: a. The location, orientation, height, and mass of new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas; and b. The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to local streets in nearby residential areas; and c. The project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas. 2. R-1 zone - Multiple dwellings.Except for condominiums, the construction of more than one dwelling on a parcel in the R-1 zone requires Administrative Use Permit approval. R-1 density standards apply. 3. C-N zone - Limitations on floor area.A general retail use in the C-N zone shall not exceed a gross floor area of 2,000 square feet for each establishment, or a combined floor area of all general retail establishments within a shopping center of 25 percent of the total floor area in a shopping center with a gross floor area of 15,000 square feet or more; and shall not exceed 50 percent of the total floor area in a shopping center with a gross floor area of less than 15,000 square feet. The Administrative Use Permit may provide for exceptions to the floor area limitations above. For general retail uses with a floor area greater than 2,000 square feet on a parcel not located within a shopping center, an Administrative Use Permit shall be required to insure consistency with policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and compatibility with surrounding uses. 4. C-S and M zones - Required findings for offices.The approval of an office facility in the C-S or M zone shall require that the review authority first find that: a. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area; b. The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones; c. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing; d. The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with offices; and e. The project will not create a shortage of C-S- or M-zoned land available for service commercial or industrial development. 5. C-R zone - Auto sound system installation.Auto sound installation services may be approved only as an accessory use to the retail sales of auto sound systems on the same site. Use Permit review shall consider parking space displacement, noise from the operation, and the appearance and visibility of the installation area. 6. Parking as a principal use.Use Permit approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. A multi-level parking facility shall require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 7. Religious facilities. EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) City of San Luis Obispo March 2015 Zoning Regulations Page 107 a. C-S zone requirements.Use Permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise, truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors. A Use Permit may be approved only when the religious facility will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use Permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. b. C-T and M zone requirements.A religious facility use may be allowed only inside an existing building. 8. PF zone - Theaters.Only non-profit theaters are permitted. 9. Day care centers.Allowed by right where accessory to a church or school, or where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees, providing the primary use meets City parking standards. 10. Groceries, Liquor, Specialty Foods in the CN Zone.In the C-N zone, grocery, liquor and specialty food stores less than 3,000 square feet are allowed. Such uses with a gross floor area between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet are allowed with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. Stores between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet may be approved by Planning Commission Use Perm it. In order for a use permit to be approved by the Hearing Officer or by the Planning Commission, the deciding body must find that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood, and that the use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Commercial designation as discussed in the General Plan. 11.In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: a) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. b) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. c) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. d) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. e) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services. f) The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized because of a lack of available parking. 12. C-S zone - Required findings for Indoor Commercial Recreational Facilities. Commercial indoor recreational uses in the C-S zone shall not include less than 10,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment. The approval of an indoor commercial recreational facility in the C-S zone shall require that the review authority first find that: a) The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function; EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015 Page 108 b) The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area; c) The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones; d) The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with recreational facilities; and e) The project will not create a shortage of C-S -zoned land available for service commercial development. 13. Safe Parking. Safe parking is only allowed in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones when accessory to a public assembly use, such as a club, lodge, private meeting hall or religious facility. Safe parking is prohibited as a primary use in the R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4 zones and in all applicable zoning districts on properties that contain residential uses as the primary use. 1LJKWFOXEXVHLQWKH%3]RQH1LJKWFOXEVVKDOOEHDOORZHGRQO\LQWKH%3]RQHRIWKH $LUSRUW$UHD6SHFLILF3ODQ5HIHUWRWKH$OORZHGXVHV7DEOHRIWKH$LUSRUW$UHD 6SHFLILF3ODQIRUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQ EXHIBIT A 11.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) LAND USE | 4-15 Table 4.3 – Allowed Uses Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit Footnotes (see end of table) Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Bar/tavern D D D1 Club, lodge, private meeting hall D Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC PC D Commercial recreation facility – Outdoor PC PC Fitness/health facility A A A1 Night club D Park, playground D Public assembly facility PC PC Religious facility8 D D2 School – Specialized education/training8 A A D Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC RESIDENTIAL USES Caretaker quarters A A A D D3,9 EXHIBIT B11.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and LAND USE | 4-19 Numbered Notes to Table 4.3: 1.These activities are considered secondary uses for business parks. Within a development project site, their combined floor area shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. Some are also subject to limits on individual floor area, as shown in the body of the table. Floor area limitations shall not apply to bank headquarters. 2.Use permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise, truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors. A use permit may be approved only when the church will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. 3.In the C-S zone, nightclubs must contain a minimum of four thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. In the BP zone, no minimum floor area is required for nightclubs. The required use permit process for both the C-S and BP zones shall address parking, neighborhood compatibility and security issues. 4.In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: a)The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. b)The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. c) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. d)The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. e)The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services. f)The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized because of a lack of available parking. 5.Allowed by right only in the S-1c and S-2 aviation safety areas (as defined in the ALUP), where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees. Larger facilities for employees may be approved by the Planning Commission, if allowed by the Airport Land Use Commission. 6.Broadcast studios are allowed by right except that an administrative use permit is required to permit any on-site antennas, dishes, or transmission towers; or any radio, microwave or other type of airbound transmission from the project site or any other site within the Airport Area. 7.Caretakers quarters shall have a maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet and shall not be allowed in aviation safety area S-1a or the runway protection zone, as defined in the ALUP. 8.These uses are identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan as noise-sensitive, specific sound-attenuation requirements may apply. Refer to the ALUP for more information. 9.Nightclub uses proposed within the BP zone shall meet the standards and requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan, and shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan.EXHIBIT B11.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and 11.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 11.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 11.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 11.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 11.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 11.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Chairman: Roger Oxborrow Commissioners: William (Bill) Borgsmiller Michael Cripe Craig Piper John Eichler Allen Settle Erich Schaefer NOTICE OF AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACTION ALUC 2015-004 HEARING DATE: December 16, 2015 RECOMMENDATION TO: City of San Luis Obispo SUBJECT: A mandatory referral by the City of San Luis Obispo (City) for a determination of consistency or inconsistency for the SLO Brew Production Facility Zoning Text Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to add "Night Club" as an allowed use in the Business Park Zone. On December 16, 2015, the Airport Land Use Commission determined the above referenced project Consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) and referred it back to the City of San Luis Obispo, Rachel Cohen, Project Manager, on the basis the Findings and Revised Conditions in the staff report. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 781-5718. Sincerely, Nicole Retana, Secretary Airport Land Use Commission (Planning Department Use Only) Enclosed: _2L Airport Land Use Commission Staff Report 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 •SAN LUIS OBISPO• CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5600 • TIY /TDD RELAY -711 planning@co.slo.ca.us • FAX: (805) 781-1242 • HTTP://www.slocounty.ca.gov/planning.htm 11.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) STAFF REPORT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2015 TO: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) FROM: BRIAN PEDROTTI, AIRPORTS PLANNER, COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING REFERRING AGENCY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPLICANT: SLO BREW PRODUCTION FACILITY CITY FILE NUMBER: CODE-1316-2015 PROJECT MANAGER: RACHEL COHEN, CITY OF SLO SUBJECT: HEARING TO CONSIDER A MANDATORY REFERRAL BY THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (CITY) FOR A DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY FOR THE SLO BREW PRODUCTION FACILITY ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD "NIGHT CLUB" AS AN ALLOWED USE IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE. THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW LIVE OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AT THE SLO BREWING PRODUCTION FACILITY IN THE AEROVISTA BUSINESS PARK. LOCATION: THE PROPOSAL APPLIES TO THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE WITHIN THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, INCLUDING AREAS WEST OF HIGHWAY 227 AND AROUND TANK FARM ROAD, AS WELL AS THE SAN LUIS RANCH PROPERTY. THE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL SITE IS A 3.49-ACRE PROPERTY (APN: 053-412-022) LOCATED AT 855 AEROVISTA PLACE WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, WITHIN THE AEROVISTA BUSINESS PARK, AND APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF AEROVISTA PLACE AND HIGHWAY 227. THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN (ALUP)-AVIATION SAFETY AREAS S-1c. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend a determination of consistency to the City of San Luis Obispo for the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to add "night club" as an allowed use in the Business Park Zone applicable only to the SLO Brewing Facility Project Site in accordance with Section 2. 7 of the ALUP and subject to the eight conditions of approval set forth on pages and 7 and 8 of this report, and that future "night club" uses in all other areas of the AASP Business Park Zone shall be required to meet the standards and requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan and shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Page 1of9 j._· 11.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Finding(s): 1. The proposed amendment to add "night club" to the BP zone is consistent with General Land Use Policy G-3, because the project is consistent with the applicable Specific Land Use Policies for Noise and Safety with conditions of approval that require specific siting of the use and referral to the Airport Land Use Commission for future proposals. An amendment to add "night club" to the specific SLO Brewing Facility property (APN: 053:. 412-022) is consistent with the General Land Use policies because all information required for review has been provided by the referring agency; and the specific project does not present specific incompatibilities to the continued economic vitality and efficient operation of the Airport with respect to safety, noise, overflight or obstacle clearance. 2. The proposed amendment to add "night club" to the BP zone is consistent with the Specific Land Use Policies for Noise because conditions of approval are included that require that future development proposals are referred to the ALUC in all portions of the Business Park Zone. An amendment to add "night club" to the specific SLO Brewing Facility property (APN: 053-412-022) is consistent with the Specific Land Use Policies for Noise because although the use is inconsistent with the strict application of the policies, the proposed individual project presents a unique circumstance whereby live outdoor music associated with a brewery involves sound amplification and the expectation of higher decibel levels among the outdoor seated patrons. Additionally, noise-sensitive uses such as wedding ceremonies are restricted in the conditions of approval. 3. The proposed amendment to add "night club" to the BP zone is consistent with the Specific Land Use Policies for Safety because the density of future nonresidential development with a proposed "night club" use will be required to conform to the ALUP. An amendment to add "night club" to the specific SLO Brewing Facility property (APN: 053-412-022) is consistent with the Specific Land Use Policies for Safety because 1) the project is consistent with the 120 person/acre maximum density of non-residential use in Table 7, and 2) although the use is inconsistent with the strict application of Table 8, the proposed individual project presents a unique circumstance whereby the maximum attendance of 600 people is anticipated to be congregated both inside and outside within the larger 3.49 acre site during live outdoor music events, with a non-residential land use density significantly less than applied in Table 8. 4. As required by the applicable Specific Land Use Policies for Airspace Protection, the proposed amendment to add "night club" to the BP zone does not approve any specific development. An amendment to add "night club" to the specific SLO Brewing Facility property (APN: 053-412-022) does not allow development to exceed 200 feet above ground level; obstruct the surface of a takeoff and landing area or any imaginary surface established under Section77.25 or 77.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations; or allow any Page 2of9 11.c Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) structure, landscaping, glare, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or permanent in nature to constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to air navigation. 5. As required by the applicable Specific Land Use Policies for Overflight, the proposed amendment to add "night club" to the BP zone is consistent with the overflight policies of the ALUP to ensure that potential and prospective airport area land users are provided with sufficient information on the presence and activity of the Airport and associated noise and safety impacts in order for them to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to live and/or work in the Airport area. The majority of property in the BP zone, including the site of the specific proposed brewery, is adjacent to the airport and is not located within any flight paths. Individual projects will be required to provide avigation easements and full and accurate disclosure of airport operations. 6. The proposed amendment to add "night club" to the BP zone will not exceed the maximum building coverage nor increase densities greater than what is allowed per Table 7 of the ALUP, because the addition of "night club" does not propose any specific development. An amendment to add "night club" to the specific SLO Brewing Facility property (APN: 053- 412-022) does not exceed the maximum building coverage nor increase densities greater than what is allowed per Table 7 of the ALUP because the incorporated conditions of approval limit the allowed number of people on the site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal: Add "night club" to existing Business Park Zone (City of San Luis Obispo) to the Airport Area Specific Plan, and allow "night club" use for the specific SLO Brewing Facility property (APN: 053-412-022) Setting: Various Existing Uses: Various Site Area: Various properties within the Airport Review Area DISCUSSION: Project Description Proposed Addition of "Night Club" to Business Park Zone (BP) The applicant has submitted a request to the City of San Luis Obispo to allow "night club" as an allowed use in the BP zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). The addition of this use necessitates an amendment to the City's General Plan to add the use to the BP zone of the AASP. Proposed Outdoor Live Music with SLO Brewing Facility The specific project that has precipitated the addition of "night club" to the BP zone is a request for outdoor live music at the proposed location of a new brewery and tasting room at 855 Aerovista Place. The project includes a 10,204 square foot brewery production facility, a 1, 170 square foot beer tasting area, a 256 square foot kitchen to serve pizza with indoor seating, and 600 square feet of outdoor seating. The proposal includes a request to host live music for the patrons of the tasting room around the existing rock outcropping in the outdoor patio area and/or inside the facility. In addition, the request includes hosting weddings, concerts, or other large party events on Page 3of9 11.c Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Friday evenings, Saturdays, and Sundays ending no later than 10:30 pm with a maximum attendance of 600 people. Setting/Existing Uses/Site Area Proposed Addition of "Night Club" to Business Park Zone The GPA proposal includes the addition of a new "night club" use to the BP zone of the AASP in the City of San Luis Obispo. These areas include pockets of BP zone west of Highway 227 and around Tank Farm Road, as well as the San Luis Ranch property. Much of the BP zone is already developed with a mix of commercial and warehouse uses. Undeveloped BP zone areas include some parcels around Aerovista Place and at the northwest corner of Tank Farm Road and Highway 227. A specific plan for the San Luis Ranch property bordered by Buckley Road and Vachell Lane is currently under review and therefore "night club" uses may or may not apply depending on the final approval of the specific plan. Night club uses are not anticipated in the San Luis Ranch property under the current proposal. Proposed Outdoor Live Music with SLO Brewing Facility The specific brewery with tasting room is proposed at 855 Aerovista Place on APN 053-412-022 (3.49 acres), with outdoor live music at the base of a large existing rock outcropping. The property is an undeveloped parcel within the Aerovista Business Park, which includes four, two-story office buildings that house a variety of professional offices, a fitness facility, and the proposed SLO Brewery. The Aerovista Business Park campus is on a total of 9.94 acres. The airport is located directly across Aerovista Place to the west, and property to the north and south is undeveloped. Airport Land Use Plan Applicability The project is a request to add "night club" to the City's Business Park Zone to allow live outdoor entertainment, which is intended to facilitate the addition of live outdoor music to the SLO Brewing facility. The various locations of BP zoning are located primarily within San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan Aviation Safety Area S-1 c with a few areas within Safety Area S- 1 b and a small section within the Runway Protection Zone of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) active Runway 29. Portions of the BP Zone are located within the projected 50 dB, 55 dB, and 60 dB airport noise contours, as shown on Exhibit 2 (Airport Noise Contours). Whether the proposed night club use is an allowable use in accordance with the ALUP 5.3 Land Use Compatibility Table is dependent on the location and surrounding uses of each specific future project, because the proposed use is considered a restaurant with exterior seating areas, and this use within some Airport Noise Exposures and Aviation Safety Areas is allowable (see further discussion below under Noise and Safety). ALUP Table 7-Planning Requirements Proposed Addition of "Night Club" to Business Park Zone The proposed project to add "night club" to the BP zone in the AASP does not change the requirements for future individual projects in the BP zone to meet the maximum building coverage, density of residential use, and density of non-residential use provisions of Table 7. However, the addition of the proposed "night club" use could facilitate the introduction of venues for live outdoor music where a higher density of people congregate. Future projects that include the "night club" use would be required to meet these requirements. Proposed Outdoor Live Music with SLO Brewing Facility The AASP allows 120 people per acre as a Cluster Development Zone with approved Airport Compatible Open Space Plan and Detailed Area Plan. The proposal for live outdoor music for the SLO Brewing project is consistent with the 120 person/acre maximum density of non-residential use, because the overall site of the Aerovista Business Park is 9.94 acres, which allows a Page 4of9 11.c Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) maximum of 1, 192 people on the site. The project applicant proposes a maximum of 600 people for the outdoor live venue. Events are proposed to be scheduled on Friday evenings, Saturdays, and Sundays, when minimal employees are within the offices and other businesses that comprise the Aerovista Business Park. ALUP Table 8-Non-Residential Land Use Densities The applicable use category from Table 8 for the proposed "night club" use is Food and Beverage Service. Future proposals in the BP zone will be required to comply with the non-residential density requirement of one person per 60 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed SLO Brewing facility includes a 10,204 square foot brewery production facility, a 1, 170 square foot beer tasting area, 256 square-foot kitchen, and 600 square feet of outdoor seating for a total area of 12,230 square feet. With a maximum anticipated attendance of 600 people, the proposed facility exceeds the one person per 60 square feet gross floor area requirement if based on the strict developed square footage, as the proposal would result in one person per approximately 20 square feet of gross floor area. However, as the maximum attendance of 600 people is anticipated to be congregated both inside and outside within the larger 3.49 acre site during live outdoor music events, the non-residential land use density would be significantly less at approximately one person per 250 square feet. ALUP 4.2 General Land Use Policies The proposed project is consistent with the general land use policies because although it is unknown whether individual projects will conform with all applicable Specific Land Use Policies, including noise and safety, future night club uses on specific sites will be required to obtain a determination of consistency by the ALUC. See Specific Land Use Policy section below for more information. ALUP 4.3 Specific Land Use Policies: Noise Proposed Addition of "Night Club" to Business Park Zone The proposed project is not consistent with the objective of the ALUP noise policies to minimize the number of people exposed to frequent and/or high levels of airport noise or to frequent and/or high cumulative noise levels of which airport noise is one component. Outdoor eating and drinking areas associated with a bar or tavern use is considered an Extremely Noise Sensitive Land Use. According to Table 5, which summarizes the compatibility of noise sensitive land uses with projected CNEL contours, these types of land uses are prohibited within the 60 dB contour and must qualify as Infill development (Section 4.3.2.3) if they are located between the 55 and 60 dB contours. Since the Business Park Zone includes areas within the 60 dB contour, as well as areas between the 55 and 60 dB contours, it is unknown whether future individual projects would be compatible, prohibited, or would need to qualify as infill if located within these noise contours. Therefore, the request to add the proposed use to the BP zone is not consistent with the ALUP noise policies. Staff has included conditions of approval that future "night club" proposals in the BP zone of the AASP to be referred to the ALUC for a determination of consistency if they fall between the 55 and 60 dB contour, and are prohibited in the 60 dB contour unless the ALUC finds them consistent with the ALUP by a 2/3 majority vote as described in Section 2.7 of the ALUP. Proposed Outdoor Live Music with SLO Brewing Facility The specific request to add outdoor live music to the SLO Brewing Facility is inconsistent with the noise contour policies of the ALUP. The property is split between being inside the 60 dB CNEL contour and between the 55 and 60 dB contours, with the outdoor music area primarily inside the Page 5of9 11.c Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 60 dB contour. As stated above, outdoor eating and drinking areas associated with a bar or tavern use is considered an Extremely Noise Sensitive Land Use. According to Table 5, which summarizes the compatibility of noise sensitive land uses with projected CNEL contours, these types of land uses are prohibited within the 60 dB contour and must qualify as Infill development (Section 4.3.2.3) if they are located between the 55 and 60 dB contours. In the case of the SLO Brewing Facility, the proposed use involves 600 square feet of outdoor seating and live music around the existing rock outcropping in the outdoor patio area. The applicant has also proposed to host weddings, concerns, or other large party events on Friday evenings, Saturdays, and Sundays no later than 10:30 pm with a maximum attendance of 600 people. Live outdoor music is potentially consistent with the noise policies due to the sound amplification and the expectation of higher decibel levels among the outdoor seated patrons. However, attendees at events such as weddings or other large outdoor parties are more likely to expect a quieter surrounding than the 55-60 and above decibel levels. Staff has recommended conditions of approval restricting wedding ceremonies or other similar noise-sensitive events, as well as restricted days and hours for live outdoor music to occur. ALUP 4.4 Specific Land Use Policies: Safety Proposed Addition of "Night Club" to Business Park Zone The various locations of Business Park zoning are located primarily within San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan Aviation Safety Area S-1 c with a few areas within Safety Area S- 1 b and a small section within the Runway Protection Zone of the San Luis Obispo County. As stated earlier, the AASP allows 120 people per acre as a Cluster Development Zone with approved Airport Compatible Open Space Plan and Detailed Area Plan. In the case of the addition of "night club" use to the BP zone, future nonresidential development would be required to be consistent with the densities specified in Table 7. Therefore the project is consistent with the ALUP safety policies. Proposed Outdoor Live Music with SLO Brewing Facility The project is potentially consistent with the ALUP Safety Policy S-2, which states that a project would be inconsistent with the ALUP if the project would permit or fail to adequately prohibit any future nonresidential development at a density greater than specified in Table 7. These policies are intended to minimize the risk to the safety and property of persons on the ground associated with potential aircraft accidents and to enhance the chances for survival of the occupants involved in an accident which takes place beyond the immediate runway environment. Although the proposal for live outdoor music for the SLO Brewing project is consistent with the 120 person/acre maximum density of non-residential use, the proposed facility is not strictly consistent with the one person per 60 square feet gross floor area for non-residential land use densities provided in Table 8, as the proposal would result in one person per approximately 40 people per acre based on the square footage of the building. However, as the maximum attendance of 600 people is anticipated to be congregated both inside and outside within the larger 3.49 acre site during live outdoor music events, the non-residential land use density would be significantly less at approximately one person per 250 square feet. ALUP 4.5 Specific Land Use Policies: Airspace Protection The proposed project is consistent with the airspace protection policies of the ALUP to minimize the risk of potential aircraft accidents in the vicinity of the Airport by avoiding the development of Page 6of9 11.c Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) land uses and land use conditions which pose hazards to aircraft in flight. The proposed project does not pose an obstruction to the air navigation because the height of proposed future development, including the specific brewery project, in the BP zone is limited to the heights in the City Zoning Ordinance. The area zoned BP is located. within the Transitional and Horizontal Airport Imaginary surfaces, and the specific brewery project is located in the Transitional Airport Imaginary surface. ALUP 4.6 Specific Land Use Policies: Overflight The proposed project is consistent with the overflight policies of the ALUP to ensure that potential and prospective airport area land users are provided with sufficient information on the presence and activity of the Airport and associated noise and safety impacts in order for them to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to live and/or work in the Airport area. The majority of property in the BP zone, including the site of the proposed brewery, is adjacent to the airport and is not located within any flight paths. Individual projects will be required to provide avigation easements and full and accurate disclosure of airport operations. A portion of the BP zone (San Luis Ranch) is located between numerous flight paths. This project is currently under review for a specific plan, and those employees will receive sufficient information regarding the presence of airport activity within the vicinity as part of the specific plan review. ALUC ACTION CHOICES The ALUP recognizes that because the ALUP covers a wide and diverse geographical area, the strict application of ALUP polices may be inappropriate under circumstances in the review of small- scale individual projects. In the case of a situation where a project fails to meet one or more of the ALUP policies, the ALUC is authorized to find a proposed individual project consistent with the ALUP with an action requiring a 2/3 majority vote by the ALUC (Section 2.7). However, in the case of a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, or zoning regulation, the ALUC is only authorized to find the request consistent with the ALUP with a 2/3 majority vote if: a) the action only applies to property occupied by the referred individual project, and b) the action shall contain provisions sufficient to ensure that no development other than the exact project referred to and considered by the ALUC may be established within the referral area. The current request is a general plan amendment and specific plan amendment to add "night club" to the Business Park Zone. Future developments with a "night club" use could be compatible, prohibited, or would need to qualify as infill depending upon the specific characteristics and location of the development. Conditions of approval are included that future "night club" proposals in the BP zone of the AASP be referred to the ALUC for a determination of consistency. If the ALUC finds the specific SLO Brewing Facility project to be inconsistent with specific policies of the ALUP, they are authorized to find the project consistent with the ALUP under the provisions of Section 2. 7 because it is a specific, individual project. Section 2. 7 is clear that the ALUC is authorized to find projects consistent with the ALUP with a 2/3 majority vote only for a specific and individual project. The proposed addition of "night club" to the SLO Brewery Facility is a specific and individual project because it affects one specific property, and therefore can be found consistent under the provisions of Section 2.7. Staff has included findings and conditions of approval for this ALUC action. Page 7of9 11.c Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Revised Conditions: Conditions of Approval to be incorporated into the proposed amendment to add "night club" use to the Business Park Zone within the Airport Area Specific Plan: 1. Future development that includes "Nightclub" uses proposed within the Business Park Zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan shall meet the standards and requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan, and shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. 2. All tall structures shall be reviewed by the Air Traffic Division of the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over San Luis Obispo County to determine compliance with the provisions of FAR Part 77. In addition, applicable construction activities must be reported via FAA Form 7460-1 at least 30 days before proposed construction or application for building permit. Conditions of Approval to be incorporated into any use permit(s) for development for the specific SLO Brewing Facility project site (APN: 053-412-022): 1. Non-residential density for the property is limited to no more than 600 persons. 2. No wedding ceremonies or other similar noise-sensitive events and/or activities are allowed on the outdoor portions of the property, and any indoor uses must comply with applicable density restrictions within the Airport Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed hours allowed for live outdoor music events shall be 6:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. 4. No structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or permanent in nature shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to air navigation, as defined by the ALUP. 5. Any use is prohibited that may entail characteristics which would potentially interfere with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport, including: • creation of electrical interference with navigation signals or radio communication between the aircraft and airport; • lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting; • glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport; • uses which attract birds and create bird strike hazards; • uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke; and • uses which entail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of aircraft (e.g., exterior laser light demonstrations or shows). 6. Avigation easements will be recorded for each property developed within the area included in the proposed local action prior to the issuance of any building permit or conditional use permit. Page 8of9 11.c Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 7. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. Page 9of9 11.c Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) AEROVISTA BUSINESS,PARK S,A,N,,,L,U,I,S,,,O,B,I,S,P,O Proposal for Zone Text Amendment Specific Plan Amendment BUSINESS PARK ZONE City of San Luis Obispo Revised July 20, 2015 Steven D. Pults, AIA & Associates, LLP 3592 Sacramento Drive, Suite 140 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 11.c Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Zoning Text Amendment This summarizes our request for a text amendment to add special events “Night Club Use” as an allowed use, with directors approval, in the Business Park Zone. Currently there are no provisions for any kind of entertainment or special event in the BP Zone. Our current project, the SLO Brewing Production Facility, is located in the Business Park Zone in the airport area. A small part of the project includes a beer tasting room, along with a small kitchen to serve pizza. There are indoor and outdoor seating areas to accommodate customers. The purpose of the text amendment is to provide the opportunity to have live entertainment, at appropriate times, for this function. The production facility is set in the midst of the Aerovista Business Park. The park includes four other office buildings, which house a variety of professional offices. The entire campus is 9.94 acres. The timing of events would be controlled and be outside of normal office hours. Live entertainment events would be limited to evenings, weekends when the office buildings will be virtually empty. Hours would be in accordance with the Airport Land Use Commission approval: Fridays from 5:00 to 11:00 pm, Saturday and Sundays from 8:00 am to 11:00 pm. The entire campus is 9.94 acres. The initial concept includes a couple of events per week, which would consist of a local band to provide live music for the patrons of the tasting room. There may also be concerts or possibly weddings on weekends only for larger crowds of up to 600. These would be held around the existing rock outcropping in the outdoor patio area and/or inside the facility. Parking for these events would be on site which has a total of 447 parking spaces. The actual number, type, and timing for events would be considered on an individual basis as part of the administrative use permit process. No events would be allowed without directors approval. We feel these events are consistent with the currently allowed uses in this zone. While each project has a different set of conditions in terms of location, tenants, parking, etc., the administrative use permit process would provide the specific controls on a location by location basis. Specific Plan Amendment We feel this proposal falls within the intent of existing Airport Area Specific Plan policies. The Airport Area Specific Plan states the following regarding Business Park Zoning: “Areas designated Business Park are primarily for research and development, light manufacturing, and business services that are compatible with each other and with airport operations. Activities that are supportive of, or accessory to, the primary activities may be allowed as well.” The underlined portion of this section is clearly supportive of accessory uses. The specific plan currently allows, with Directors Approval, a Bar/Tavern or in our case a tasting room. To have a band or even a single musician would seem to be a normal accessory use for a bar/tavern, but currently there is no provision to allow any type of live entertainment. The Business Park Zone is intended to include projects that are designed as a “Campus Type Development” with a fairly wide mix of business services, manufacturing, and distribution in a single location. These developments would typically be virtually unoccupied on nights and weekends, making them an excellent location for the type of special events we have requested. The developments are generally located away from residential areas or uses that would conflict with these events. 11.c Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) General Plan We feel this proposal falls within the intent of existing General Plan policies. One of the goals of the General Plan is to: “Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings and land areas already committed to urban development”. Our request to allow special events in the Business Park Zone is directly aligned with that goal. Weekend and after hour events will allow the use of existing commercial developments when they would otherwise be vacant and unused. The General Plan uses designated for Business Parks, includes: Research and development, Light manufacturing, Financial and Professional Services and Offices, Small Retail, Restaurants, Caretaker quarters, and Public and quasi-public uses. It also encourages “compatible mixed uses in commercial districts”. Again our proposal falls directly in line with these. General Plan Policy 4.3, states: “Entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs and theaters shall be in the Downtown”. This policy appears to conflict with our request, however, it needs to be noted that we are not requesting that a traditional “nightclub” be allowed, and we have no desire or intention of running a nightclub. The terminology is somewhat misleading. The special event and live music uses we are requesting are very different from a traditional nightclub. The general plan and the zoning ordinance have no specific category that accurately defines our request. City staff has indicated that what we are asking for would fall under the “nightclub” classification, so we have applied under this classification. We are asking to be able to provide live music in conjunction with a beer tasting room, and to be able to have special events, such as concerts and possibly weddings. We do not feel that this would conflict with a traditional nightclub or this policy. Airport Land Use Commission Requirements: 1 Proposed amendment requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission. 2. Proposed amendment - refer to attached zoning regulations mark up. 3. Adjacent property owners - to be provided by the City. 4. Map of geographic area, including land uses, airport area, - refer to Specific Plan Map attached. Airport Area Safety Zone: S-1c - refer to attache Safety Zone Map Maximum Population: 120 people per acre - Table 4.6 Airport area Specific Plan Site Size: 9.94 acres Noise Study attached. 5, 6, 7, 8. Proposed site is already developed, so uses are existing. Office complex. 9. Environmental Assessment: Noise Study attached. 10. Avigation Easement is already in existence for this property, per 1999-079221 and per 2001-011944 11.c Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) BP-SP C-S PF-SP C/OS R-1-SP R-1-SP AIRPO R T B R O A DAEROVISTA AEROFIERO VICINITY MAP File No. 1316-2015855 AEROVISTA ST ¯ 11.c Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) These drawings are instruments of service and areproperty of Steven D. Pults, AIA & Associates, LLP.All design and other information on the drawingsare for use on the specified projectand shall not be used otherwise without theexpressed written permission ofSteven D.Pults, AIA & Associates, LLP.Architecture, Planning & Graphics3592 Sacramento Dr, Suite 140San Luis Obispo, California 93401805/541-5604 voice1346Date:Revised:Job No:Sheet:Project:Client:Sheet Contents:AUZCO DEVELOPMENTS835 AEROVISTA PLACESUITE 230SAN LUIS OBISPOCA 93401(805) 706-2915PRODUCTION BUILDING855 AEROVISTA PLACESAN LUIS OBISPOLICENSED ARCHITE C T FRANCES FAN GIB B S S T A TE OF CALIFORNIANo. C-26942REN. 10-31-15AEROVISTA BUSINESS PARKMASTER SITE PLAN855 AEROVISTA PLACE865 AEROVISTA PLACE835 AEROVISTA PLACESLO BREWPATIOBIKESTRASHTRASHN52°00'08"E 255.51'N52°00'08"E 254.66'S57°42' 38"W 219.52'N52°00'08"E 410.15'L=110.28'R=770.00'L = 106.65'R = 60.00'AIRP O R T DRIV EAEROVISTA PLACEN65° 4 8' 1 5" WL=179.12' R=770.00'354.0 7' N36°09'00"WBROAD STREET • HWY 227 S64° 3 1' 32"E 476 .17'N32°17' 38"W254.51'N57°42' 29"E 527.94'805 AEROVISTA895 AEROVISTALOADINGSCALE: 1" = 40'-0"11.c Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) The Rock @ SLO Brew Safety and Security Plan Introduction: The SLO Brew Rock security plan will be broken down into three (3) parts; definitions, systems and implementation. This structure will help with ease of finding required information within this document. Definitions: The definitions in this section will clarify the distinctions we make as to what constitutes the levels of safety and security that will be implemented for any given event. This will help us implement this plan to the best of our abilities. • “Event(s)” will be defined as any gathering of greater than (100) patrons. • “Major Event(s)” will be defined as any gathering of more than (300) up to our land use and building capacity. • “Venue” will be defined as any area within or on the property including parking lots and “The Rock”. • “Attendant” will be defined as any staff member with adequate training to implement this safety and security plan. Training will include topics such as crowd control, procedures for dealing with unruly patrons, basic first aid, and procedures for dealing with medical emergencies. • “Staff” will be defined as any person employed by the venue for purposes other than patron interaction. • “Supervisor” will be defined as any staff member that will be properly trained in the total implementation of all venue safety and security practices. This will include topics such as crowd control, emergency safety procedures and all systems within the venue. • “Patron” will be defined as any person seeking to procure any service within the venue. Systems: The systems of this safety and security plan will be broken down into two (2) sections: the venue and procedures. This will differentiate how the physical structure will add to this safety and security plan and how the attendants and procedures will contribute as well. -Venue: The venue will contribute in several ways to the success of this safety and security plan. The general layout of the venue will help with the flow of foot traffic resulting in a smooth operation of pre and post event. Starting with the parking lot, the flow of foot traffic leads to the front of the venue (see CPTED Plan). The available parking abuts the walkways leading to the interior of the venue, where an attendant in the patio area will greet them. During all events we will place lines to form an orderly queue of patrons to be received by an attendant, which will preserve the original flow of foot traffic. We will also have temporary signage that will denote direction of event. The permanent exit signs will be augmented by temporary directional signage to direct exiting patrons. Exterior of venue buildings will also be lit as per code. Within the venue, patrons are restricted from entering production areas without an escort. This is accomplished with several security doors that will only be accessible with a key by 11.c Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) authorized attendant(s) or staff member(s). This will minimize the occurrence of accidents and medical emergencies within that part of the venue. -Procedures This section will outline the procedures used to ensure safety and security of venue property and patrons. Our attendants will be trained in all procedures included within this section. • Entering- attendants direct all patrons to their desired areas. During events we will have attendants directing all patrons to reception. During major events, attendants will place lines and temporary signage so as to not impede existing foot traffic and direct patrons to appropriate area. The areas where queues will be formed are denoted on Figure 1. • Exiting- all patrons will be directed to exits by attendants so as not to impede traffic flow. Attendants will also help direct traffic during major events. Attendants will also equip flashlights in the event of an evening exit. • Health and safety- all attendants will be trained to properly check and read IDs to ascertain age of patrons imbibing alcohol. All attendants will also be trained in basic first aid. • Emergency procedure- in the event that a patron or staff member is in need of emergency medical aid, attendants will notify the proper authorities as well as supervisor on duty. In the case of unruly patron, attendants will notify proper authorities and escort the patron to the parking lot. In the event of a fire or other disaster, attendants will escort all occupants to parking lots on both ends of the property in a safe and orderly manner in conjunction with emergency action plan. • Staffing- as this is a working production facility, staff is available during regular opening hours. In the case of a scheduled event we will have no less than (4) attendants as well as event staff (catering crew, kitchen staff, Brew staff). In the case of a major event we would staff according to projected attendance at a rate of (1) attendant for every (30) patrons. • Standard practices- these procedures and practices will be standard throughout the venue. o We have a professional manager on site during all hours of operation. o We have attendants at entrances and exits to facilitate flow of foot traffic. o Attendants increased for events and major events o All attendants equipped with walkie-talkies direct to manager. o Manager periodically checks outside of building. o Manager carries cell phone to allow instant access to SLO PD o Bathrooms as required by occupancy. o Security cameras installed throughout • Crowd Control practices- We consider this issue of major importance to the community and the continued success of our operation, and there have instituted the following measures to maintain behavioral patterns consistent with community standards. o Consult with SLO PD for guidance periodically; o Consult with ABC officials for adequate standards; o Consult and support drug and alcohol prevention efforts; and 11.c Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) o Internal security practices Insure legal occupancy is maintained Maintain orderly queues and outside behavior Refusal to serve over intoxicated patrons Offer taxi or other means of transportation to minimize number of drivers Liaison with police Implementation: Implementation of this safety and security plan will be carried out by all staff and supervisors. Supervisors are responsible for training all staff and attendants in all systems and procedures. Additionally, supervisors will conduct regular audits of systems and procedures with staff and attendants. 11.c Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) elements for The Rock: SLO Brew (full CPTED list follows) Natural surveillance: • landscape designs provide surveillance, especially in proximity to designated points of entry and opportunistic points of entry. • lighting design avoids poorly placed lights that create blind spots for potential observers and miss critical areas. We ensure potential problem areas are well lit: pathways, entrances/exits, storage areas, dumpster and recycling areas, etc. • We avoid too-bright security lighting that creates blinding glare and/or deep shadows, hindering the view for potential observers. (Eyes adapt to night lighting and have trouble adjusting to severe lighting disparities.) • We use shielded or cut-off luminaires to control glare. • We placed lighting along pathways and other pedestrian-use areas at proper heights for lighting the faces of the people in the space (and to identify the faces of potential attackers). Natural surveillance measures are complemented by mechanical and organizational measures. For example, closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras Natural territorial reinforcement: • Security system signage is visible at access points. • Premises and landscaping is maintained such that it communicates an alert and active presence occupying the space. • Owners have a vested interest and are more likely to challenge intruders or report them to the police. • Amenities such as seating or refreshments are placed in common areas in a commercial or institutional setting helps to attract larger numbers of desired users. • Activities are scheduled in common areas to increases proper use, attract more people and increase the perception that these areas are controlled. • Territorial reinforcement measures make the normal user feel safe and make the potential offender aware of a substantial risk of apprehension or scrutiny. 11.c Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Figure 1: Location of where queues will form during major events 11.c Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Sound Level Assessment for SLO Brew Production Building 855 Aerovista Place San Luis Obispo, CA requested by Auzco Developments San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 July 3, 2015 45dB.com David Lord, PH.D. Acoustics Consulting P.O. Box 1406 San Luis Obispo California 93406 tel. 805.704.8046 email: dl@45db.com 11.c Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 2 7/3/15 Table of Contents 1.0 Description and Criteria .................................................................................4 2.0 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4 2.1 State Regulation ..................................................................................5 2.2 Local Regulation ..................................................................................5 2.3 Airport Land Use Plan ......................................................................5 3.0 Existing Sound Levels ..................................................................................5 4.0 Future Sound Levels .....................................................................................15 5.0 Discussion and Conclusions ..........................................................................15 6.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................19 7.0 APPENDIX A: Glossary of Acoustical Terms .............................................20 8.0 Measurements, Calculations and Modeling .................................................23 8.1 Wind Measurement ..........................................................................23 8.2 Precision of Sound Level Meters. ................................................23 8.3 Sound Level Measurement Method ................................................23 11.c Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 3 7/3/15 List of Figures Figure 1. Site Plan, vicinity ....................................................................................6 Figure 2. Site Plan, nearest receptor .......................................................................7 Figure 3. Site Plan, specifi c ....................................................................................8 Figure 4. Measured Existing Sound Level ............................................................9 Figure 5. Measured One hour Leq .....................................................................10 Figure 6. Ldn / CNEL .......................................................................................11 Figure 7. Acceptable Noise Exposure ..............................................................12 Figure 8. City Noise Ordinance ......................................................................13 Figure 9. Airport Land Use Plan ...................................................................14 Figure 10. Future Sound Level .........................................................................16 Figure 11. Future Sound Level, detail ..............................................................17 Figure 12. Average Wind Conditions .................................................................18 11.c Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 4 7/3/15 Sound Level Assessment for SLO Brew Production Building 855 Aerovista Place San Luis Obispo, CA 1.0 Description and Criteria This sound level assessment is for the proposed development of the SLO Brew Production Building with regard to surrounding noise levels from airport operations and potential on-site sound generation from all sources. The possible noise sources examined in this study are vehicular traffi c in the parking lot and surrounding streets, including nearby State Highway 227, air traffi c from San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and potential future night club entertainment activity. The proposed SLO Brew Production Building site is bordered by Aerovista Place to the north and cleared land to the south. Professional and commercial offi ces are located adjacent to the proposed building with offi ce hours from 8 am to 5 pm each business day, Monday through Friday. The northeast of the site is closest to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport operations. The general layout and confi guration of the site, along with sound level measurement locations are shown in “Figure 3. Site Plan, specifi c” on page 8. This report provides a description of the environmental noise survey, a discussion of applicable noise standards, results of the noise survey, future noise level projections, and noise mitigation recommendations for the proposed residential development. Existing sound levels were measured continuously on the proposed site at 10-second intervals over a 24-hour period on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, June 19, 20, 21, 2015. An acoustic model with sound level contours was generated for the site based on topography, noise sources and measured sound level values. Future sound levels associated with night club use are assumed to occur on designated Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays in the evenings from 6 pm to 2 am, not during the daytime hours when there are nearby offi ce building operations. 2.0 Regulatory Setting Noise is regulated at the federal, state and local levels through regulations, policies and/or local ordinances. Local policies are generally adaptations of federal and state guidelines, adjusted to prevailing local condition. Refer to “7.0 APPENDIX A: Glossary of Acoustical Terms” on page 20 for further defi nition of metrics and terminology. 11.c Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 5 7/3/15 2.1 State Regulation The State of California’s Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Element of the General Plan (1987). These guidelines reference land use compatibility standards for community noise environments as developed by the California Department of Health Services, Offi ce of Noise Control. Sound levels up to 65 Ldn or CNEL are determined to be normally acceptable for multi-family residential land uses. Sound levels up to 70 CNEL are normally acceptable for buildings containing professional offi ces or defi ned as business commercial. However, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is recommended when new offi ce or commercial development is proposed in areas where existing sound levels approach 70 CNEL. 2.2 Local Regulation Transportation Noise: Guidelines for transportation noise exposure are contained in City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook (1996). The maximum noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses are shown in “Figure 7. Acceptable Noise Exposure” on page 12. 2.3 Airport Land Use Plan The location of the proposed site in relation to the airport is shown in “Figure 9. Airport Land Use Plan” on page 14. The Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), adopted December 1973 and amended May, 2005, establishes Maximum Allowable Interior Noise Exposure from Aviation Related Noise Sources for residential use. The metric used by the ALUP map is the “single- event noise contour.” The reference event for determination of required single event noise mitigation is assumed to be the straight-in departure of a regional airline jet from Runway 29. 3.0 Existing Sound Levels Existing sound levels on the site were measured at 10-second intervals over a typical weekend 24-hour period, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, June 19 - 21. These three days of the week would be typical for scheduled events at the proposed venue. Recorded sound level data consist of: Average instantaneous sound level, dBA, Leq 1 hour sound levels, dBA Ldn or CNEL 24 hour average sound level, dBA Audio recording of each event over 60 dBA. From the measured data, existing hourly LEQ values were calculated and an overall Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day Night Level (LDN) was calculated For an explanation of technical defi nitions, see “7.0 APPENDIX A: Glossary of Acoustical Terms” on page 20. 11.c Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 6 7/3/15 Figure 1. Site Plan, vicinity The vicinity site plan shows the proposed location of SLO Brew Production facility, with adjacent building structures and the airport runway. 11.c Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 7 7/3/15 Figure 2. Site Plan, nearest receptor The proposed performance area is 891 feet from the nearest residential receptor. The propa- gation of sound is mitigated by a large building, which acts as a noise barrier, and also by the signifi cant traffi c noise on Highway 227, which will serve to mask noise and suppress audibility of sound coming from the performance area. 11.c Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 8 7/3/15 Figure 3. Site Plan, specifi c The site plan shows the proposed location of SLO Brew Production facility, with adjacent building structures. Existing sound level measurements were made in the area indicated, which will be the future proposed general event area. 11.c Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 9 7/3/15 Figure 4. Measured Existing Sound Level Existing Sound Level, measured every 10 seconds over a 24-hour period. The sound level meter is located in the middle of the proposed event area. Peak sound levels are generally identifi ed as aircraft arrivals and departures. Sound levels are dBA, slow meter setting 11.c Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 10 7/3/15 Figure 5. Measured One hour Leq Measured Sound Levels, expressed as hourly Leq over a 24-hour period. The calculated LDN/ CNEL for the 24-hour period is 52 dBA, including calculated penalties for evening and nighttime noise. 11.c Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 11 7/3/15 Figure 6. Ldn / CNEL This table shows the calculated results of hourly Leq sound levels on the overall LDN and CNEL for existing sound level at the proposed performance area. All calculations are based on continuous measured values shown in “Figure 4. Measured Existing Sound Level” on page 9. 11.c Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 12 7/3/15 Figure 7. Acceptable Noise Exposure City of San Luis Obispo: Acceptability of new noise-sensitive uses exposed to transportation noise sources. Noise Element of the General Plan. 11.c Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 13 7/3/15 Figure 8. City Noise Ordinance City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Ordinance 9.12.060 Exterior Noise Limits. Referring to Table No. 1 shown below, there is also a Correction for Character of Sound: In the event the alleged offensive noise, as determined by the noise control offi cer, contains a steady, audible tone such as whine, screech or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech, the standard limits set forth in Table 1 of this section shall be reduced by 5 dB. The noise standard represented in Table 1 may be not be allowed to exceed: (a) The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or (b) The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than fi fteen minutes in any hour; or (c) The noise standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than fi ve minutes in any hour; or (d) The noise standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (e) e. The noise standard plus 20 dB for any period of time. 11.c Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 14 7/3/15 Figure 9. Airport Land Use Plan Location of proposed SLO Brew Production site in relation to the Airport Land Use Plan Airport Noise Contours. The site is within and near to the projected 65 dBA airport Single Event Noise Contour. Single Event noise is distinguished from “maximum sound level,” “Leq 1 hour sound level” and “Ldn 24-hour sound level” used elsewhere in this report. 11.c Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 15 7/3/15 4.0 Future Sound Levels Existing measured sound levels provide a baseline from which future sound levels can be predicted. Future sound levels are related to increased activity at the proposed performance area and SLO Brew production facility operations. In addition there are expected to be increases in number of fl ights at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and an increase in Average Daily Traffi c (ADT) on State Route 227 to the northeast of the site. The general relationship of traffi c growth and sound level is that with a doubling of traffi c ADT, there will be a concomitant increase of 3 dB sound level. The use of the proposed production facility and proposed performance area will result in a maximum attendance of 600 audience members and the use of sound amplifi cation for music and for voice. In order that future sound levels shall not exceed the values represented in “Figure 8. City Noise Ordinance” on page 13 at the residential boundary located 891 feet to the northeast, the sound level at 20 feet distance from the speakers shall not exceed Leq 1 hr = 90 dBA. 5.0 Discussion and Conclusions The 24-hour existing sound levels on the undeveloped site and future sound levels for the developed project are clearly shown in relation to the ambient airport operations, distant traffi c on Highway 227, and distant potential residential sensitive receptors. Future sound levels from the proposed night club use of the production building are compatible with surrounding business uses because of the alternating hours of use. Mitigation of noise propagation toward distant potential residential receptors occurs due to the distance involved, the presence of a large building which acts as a noise barrier, and the signifi cant continuous traffi c on State Highway 227 between the noise source and the residential receptors. Therefore, in our opinion this project is compatible with the Airport Land Use Plan and the proposed project is in compliance with municipal regulations governing noise. 11.c Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 16 7/3/15 Figure 10. Future Sound Level Future Sound Level Contours, Leq 1 hr. = dBA, based on the projected use of the production facility and performance area. A maximum of 600 persons, with amplifi ed music and voice, which shall not measure greater than 90 dBA at 20 feet from speakers. Sound level from amplifi ed music shall not exceed Leq 1 hr = 50 dBA at residential receptor boundary to the northwest. As shown in this acoustical model, the signifi cant traffi c noise contribution from Highway 227. 11.c Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 17 7/3/15 Figure 11. Future Sound Level, detail Future Sound Level Contours, Leq 1 hr. = dBA, based on the projected use of the production facility and acoustic only performance area. A maximum of 200 persons, with no amplifi ed music and no amplifi ed voice. 11.c Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 18 7/3/15 Figure 12. Average Wind Conditions Sound measurement and sound propagation can be infl uenced by the wind speed and wind direction. The data graphed below represent average conditions for the days June 19 through June 21, 2015. On this site, typical wind direction is from the north during the potential hours of amplifi ed music and voice events (6 pm to 2 am), which may increase sound levels toward the south of the proposed music venue. South of the venue is an area that has no nearby sensitive residential receptors. The nearest residential receptors are located to the northeast of the music source and should not experience an increase in predicted noise levels due to wind. 11.c Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 19 7/3/15 6.0 REFERENCES 1. American National Standards Institute, Inc. 2004. ANSI 1994 American National Standard Acoustical Terminology. ANSI S.1.-1994, (R2004) , New York, NY. 2. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2004. ASTM E 1014 - 84 (Reapproved 2000) Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels. 3. Berglund, Birgitta, World Health Organization. 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise chapter 4, Guideline Values. 4. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1973. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffi c Noise, Report No. PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration. 5. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1982. Caltrans Transportation Laboratory Manual. 6. ______. 1998. Caltrans Traffi c Noise Analysis Protocol For New Highway Construction and Highway Reconstruction Projects. 7. ______. 2006. California Transportation Plan 2025, chapter 6. 8. California Resources Agency. 2007. Title 14. California Code of Regulations Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 5. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study Sections, 15060 to 15065. 9. City of San Luis Obispo. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Noise Element. 10. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide Final Report. FHWA-HEP-05-054 DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. 11. Harris, Cyril.M., editor. 1979 Handbook of Noise Control. 11.c Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 20 7/3/15 7.0 APPENDIX A: Glossary of Acoustical Terms A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the inter- nationally standardized A-weighting fi lter or as computed from sound spectral data to which A-weighting adjustments have been made. A-weighting de-emphasizes the low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the average human ear. A-weighted sound levels correlate well with subjective reactions of people to noise and are universally used for community noise evaluations. Airborne Sound Sound that travels through the air, differentiated from structure-borne sound. Ambient Sound Level The prevailing general sound level existing at a location or in a space, which usually consists of a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. The ambient level is typically defi ned by the Leq level. Background Sound Level The underlying, ever-present lower level noise that remains in the absence of intrusive or intermittent sounds. Distant sources, such as traffi c, typically make up the background. The background level is generally defi ned by the L90 percentile noise level. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The Leq of the A-weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 5 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn): The Leq of the A-weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Decibel (dB): The decibel is a measure on a logarithmic scale of the magnitude of a particular quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power, sound intensity) with respect to a reference quantity. DBA or dB(A) A-weighted sound level. The ear does not respond equally to all frequencies, but is less sensitive at low and high frequencies than it is at medium or speech range frequencies. Thus, to obtain a single number representing the sound level of a noise containing a wide range of frequencies in a manner representative of the ear’s response, it is necessary to reduce the effects of the low and high frequencies with respect to the medium frequencies. The resultant sound level is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dBA. The A-weighted sound level is also called the noise level. 11.c Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 21 7/3/15 Energy Equivalent Level (LEQ): Because sound levels can vary markedly in intensity over a short period of time, some method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, one describes ambient sounds in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called LEQ. In this report, an hourly period is used. Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC): A single number rating similar to STC, except that the transmission loss values used to derive the FSTC are measured in the fi eld. All sound transmitted from the source room to the receiving room is assumed to be through the separating wall or fl oor-ceiling assembly. Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC): A single number classifi cation, specifi ed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM E 1332 issued 1994), that establishes the A-weighted sound level reduction provided by building facade components (walls, doors, windows, and combina- tions thereof), based upon a reference sound spectra that is an average of typical air, road, and rail transportation sources. The OITC is the preferred rating when exterior facade components are exposed to a noise environment dominated by transportation sources. Percentile Sound Level, Ln: The noise level exceeded during n percent of the measurement period, where n is a number between 0 and 100 (e.g., L10 or L90) Sound Transmission Class (STC): STC is a single number rating, specifi ed by the American Society for Testing and Materials, which can be used to measure the sound insulation properties for comparing the sound transmission capability, in decibels, of interior building partitions for noise sources such as speech, radio, and television. It is used extensively for rating sound insulation characteristics of building materials and products. Structure-Borne Sound: Sound propagating through building structure. Rapidly fl uctuating elastic waves in gypsum board, joists, studs, etc. Sound Exposure Level (SEL) SEL is the sound exposure level, defi ned as a single number rating indicating the total energy of a discrete noise-generating event (e.g., an aircraft fl yover) compressed into a 1- second time duration. This level is handy as a consistent rating method that may be combined with other SEL and Leq readings to provide a complete noise scenario for measurements and predictions. However, care must be taken in the use of these values since they may be misleading because their numeric value is higher than any sound level which existed during the measurement period. 11.c Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 22 7/3/15 Subjective Loudness Level In addition to precision measurement of sound level changes, there is a subjective charac- teristic which describes how most people respond to sound: •A change in sound level of 3 dBA is barely perceptible by most listeners. •A change in level of 6 dBA is clearly perceptible. •A change of 10 dBA is perceived by most people as being twice (or half) as loud. 11.c Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 23 7/3/15 8.0 Measurements, Calculations and Modeling 8.1 Wind Measurement Sound level measurements become less reliable when average wind speed is greater than 11 m.p.h. at the measurement site. Therefore, wind speed and direction are measured periodically at the measurement site and the results are correlated with wind data from a nearby established weather station. A Larson Davis WS 001 windscreen is used as wind protection for all micro- phones and is left in place at all times. Wind speed and direction were noted throughout the measurement period and compared with data from the nearby National Weather Service weather station at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. A Davis Turbo Wind meter was used to measure wind speed at the measurement site to cross-check wind speeds at the airport. The Turbo Wind meter is a high performance wind speed indicator with exceptional accuracy. 8.2 Precision of Sound Level Meters. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifi es several types of sound levelmeters according to their precision. Types 1,2, and 3 are referred to as “precision,” “generalpurpose,” and “survey” meters, respectively. Most measurements carefully taken with a type 1 sound level meter will have an error not exceeding 1 dB. The corresponding error for a type 2 sound level meter is about 2 dB. The sound level meters used for measurements shown in this report are Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 820. These sound level meters meet all requirements of ANSI s1.4, IEC 651 for Type 1 accuracy and include the following features: 110 dB dynamic range for error free measurements. Measures FAST, SLOW, Unweighted PEAK, Weighted PEAK, Impulse, Leq, LDOD, LOSHA, Dose, Time Weighted Average, SEL, Lmax, Lmin, LDN. Time history sampling periods from 32 samples per second up to one sample every 255 seconds. Field calibration of each sound level meter with an external calibrator is accomplished before and after all fi eld measurements. Laboratory calibration of the all instruments is performed at least biannually and accuracy can be traced to the U.S. National Institute of Science and Technology standard. 8.3 Sound Level Measurement Method The protocol for conducting sound level measurements is prescribed in detail by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in their E 1014 publication and the CalTrans Traffi c Noise Analysis Protocol. The procedures and standards in those documents are met or exceeded for sound level measurements shown in this report. The standards of ASTM E 1014 are exceeded by using Type 1 sound level meters for all measurements in this report instead of the less accurate Type 2 meters. Therefore, the precision of the measurements in this report is likely to be better than +/- 2 dB as stated in ASTM E1014. Particular and specifi c sound sources are identifi ed by listening to synchronous audio recordings of peak sound level events. 11.c Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) SLO Brew Production page 24 7/3/15 Caltrans Noise Measurement Guidelines: Caltrans makes available general guide- lines for taking into account environmental elements in noise measurements. The following is an excerpt from their guidelines. The Traffi c Noise Analysis Protocol contains Caltrans noise policies, which fulfi ll the highway noise analysis and abatement/mitigation requirements stemming from the following State and Federal environmental statutes: • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • Title 23 United States Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffi c Noise and Construction Noise” (23 CFR 772) • Section 216 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code Noise Contour Modeling Noise contours incorporating the measured sound level values were generated using CADNA/A, an acoustical modeling program that incorporates the TNM 2.5 algorithms, and which was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-fl owing traffi c conditions. This computer modeling tool, made by Datakustik GmbH, is an internationally accepted acoustical modeling software program, used by many acoustics and noise control professional offi ces in the U.S. and abroad. The software has been validated by comparison with actual values in many different settings. The program has a high level of reliability and follows methods specifi ed by the International Standards Organization in their ISO 9613-2 standard, “Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation.” The standard states that, “this part of ISO 9613 specifi es an engineering method for calculating the attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors in order to predict the levels of environmental noise at a distance from a variety of sources. The method predicts the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level under meteorological conditions favorable to propagation from sources of known sound emissions. These conditions are for downwind propagation under a well- developed moderate ground-based temperature inversion, such as commonly occurs at night.” The computer modeling software takes into account source sound power levels, surface refl ection and absorption, atmospheric absorption, geometric divergence, meteorological conditions, walls, barriers, berms, and terrain variations. The CADNA/A software uses a grid of receivers covering the project site. 11.c Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For CODE-1316-2015 1. Project Title: SLO Brew “The Rock” 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner 805-781-7574 4. Project Location: 855 Aerovista (APN 053-412-022) 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Auzco Development, LLC 835 Aerovista Place San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Representative Name and Address: Steve Pults Steven Pults AIA & Associates 3592 Sacramento Street, Ste 140 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Business Park 7. Zoning: Business Park (BP) 11.c Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 2 8. Description of the Project: The applicant is requesting a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations and the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to allow a Night Club as an allowed use, with a conditional use permit, in the Business Park (BP) zone. Attachment 1 shows the proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations and the AASP. The applicant is also requesting a use permit for a night club, to host live music around the existing rock outcropping in the outdoor patio area and inside a facility located at 855 Aerovista Place within the BP zone of the AASP. Events at the site would also include weddings (ceremonies indoors only), concerts and other large party events. The night club would operate only on Friday evenings, 5:00 pm to 11:00 pm, and Saturdays and Sundays, 10:00 am to 11:00 pm with no more than a maximum attendance of 600 people. The night club would operate at the SLO Brew Production Facility that is currently being constructed on the site. The SLO Production Facility was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The structure includes: 3,047 square foot entertainment venue, 6,496 square foot brewery production facility, 1,579 square foot beer tasting/restaurant area, 1,250 square foot kitchen, 600 square foot outdoor seating area, 15,444 square foot lease space, and 1,746 square feet of office and mezzanine area. 9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: The AASP has approximately 177.49 acres that are designated as BP zone (see Attachment 2, Zoning Designation Map). The SLO Brew Production Facility is located on a parcel that is 3.47 acres in size and is a part of the Aerovista Business Park which is composed of four parcels with a combined total acreage of 9.94 acres. The Aerovista Business Park includes the SLO Brew Production Facility, four, two-story office buildings which house a variety of professional offices (i.e. doctor’s office, tax services, government offices, etc.), and a fitness facility with a combined total of 444 parking spaces. The majority of these businesses operate from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. 11.c Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 3 Figure 1: Vicinity Map; the red star indicates the location of 855 Aerovista Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows: West: San Luis County Airport and associated buildings (outside the City’s limits). North: Undeveloped, zoned BP. East: (across Broad Street/Hwy 227) Currently being developed with industrial buildings, zoned C-S; just beyond the C-S zone and a creek are single-family residences, zoned R-1. South: Undeveloped, zoned BP. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Use Permit: Use Permit approval is required to allow the Night club use within the Business Park zone. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): On December 16, 2015 the proposed use permit for the SLO Brew production facility at 855 Aerovista was referred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency or inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The ALUC determined that the proposed Text Amendments and the request for a night club use permit for the SLO Brew facility were consistent with the ALUP. 11.c Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning X Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES X The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). 11.c Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 5 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. March 24, 2016 Signature Date Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director For: Michael Codron Print Name Community Development Director 11.c Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state w hether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 11.c Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 5, 10 --X-- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 2, 5, 10 --X-- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 10, 11 --X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 10,11, 12 --X-- Evaluation a-c) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the Business Park (BP) zone of the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. Adoption of the night club use permit would have no impact on scenic resources and no impact on visual quality within the BP zone; therefore, the proposed amendment and use permit will have no impact. d) Less than significant. The proposed text amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The BP zone is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from neighboring commercial and residential uses as well as light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. All existing and future projects are required to conform to the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) which sets operational standards and requirements for li ghting installations, including requiring all light sources to be shielded and downward facing. The SLO Brew site proposes to have live entertainment outside of an existing facility near the airport. The use of outdoor lights will be required to comply with the to the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23). Consistent with SLO County Airport Land Use Commission recommendations, the project will be conditioned to prohibit all aerial laser lights and any lighting that will potentially interfere with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport. Standard and special conditions will be included with the use permit to control light and glare. Therefore, impacts resulting from creating new sources of light will be less than significant. Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 19, 27 --X-- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 12, 27 --X-- c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 1, 12, 27 --X-- d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1, 12, 27 --X-- e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? 1, 12, 27 --X-- 11.c Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8 Evaluation a) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs –, with a conditional use permit, within BP zone of the AASP. The City’s 2006 Open Space Element identifies a small portion of the BP zone as being farmland of local importance. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. As stipulated by the text amendment, any proposed night club uses will require environmental review, including the identification of farmland of local importance. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The site was not identified as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or farmland of local importance. Adoption of the night club use permit will have no impact on these Farmland resources. b) No Impact. The BP zone of the AASP is not intended for agricultural production. The proposed text amendment would expand allowable uses within the Business Park zone of the AASP to allow night clubs. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. Therefore, implementation of the text amendment and the use permit do not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts; as such, no impact would result. c-e) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. No conversion of any land use that affects farmlands or forest land is proposed. No impact would occur. Conclusion: No Impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 9, 13, 20 --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 9, 20 --X-- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 9, 20 --X-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 9, 20 --X-- e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 18, 26 --X-- Evaluation a-e) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would have no direct effect on air quality because it does not propose construction or development. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. This type of use is not anticipated to create additional air pollution and objectionable odors, or conflict with existing air quality plans. Therefore, the project has no 11.c Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 impact to existing or proposed air quality plans, air quality standards, criteria pollutants and will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Conclusion: No Impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 5, 9, 17 --X-- b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 5, 9, 17 --X-- c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 5, 9, 17 --X-- d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5, 9, 17 --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 5, 9, 17 --X-- f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5, 9 --X-- Evaluation a-f) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would have no direct effect on biological resources . The proposed text amendment would have no direct effect on air quality because it does not propose construction or development. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The SLO Brew site is not within a riparian corridor and there are no creeks or trees on the property. No endangered, threatened or other protected species have been reported on the project site. There are no local ordinances or habitat conservation plans that affect the proper ty or that identify the site as potential habitat for any protected species of plant or animal. Therefore, the amendment and the use permit would have no impact on endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats, or on locally designated species. Conclusion: No Impact. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 5, 22, 23 --X-- b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) 22, 23 --X-- c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 5, 22 --X-- d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 5, 22 --X-- 11.c Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 Evaluation a-e) No Impact. The proposed text amendment will not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of cultural resources as defined in §15064.5 because the proposed text amendment does not authorize any particular development project, nor does it involve any changes to development standards that would change allowable development intensities, densities, or building footprints. The text amendment does not propose any changes to historic designations of any recognized historical sites or structures, and would not change or have any effect upon the City’s existing preservation objectives or policies. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The site has not been identified as having historical significance. Based on review of the City’s Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. Therefore, the amendment and use permit would not authorize any adverse impacts to cultural resources; therefore, the project would have no impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 4, 9, 27 I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. --X-- II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X-- IV. Landslides? --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4, 5, 9 --X-- c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4, 9 --X-- d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 [Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010], creating substantial risks to life or property? 4, 9 --X-- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4,7, 9 --X-- Evaluation a, d) Less than Significant Impact. Although there are no fault lines on the within the AASP, the project site or within close proximity, the City of San Luis Obispo is located in an area of “High Seismic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed within the AASP or at 855 Aerovista will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The City has regulations that structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed night cl ub at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The project does not involve any changes to these code requirements. No impact from seismic ground failure as a result of the proposed text amendment and use permit. 11.c Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 b) No Impact. No new construction is anticipated as a result of the amendment or the use permit as the new use would be located within existing structures that comply with City code and design guidelines. T herefore the project will not result in loss of topsoil. c) No Impact. The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefactio n, which is true for most of the City. City Code requires development comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structure s are built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The project does not involve any changes to these code requirements. No impact from on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse are as a resul t of the proposed text amendment and use permit. e) No Impact. Any new construction will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. No new construction is an ticipated as a result of the amendment or the use permit as the new use would be located within existing structures that comply with the City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. Conclusion: Less than a significant impact. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 9, 13, 14, 21 --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 1, 5, 9, 13, 14, 21 --X-- Evaluation As outlined in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, prominent GHG emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Anthropogenic (human‐caused) GHG emissions in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combu stion in both stationary and mobile sources, fugitive emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment, agricultural sources, deforestation, high global warming potential (GWP) gases from industrial and chemical sources, and other activities. The major sources GHG emissions in the City are transportation‐related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by energy consumption in buildings. These local sources constitute the majority of GHG emissions from community‐wide activities in the city, and combine with regional, statewide, national, and global GHG emissions that result in the cumulative effect of global warming, which is causing global climate change. A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur despite local, statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The increase in average global temperatures will result in a number of locally‐important adverse effects, including sea‐level rise, changes to precipitation patterns, and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, and severe storms. Statewide legislation, rules and regulations that apply to GHG emissions associated with the Project Setting include the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), the Sustainable Communities and C limate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill [SB] 375), Advanced Clean Cars Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, California Building Codes, and recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 97 with respect to analysis of GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Plans, policies and guidelines have also been adopted at the regional and local level that address GHG emissions and climate change effects in the City. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted a CEQA Review Handbook, as well as guidance on GHG emission thresholds and supporting evidence, that may be applied by lead agencies within San Luis Obispo County (APCD 2012a, 2012b). The City also adopted a Climate A ction Plan (CAP) that includes a 11.c Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction targets, and includes specific measures and implementing actions to both reduce community‐wide GHG emissions. The CAP also includes measures and actions to help the city build resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate change. a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit do not propose to amend any building regulations that would raise or otherwise change development levels that could contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Adoption and implementation of the proposed text amendment and night club use permit would not affect building energy demands nor generate any additional vehicle trips (nor more miles traveled) beyond those associated with the General Plan and analyzed in the LUCE Update EIR. Review of future projects would continue to be carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies related to air quality and regional greenhouse gas reduction efforts. Adherence t o such policies and guidelines would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 4, 9 --X-- b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 4, 9 --X-- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4, 9 --X-- d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 30 --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 12, 27, 30 --X-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 12 --X-- g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4, 9 --X-- h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 4, 9 --X-- Evaluation a -c) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. This type of business provides entertainment, examples of which include live or recorded music and/or dancing, comedy, disc jockeys, etc., and may also serve alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an ex isting facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The project does not involve any construction or changes to existing development standards and standard City practices and policies regarding hazardous waste and hazardous materials; no impact from the use, transport, or disposal of 11.c Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 hazardous wastes or materials is anticipated. d) No Impact. The property located within the BP zone of the AASP is no t included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. e) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs –, with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards that would change allowable development intensities, densities, or building footprints and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment and use permit and determined they were consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) and wou ld not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the City of San Luis Obispo. No impact would result. g) No Impact. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) No Impact. The City of San Luis Obispo is considered a “community at risk” due to the threat of wildfire impacting the urban community. These potential risks are mitigated by use of ignition resistant construction methods and materials as required by the City Fire Marshal during the building plan check review process. The proposed text amendment does not propose construction or development. The proposed night club (SLO Brew) will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with the municipal code and the AASP. Conclusion: No Impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 16, 27 --X-- b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre -existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1, 16, 27 --X-- c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? 1, 15, 27 --X-- d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? 1, 15, 27 --X-- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1, 15, 27 --X-- f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 15, 27 --X-- g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1, 15, 27 --X-- h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1, 15, --X-- 11.c Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 would impede or redirect flood flows? 27 i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1, 15, 27 --X-- j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 11, 12, --X-- Evaluation a, c-f) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. Since no construction is proposed, the proposed text amendment and use permit will not cause violation of any water quality standards, s ubstantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff waste discharge requirements. b) No Impact. The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources. g-j) No Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit are not part of a development project and do not include any new construction and therefore will not place housing or other structures within flood haza rd areas or expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Conclusion: No Impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10, 27 --X-- b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 9, 27, 31 --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 5, 12 --X-- Evaluation a) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. Surrounding properties are zoned Conservation/Open Space, Service Commercial or Manufacturing uses. Night club use is allowed in the Service Commercial zone and is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place is surrounded by other properties that are zoned BP within a n existing building within the Aerovista Business park. Therefore, the text amendment and the use permit do not divide an established community. b) No Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit are requesting a night club – “a facility providing entertainment, examples of which include live or recorded music and/or dancing, comedy, disc jockeys, etc., which may also serve alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption” within the BP Zone of the AASP. In this particular request, the proposed use is no t for a typical night club with late hours and dancing. Instead, the reason for delineating the requested use as a night club is to a llow for the ability to provide live music and entertainment. The proposed use is consistent with the Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code, the General Plan and the AASP which states “activities that are supportive of, or accessory to, the primary activities may be allowed as well” (AASP Section 4.2.1.). On December 16, 2015 the ALUC reviewed the proposed the project and determined that the proposed Text Amendments and the request for a night club use permit for the SLO Brew 11.c Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 facility were consistent with the ALUP. There are no other applicable plans to this site. c) No Impact. There are no applicable habitat conservation plans that would affect the text amendment or the use permit. Conclusion: No impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 5 --X-- b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 5 --X-- Evaluation a, b) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs –, with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. Therefore, the project is not expected to impact mineral resources. Conclusion: No impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 3, 9, 29 --X-- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3, 9, 29 --X-- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 3, 9, 29 --X-- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 3, 9, 29 --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3, 27, 31 --X-- 3 --X-- Evaluation As analyzed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, a number of noise‐sensitive land uses are present within the City, including various types of residential, schools, hospitals and care facilities, parks and recreation areas, hotels and transient lodging, and place of worship and libraries. Based on ambient noise level measurements throughout the City, major sources of noise include traffic noise on major roadways, passing trains, and aircraft overflights. a) Less than significant impact. The proposed text amendment will allow night club use within the BP zone of the AASP. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. As part of the text amendment, the night club use would be conditionally permitted in the BP zone. The SLO Brew night club is anticipated to generate noise from live performances. A Noise Study was prepared for this project by David Lord (July 1015) to analyze noise levels that may be generated from the project. The noise study concludes 11.c Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16 that the maximum noise level established in the 1996 General Plan Noise Element of 70 dBA will not exceeded at the property line. This analysis includes sound from a “capacity” event of 600 attendees, with speakers and audience (cheering) noise. Additionally, live events will be scheduled when the adjacent office buildings are vacant for the weekend. Residential areas are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas. The nearest residential receptor is approximately 890 feet from the proposed performance area and the Noise Study shows that exterior noise levels will be 60 dB or less due to the distance from venue, presence of a large building which acts a noise barrier, and the continuous traffic on State Route 227. Therefore, exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies are anticipated to be less than significant. b) Less than significant. The proposed text amendment will allow night club use within the BP zone of the AASP. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. As part of the text amendment, the night club use would be conditionally permitted in the BP zo ne. The proposed night club (SLO Brew) is not anticipated to generate groundborne vibration or noise levels. Therefore, exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels is anticipated to be less than significant. c, d) Less than significant. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs –, with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The proposed night club (SLO Brew) may result in short term event-related noise; however, the use would not result in substantial on-going ambient noise. d) Less than significant. The proposed night club (SLO Brew) may result in short term periodic event related noise, however, the use would not result in substantial on-going ambient noise above existing levels since it would comply with noise limitations established in the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Noise Guidebook and restricted to the hours and noise levels allowed by City ordinance. e) Less than significant. The San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment and use permit and determined a night club was not noise sensitive use. As noted in section XII a above, the SLO Brew night club is anticipated to generate noise from live performances. A Noise Study was prepared for this project by David Lord (July 1015) to analyze noise levels that may be generated from the project as well as noise generated by the airport. The noise study identifies that the site is within the project 65 dBA airport single event noise contour which is an acceptable outdoor noise exposure per the noise element of the General Plan. f) No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the BP zone and 855 Aerovista Place. No impact would result. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 2, 6, 27, 31 --X-- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 6, 27, 31 --X-- 1, 6, 27, 31 --X-- Evaluation: a) Less than significant. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs –, with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development 11.c Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. New employment generated by the proposed use would not be considered substantial. Considering the project area is currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure would be required to serve the project. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth not already anticipated under the General Plan envisioned under the current site zoning designation. Impacts are considered less than significant. b,c) No Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit do not propose construction or development of housing and would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. Therefore the project would have no impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 4, 9 --X-- b) Police protection? 4, 9 --X-- c) Schools? 9 --X-- d) Parks? 5 --X-- e) Other public facilities? 9 --X-- Evaluation a) Less than significant. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs –, with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facili ty that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. As such, The City has adequate fire protection services to serve the proposed text amendment and use permit without the need for new facilities or services. b) Less than significant. T he project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with the municipal code and the A ASP. The applicant has also submitted a supplemental security management plan that identifies staff security operations, training and management program to control alcohol-related issues, safety and security and other potential issues that may occur or be associated with this use. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed use permit and determined it would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and i mpacts related to police protection would be less than significant. c, d) No Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit will not impact schools, parks and/or park service s since the project will not create new or demand for new housing. e) No Impact. There are no other applicable public facilities that could be impacted by the text amendment or use permit. Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant. 11.c Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 9, 27 --X-- b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 9, 27 --X-- Evaluation: a, b) No Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit will not impact parks or other recreation facilities because no new construction is anticipated as part of the text amendment and use permit. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 2, 9, 27 --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 2, 9 --X-- c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 31 --X-- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 2, 9 --X-- e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2, 4, 9 --X-- f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2, 27 --X-- Evaluation Evaluation a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or physical change to the environment and would not impact the performance of the circulation system. The proposed night club use at 855 Aerovista will operate on Friday evenings from 5:00 pm to 11:00 pm, and Saturdays and Sundays, 10:00 am to 11:00 pm with no more than a maximum attendance of 600 people. The night club use is anticipated to generate more than 100 trips during peak hour (5:00 pm to 6:00 pm), increasing congestion on State Route 227/Broad Street. To mitigate this impact the project will be conditioned such that events related to the night club use permit are prohibited during peak traffic hours (4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. In addition the project will be condition such that if congestions levels exceed local or state thresholds at any time during night club use permit hours additional permit restrictions may be applied to the 11.c Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19 satisfaction of the Public Works Department to ensure compliance with City General Plan policies.As such, the project could result in significant but mitigatable impacts related to the performance of the circulation system. b) Less than significant. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures with existing infrastructure. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located west of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by SR 227/Broad Street and Aerovista Place. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking. The project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does not significantly add to demand on the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other agency’s plans for congestion management. c) No Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit would not result in a change in air traffic patter ns and/or increase in air traffic levels that would result in substantial safety risks. d) No Impact. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be locate d within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by t he Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. The project does not involve the construction of any roadway and would have no effect on the City’s street and site design standards. e) No Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit do not involve any road construction or any development activity and thus will not obstruct or restrict emergency access to or through the City. As p roposed, the project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians or substantially increase traffic on local streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access. f) No Impact. The proposed text amendment and use permit would not conflict with adopted polices, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such faciliti es. The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) bus line Route 10 Express (10X) is locate d within walking distance of the proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place allows public transportation services to and from the Downtown Transit Center. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage. The proposed project includes a 12 shor t term bicycle parking spaces and 3 long term bicycle lockers that meets code requirements. Mitigation Measure T-1: Night club use permit events shall not be permitted on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. Mitigation Measure T-2: Vehicle trips associated with the subject property shall be less than 35 per hour (the base trip generation for the brewery manufacturing and restaurant use excluding the event use) on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. If the number of trips e xceeds the 35 trips per hour threshold during this period, then the events permitted under this use permit related to the night club use shall be further prohibited on Friday night up until 8:00 pm or prohibite d on Friday nights altogether, at the discretion of the Public Works Director. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 7,16 --X-- b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 7,16 --X-- 11.c Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 7, 9, 16 --X-- d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? 7,16 --X-- e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 7,16 --X-- f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 8 --X-- g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? --X-- Evaluation a-e) Less than significant. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed text amendment would not directly result in any new construction or result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including wat er, wastewater and storm water facilities. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that would result in an incrementa l increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater and storm wate r facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service, which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project site, and it is not anticipated t he proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities which could have significant environmental effects . f, g) Less than significant. The proposed text amendment would establish a new allowable use – night clubs – with a conditional use permit, within the BP zone of the AASP. The amendment does not propose any changes to development standards, and is generally intended to regulate uses within existing structures. The proposed night club at 855 Aerovista Place will be located within an existing facility that was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission for compliance with City’s Municipal Code, the AASP and design guidelines. San Luis Garbage has reviewed the location and size of enclosures at the SLO Brew Production Facility and determined that they are sufficient in size to handle the all the garbage and recycling for the facility. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? --X-- As identified in the biological evaluation and the cultural resource evaluation, the text amendment and use permit would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildl ife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or and there are no examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory on the project site. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but --X-- 11.c Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21 cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Potential cumulative impacts of the project on air quality, biological resources and water quality have been adequately reduced, avoided and mitigated to not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --X-- This project could not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions of the project. N/A 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006 6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010 8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015 13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012 14. 2013 California Building Code 15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 16. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department 17. Site Visit 18. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge 19. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 20. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012 21. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, on file in the Community Development Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 11.c Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources CODE-1316-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 22 23. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map 24. Not used 25. Site Plan 26. Applicant project statement/description 27. Airport Area Specific Plan 28. Website of California Department of Transportation http://dot.ca.gov/dist05/planning/maps/scenic_highway_system.pdf 29. Sound Level Assessment for SLO Brew Production Building by David Lorde, July 3, 2015 30. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm 31. Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) Attachments: 1. Amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) and the Airport Area Specific Plan 2. Zoning Designation Map 3. Site Plan 4. Sound Level Assessment for SLO Brew Production Building by David Lorde, July 3, 2015 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure T-1: Night club use permit events shall not be permitted on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. Monitoring Plan, T-1: The hours of operation shall be included as part of the business license application and will be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval for the use permit . City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure T-2: Vehicle trips associated with the subject property shall be less than 35 per hour (the base trip generation for the brewery manufacturing and restaurant use excluding the event use) on Fridays between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. If the number of trips exceeds the 35 trips per hour threshold during this period, then the events permitted under this use permit related to the night club use shall be further prohibited on Friday night up until 8:00 pm or prohibited on Friday nights altogether, at the discretion of the Public Works Director. Monitoring Plan, T-2: Within one year of the effective date of this use permit and annually thereafter, City staff will periodically conduct traffic counts during Friday events to determine the number of trips associated with the Subject property on Friday night between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 11.c Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, February 10, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chairperson Larson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Larson led pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, John Fowler, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson. City Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Contract Planner John Rickenbach, Community Development Director Michael Codron, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Clerk John Paul Maier, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Motion to approve Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 2015, as presented, made by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Malak, passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. DRAFT11.c Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 2016 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Airport Area Specific Plan & 855 Aerovista Place. CODE-1316-2015: Review a request to amend the Airport Area Specific Plan and Zoning Regulations to allow a Night Club land use (live indoor/outdoor entertainment) within the Business Park zone with a use permit and review a request for a use permit for a Night Club, shared and mixed-used parking reduction and off-site parking at 855 Aerovista Place; exempt per the General Rule Section 15061(b)(3) and categorically exempt from environmental review; BP-SP zone; Auzco Development, LLC, applicant. Associate Planner Rachel Cohen presented the staff report and stated that Staff is recommending additional language to amend the Zoning Regulations, Table 9, to allow night club use in the Business Park (BP) zone with a use permit, as well as amend the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to allow night club use in the Business Park (BP) zone, Table 4.3, with a use permit. Hamish Marshall, representing the applicant SLO Brewing Company, described the project and displayed a PowerPoint slide depicting the Master Site Plan of Aerovista Business Park to illustrate reciprocal parking rights and the conceptual plan for parking after 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, expressed objections to the project because of the location and asked if neighbors were adequately noticed. Mike Manchak, Lisa McCann and Steve Delmartini, all of San Luis Obispo, provided comments in support of the project. COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to Commission inquiry regarding noise levels, Deputy Director Davidson indicated that Staff supports the analysis in the Sound Level Assessment report provided by the applicant, which concludes that the project is compatible with the Airport and, further that is in conformance with City regulations. Planner Cohen confirmed that the City had provided adequate notice to tenants and owners of neighboring properties within 300-feet of the proposed project. In response to inquiry by Chair Larson, Hamish Marshall indicated that SLO Brew has 3,200 square feet of indoor space and is proposing that about 80% of the concerts will be held outdoors. In response to Commissioner Fowler’s inquiry, Planner Cohen responded that in the BP zone, light manufacturing use is allowed. Deputy Director Davidson added that a tasting room, technically a bar, was approved at the administrative use permit level. In response to Commissioner Dandekar’s inquiry, Deputy Director Davidson reported that there are two ways uses can be approved in this site-specific context: namely by changing the text on DRAFT11.c Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 2016 Page 3 the chart or by changing the underlying zoning to something that would allow for it. He mentioned that Staff opted for altering the chart text because it was the most direct and appropriate method and noted that a case-by-case study would follow for all other locations that might not contain this site’s unique tenets. Chair Larson pointed that San Luis Obispo has only three BP zones and that Staff has added a footnote to Table 9 to reflect that this particular change would only affect the BP zone in the Airport Area. He added that this geographically-narrows the possibility for this type of application in the future to those areas in the BP zone strictly within the AASP. Commissioner Riggs suggested that Staff address underlying zoning issues insofar as uses are becoming increasingly general and the Commission is still operating with code requirements that do not reflect the generality of many of these evolving uses. Commissioner Dandekar requested more information about the proper definition for what the applicant is proposing. Associate Planner Cohen explained that live entertainment is part of the description for a “night club”. Deputy Director Davidson added that designating it an “amphitheatre” presents problems. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry about 61 spaces offsite proposed for parking, Associate Planner Cohen explained that the plan provides parking for existing uses as well as for the new use through an agreement with other parcel owners. Commissioner Draze made a motion to approve a Resolution recommending to the City Council the approval of amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) and the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow night club land use within the Business Park zone; as amended (changes to Exhibits A and B to specify that a night club use in the Business Park zone (Airport Area only by footnote) requires a Planning Commission Use Permit instead of a Director’s (Administrative) Use Permit; Commissioner Malak seconded the motion. Chair Larson requested clarification of Section 3 of the Resolution regarding “all tall structures”. Associate Planner Cohen reported that the Airport Land Use Commission requested the condition because the AASP has a building height restriction, which would apply. On the motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Malak, the Resolution was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Draze, Malak, Fowler, Larson, Dandekar NOES: Multari REFRAIN: Riggs ABSENT: None Motion passed 6-1. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to approve a Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a request to allow a night club and off-site parking in the Business Park Zone, with a categorical exemption from environment review; as amended (Condition Number 2 - hours of operation to 6 p.m. and consolidate Condition #6 within #13 to be clear that the conditions will be combined into one in compliance with the security plan); Commissioner Draze seconded the DRAFT11.c Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 2016 Page 4 motion. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry about Condition 4, Associate Planner Cohen confirmed that Staff has the ability to require alternative offsite parking measures if parking availability becomes an issue. Commissioner Malak offered an amendment to the motion to add a recommendation that Council consider the installation of solar panels and solar canopies on the property. The motion amendment failed for lack of a second. On the motion by Commissioner Riggs, seconded by Commissioner Draze, the Resolution was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Riggs, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Dandekar NOES: Malak, Multari ABSENT: None Motion passed 5-2. Chair Larson called for recess at 7:58 p.m. Vice-Chair Multari reconvened the meeting back to order at 8:06 p.m. and introduced the next item. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 1035 Madonna Road. ANNX-1502-2015: Conceptual review of land use-related issues for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (Chapters 1-4), requesting feedback related to the plan development; Coastal Community Builders. (John Rickenbach) Commissioner Riggs departed the dais; Chair Larson recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Contract Planner John Rickenbach provided the staff report and outlined key questions for Commission input, including how well the Specific Plan responds to the General Plan requirements, the envisioned land use mixture and pattern, the Open Space Requirement and Policy 8.1.4, product types and densities relative to what is contained in the LUCE, community character and neighborhood form, and the interfaces between residential and commercial/agricultural. In response to Commissioner Malak’s inquiry regarding product types and densities having reached perceived saturation points, Planner Rickenbach responded that this project is a long- range, market-driven planning effort providing for future-envisioned needs. In response to Commissioner Malak’s inquiry concerning three billboards on 101 and the potential conditioning of contractual language toward their removal as part of the project, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere stated that the highly litigated billboard industry has a fairly comprehensive statutory scheme regarding removal. RRM Design Architect, Scott Martin, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the proposed project and highlights of the planned amenities. In response to Commission inquiry, DRAFT11.c Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: c - April 19, 2016 City Council Agenda Report (1337 : SLO Brew Night Club Amendment and Use Permit) Council Memorandum o Date: April 29, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk VIA: Katie Lichtig,' i tyManager SUBJECT: Staff Report to Item 12, Appeal to 40 Buena Vista RECEIVED APR 29 2016 COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: 1 Z Due to a clerical error, page 215 paragraph number two entitled "Report In Brief' was inadvertently missing from the staff report. Please see the attachments to this memo. Attachments: Item 12 — Staff Report Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY NAOMI HOFFMAN) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S ZONE THAT INCLUDES EXCEPTIONS TO THE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK AND HEIGHT RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of a single family residence at 40 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby allowing a single family residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue. SITE DATA REPORT IN BRIEF The Architecture Review Commission’s (ARC) approval of the project is based on findings that the project is consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines. The project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101 and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with Hillside Development Standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date January 31, 2016 Complete Date February 11, 2016 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines 12 Packet Pg. 215 with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. Should the City Council uphold the appeal, findings are needed to form an adequate basis for project denial. While the staff recommendation is to deny the appeal and approve the project, the City Council may choose to uphold the appeal, thereby denying the ARC’s decision. The staff recommendation to deny the appeal is reflected in Resolution A (Attachment A). Resolution B includes findings to uphold the appeal (Attachment B). The following discussion provides additional background and analysis of the proposed single family residence. DISCUSSION The proposed project is located on a “sensitive site” and requires architectural review by the Community Development Director. A project site is considered sensitive when it has been designated through an “S”, Special Considerations overlay zone. This project site has been designated with an “S” overlay through Ordinance 0755 to enable review of hillside development and adequacy of public utilities. Due to the “S” overlay a use permit is required for the construction of any residence. Typically, only a building permit is required to construct a single family residence within the R-1 zone. Background On October 28, 2015, the Planning Commission (PC) held a hearing to review the revised project that addressed concerns from the PC hearing on September 23, 2015. The PC voted to deny the project based on the finding that the project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The PC discussed concerns related to pedestrians and vehicular traffic along the curve of Buena Vista Avenue which is a narrow street with no sidewalks and no on-street parking available, and that parking for the four bedroom residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit will not be sufficient on-site within this neighborhood. The PC also discussed concerns for the roof deck and views of the property from Highway 101 to be evaluated by the ARC. On October 29, 2015, the applicant, Jeff Kraft, filed an appeal of the PC’s decision to deny the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the PC’s decision for denial was not justified because the project is to construct a single family residence on a legal lot that has been evaluated by City Staff and recommended for approval. On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the PC’s decision to deny the use permit. The City Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission action to deny the proposed project thereby granting final use permit approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone. However, Council denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions (Attachment E, City Council Resolution & Meeting Minutes). The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including, but not limited to: 12 Packet Pg. 216 a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood; b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure; c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck; d. Visual appearance of the support columns; e. Landscaping plans; f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. As highlighted in the following action language from the Council’s resolution (Attachment E), which effectively denied the applicant’s previously requested exceptions, the Council did provide the ARC with the flexibility to grant different exceptions. Revisions to the project resulted in the elimination of the setback exception, reduction of the height exception, and added a minor street yard exception. On January 31, 2016, the applicant resubmitted the revised project plans to respond to the City Council’s direction and be reviewed by the ARC for final approval (Attachment G, Project Plans). On March 7, 2016, the ARC unanimously approved the architectural design of the proposed residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue and determined the project in compliance with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (Attachment F, ARC Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes). On March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman appealed the ARC’s decision to approve the project, specifically concerning the requested exceptions (Attachment D, Hoffman Appeal Letter). Project Information/Description The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista Avenue in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The subject property meets all lot size requirements and was legally created in 1990 with access from Buena Vista Avenue. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. The downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment G, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Two stories with a proposed max height of 27.3 feet above average natural grade b. Attached 445 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (Note: not part of this application review) 12 Packet Pg. 217 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION On March 7, 2016, the ARC held a public hearing to review the architectural design of the proposed residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue and voted 6:0 (Commr. Root absent) to approve the design of the project. The ARC reviewed each directional item identified by the City Council at their January 19, 2016 meeting, and found the revised project to be in conformance with the Community Design Guidelines for hillside development. Each directional item including the revised height and front yard setback exceptions, were discussed and deliberated by the ARC, where minor concerns were identified and addressed through the final ARC Resolution 1003-2016. Specifically, the ARC addressed the following; Traditional architecture characteristics of neighborhood: The contemporary style is suitable for the hillside and not a basis for denial. The modern approach is suitable for the particular site and the ARC added that the flat roof works fine whereas a gabled roof would accentuate mass and visibility. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure: The ARC recognized that residences are built on such sites for views and unless there are safety concerns, the amount of glazing is suitable. The ARC noted that the residence may be an illuminated box on the hillside at night as seen from the Highway 101. However, the ARC recognizes that there are already 5-6 other prominently-scaled homes on the hillside that contribute to the illumination of the hillside as viewed from Highway 101. Overall, the ARC agreed that the glazing of the windows and the rhythm and look are appropriate. Appropriateness of rooftop deck: The ARC observed that the rooftop deck for the proposed residence is the same as a yard, and that the distance from other residences will provide minimal noise. The ARC agreed that the existent freeway noise outweighs potential cocktail party noise and a well-maintained deck can be a visually appealing improvement. One Commissioner indicated they were unsupportive of the rooftop deck. Visual appearance of support columns: The ARC considered the columns to be an improvement from the original conception, while it is generally unsightly to have houses up on stilts, enclosing the area below makes the structure appear more massive. Landscaping plans: The ARC provided a revision to the conditions of the Resolution to address additional landscaping: underneath the house, between the street and house, and the rooftop deck. Height/front yard exception: The ARC Commissioners expressed that they would have used the same arguments and applied the same methodologies for the project design for 12 Packet Pg. 218 this difficult site, reasoning that the lot was made a legal lot long ago and the rules changed later. The ARC agreed with Staff’s direction in consideration of the give-and- take needed to make the project work on the hillside and that it is not feasible to develop much differently on the lot than what is proposed without violating some other principles of hillside development. Additional analysis of the directional items is provided in Attachment F, ARC Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes. APPEAL SUMMARY On March 15, 2016, the appellant, Naomi Hoffman, filed an appeal of the ARC decision to approve the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the issues raised by the ARC approval of the height and setback exceptions did not meet the City Council’s direction “To redesign the proposed home without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions.” The appeal includes an attached email from a City Council Member that expresses the intent of the January 19, 2016, motion regarding the project (Attachment D, Hoffman Appeal Letter). Appeal Analysis During the January 19, 2016 City Council meeting, Council’s motion to approve the use permit had been amended to include the words “without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions”. This amendment was recommended by staff in the event that a redesign of the project to eliminate the request for the then proposed height and setback exceptions may result in the need for other exceptions. Staff had reviewed a proposed street yard reduction of 10 feet that would eliminate the need for a building height exception. However, the request for a street yard reduction of 10 feet is inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines. The Zoning Regulations allow a street yard reduction of no less than 18.5 feet for garages that exit directly into the public right-of-way. A variance would be required to reduce the street yard less than 18.5 feet for a garage. While the project may have the ability to comply with the necessary findings for a variance, the reduction would conflict with other City standards. The Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development state that “Each structure shall be located in the most accessible, least visually prominent, most geologically stable, portion of the site, and at the lowest feasible elevation.” The proposed 10 foot street yard reduction would situate the residence higher up on the hill thus increasing the visual prominence of the structure as viewed from Buena Vista Avenue as well as Highway 101, and the project would no longer be located at the lowest feasible elevation. Hillside Development Standards also state that hillside grading to provide a building site and driveway access should be minimized, repositioning the structure closer to the street would increase the amount of grading that would be required to construct the proposed residence. The applicant has worked with staff to determine the impacts of full compliance with property development standards verses full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards. Full compliance with the Property Development Standards requires several exceptions from the 12 Packet Pg. 219 Hillside Development Standards, and similarly full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards requires exceptions from the Property Development Standards. Therefore, development of the site without some type of exception does not appear feasible. The ARC included finding #11 to the final resolution (Attachment F) that states “The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site.” Table 1: Project Statistics Item Original Design Proposed Redesign a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 18.5 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 15 13.5 15 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 27.3 feet 25 feet Building Coverage footprints) 12% 12% 40% Parking Spaces 3 3 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations The applicant has eliminated the side yard setback exception and redesigned the project to request the least impactful exceptions. A street yard setback of 18.5 feet, when 20 feet is normally required, provides for a slight decrease in the overall building height. Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020E.2.a states that reductions in street yards may be approved for garages when the driveway is long enough to accommodate a parked car that doesn’t overhang the sidewalk (18.5 feet min.). A reduction of less than 18.5 feet may potentially create an unsafe driveway approach as vehicles parked in the driveway may obscure the public right-of-way. Maximum building heights per zoning district have been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The new proposed 2.3 foot height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than one story as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. 12 Packet Pg. 220 CONCLUSION Staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the ARC’s decision to allow a single-family residence that includes a minor street yard reduction of 1.5 feet and a height exception of 2.3 feet. The property is a legal lot within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address hillside development. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. The balancing of these policy objectives was a key factor in developing Staff’s recommendation. Denying the appeal is consistent with the City Council’s previous direction on the project because the proposed exceptions are different than originally reviewed through the Use Permit process. The new proposed exceptions were unanimously approved by the ARC following the City Council’s direction for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their comments have been incorporated into the resolution as conditions or code requirements, as appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the Appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council may uphold the appeal and deny the application, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations. 2. Continue the project and provide direction to the applicant to revise the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, or applicable City regulations. Attachments: a - Resolution A 12 Packet Pg. 221 b - Resolution B c - Vicinity Map d - Hoffman Appeal Letter e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes g - Reduced Project Plans 12 Packet Pg. 222 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 3, 2016 (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE SDU-1521-2015) 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 January 19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the then currently proposed height and setback exceptions; and WHEREAS, the ARC 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 March 7, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SDU-1521-2015; and approved the design of a single-family residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521-2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman, the appellant, filed an appeal of the ARC’s action on March 7, 2016; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 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: 12.a Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: a - Resolution A (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and housing production (HE 6). Hillside Development 3. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 755 because of concerns relating to hillside development and public utility services. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status because the building design minimizes the need for grading activities through the use of stepped foundation with piers; is compatible with surrounding developments; and the conceptual landscape plan provides for native, drought tolerant plantings visible from the public right-of-way that provide a transition from developed to open space areas and softens the appearance of the home. 4. The structural support piers below the lowest floor are appropriate for the building design because the property that is adjacent to the piers is designated as Conservation Open Space. The unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design that will have no visual impact toward any adjacent property. 5. The project is consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines because the project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101 and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with Hillside Development Standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. As conditioned, landscaping of the project site further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Front Yard Setback and Height Exceptions 6. The additional 2.3 foot building height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. The proposed building height exception is warranted due to the existing site slope and Engineering Standard requirement for maximum driveway slope. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the Buena 12.a Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: a - Resolution A (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 3 R ______ Vista public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood, and is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. 8. A reduced street yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar access. 9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. 10. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. 11. The proposed minor property development exceptions are warranted due to difficult site constraints (slope), since they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development. Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project (SDU-1521-2015), hereby granting final approval of a new single family residence in the R -1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes front yard setback and height exceptions, subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC and the City Council. 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 (SDU-1521-2015 & USE- 1520-2015). 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. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 12.a Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: a - Resolution A (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 4 R ______ 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. Alternative colors that include lighter neutral tones and a physical sample of the proposed glass shall be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the ARC Chair. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit review shall include lighting fixture details. The locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. 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 Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. 5. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 6. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The landscaping plans shall address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the residence and the street, and shall consider alternative materials beneath the cantilevered portion of the structure to minimize glare. 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 final landscape plan shall be in full conformance with landscaping standards established in the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 7. The project shall be constructed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Noise Element Table 1 (60 dB for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor spaces). 8. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 12.a Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: a - Resolution A (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 5 R ______ 9. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 10. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 11. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 12. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 13. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 14. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 15. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. 12.a Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: a - Resolution A (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 6 R ______ Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 20. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 21. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 12.a Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: a - Resolution A (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 7 R ______ 23. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 26. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 27. 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. Utilities Department 28. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 29. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 30. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 12.a Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: a - Resolution A (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 8 R ______ 31. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of May 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 12.a Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: a - Resolution A (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTION, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 3, 2016 (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE SDU-1521-2015) 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 January 19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions; and WHEREAS, the ARC 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 March 7, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SDU-1521-2015; and approved the design of a single-family residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521-2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman, the appellant, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on March 7, 2016; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 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: 1. The project is inconsistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines because the the structural support piers below the lowest floor are inappropriate for the building design and will have a visual impact toward the property from Highway 101. 12.b Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: b - Resolution B (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. _______________ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ Section 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project (SDU-1521-2015), hereby denying the new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes a front yard setback and height exception. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of May 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 12.b Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: b - Resolution B (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) PF C/OS-5 R-1-S R-1 R-1-SR-1-S R-1 R-1 LOOMISB U E N A V I S T A VICINITY MAP SDU-1521-201548 BUENA VISTA ¯ Attachment 2 12.c Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: c - Vicinity Map (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) 12.d Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: d - Hoffman Appeal Letter (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) 12.d Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: d - Hoffman Appeal Letter (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) 12.d Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: d - Hoffman Appeal Letter (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) RESOLUTION NO. 10689 (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S -OVERLAY ZONE WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE -1520-2015 & SDU-1521- 2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer 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 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE -1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE -1520-2015; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE -1520-2015; and denied the project based on the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on -street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity; and WHEREAS, Jeff Kraft, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on October 29, 2015; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 12.e Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: Special Considerations Overlay 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the single family residence is proposed on a legal lot, has been designed to be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood and will be subject to redesign to eliminate previously requested exceptions, with final design review by the Architectural Review Commission. 2. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in that the proposed project keeps a low profile below the ridgeline and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation, and site grading is kept to a minimum. 3. The project has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. 4. The project design incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside as viewed from Highway 101. 5. The proposed height exception will detract from or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the exception is inconsistent with the way other properties in the neighborhood have been developed. By allowing the exception, the building will be more prominent on this hillside development site than otherwise allowed under the City's zoning code. Moreover, the subject property includes a roof deck which, due to its design and intended use, will exaggerate, emphasize and play up the increased height of the residence in comparison to and to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. 6. A reduced side yard setback is unacceptable at the subject location because of the steep slope and visibility of the lot on the hillside location, which increases the visual impact of the proposed residence by allowing this exception. Compliance with the setback requirement would result in a less massive building appearance and more articulation of the building walls at the most prominent and highest point on the building from adjacent grade. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. 12.e Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 3 SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the proposed project (USE -1520-2015), hereby granting final approval to a use permit for construction of a single family home, but denying the requested exceptions, with direction to the applicant to work with staff and ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and set back exceptions. Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The architectural design of the building shall be reviewed separate from this Use Permit. The Architectural Review Commission will review the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards, and for continuing compliance of any design modifications with the General Plan. The ARC shall review concerns including but not limited to: a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood, b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure, c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck, d. Visual appearance of the support columns, e. Landscaping plans, f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City's Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 5. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 6. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 7. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 12.e Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 4 8. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 9. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 10. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 11. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 12. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A recording fee will be required from the applicant. 13. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4' accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 14. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way 1' 1•:' 12.e Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 5 shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off -set angle. 15. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line -of -sight from a backing vehicle to on -coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line -of -sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 16. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 17. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 19. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15' of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 12.e Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 6 21. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 22. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post -development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.13. 24. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 25. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City's Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 26. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 27. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15 -gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 12.e Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) Page 7 28. 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. Utilities Department 29. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 30. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 31. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class -A fire -rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub -floor vents. 32. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. Upon motion of Council Member Ashbaugh, seconded by Mayor Marx, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh and Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carpenter and Mayor Marx NOES: Council Member Christianson ABSENT: None 12.e Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Resolution No. 10689 (2016 Series) The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of January, 2016. 1 Mayor Jan x A McGinley, MMC lerk APPROVED AS TO Dietrick City Attorney Page 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this _Z_5:1'day of Fc.4n`.'. ?.e 1 fp Ik 4 Tra i . McGinley, MMC 12.e Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) 3 Council Minutes City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, January 19, 2016 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh*, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx. Council Member Ashbaugh joined the meeting at 4:04 p.m. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; Traci McGinley, City Clerk; John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk, were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. BUSINESS ITEM 1. PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE Public Works Director Grigsby and Public Works Deputy Director Bochum presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Palm Nipomo Parking Structure" and presented the contents of the report. Bryce Engstrom, San Luis Obispo Little Theatre, Kevin Harris, San Luis Obispo Little Theatre, Damien Mavis, The Creamery, Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, Dave Hannings, San Luis Obispo, and Amy Kardel, San Luis Obispo, provided comments in support of the project. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, and Gregg Menges, San Luis Obispo, provided comments and concerns regarding the project. San Luis Obispo Page I 12.e Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Pape 2 Public Works Deputy Director Bochum addressed comments and concerns by the public. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to amend page 11 of the Agenda Packet: Thursday Average) 12:00 p.m. -2:00 p.m. Chart from 645 spaces to 852 spaces and to approve staff recommendations for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure to: 1. That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project. 2. That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained. 3. Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply. 4. Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area. 5. Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final negotiations of the MOA. An informal welcome celebration for new Police Chief Deanna Cantrell was held immediately following the 4:00 p.m. meeting in the Council Hearing Room. ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx. Council Members Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Carpenter led the Pledge of Allegiance. 12.e Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Page 3 INTRODUCTION 2. TRACI R. MCGINLEY, CITY CLERK City Manager Lichtig provided a brief introduction. PRESENTATION 3. BADGING CEREMONY AND OATH FOR POLICE CHIEF DEANNA CANTRELL LICHTIG/MCGINLEY — 10 MINUTES) City Manager Lichtig provided a brief introduction. City Clerk McGinley administered the Oath of Office to Police Chief Cantrell. . PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Sandy Simon, Citizens' Climate Lobby, spoke about a letter that she submitted to the Mayor and City Council related to climate changes and requested that the City Council consider a Resolution urging Congress to Levy a Revenue -Neutral Fee on Carbon in Fossil Fuels. Odile Aural, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a petition regarding the ratio of students vs. number of residents in the community and urged support from the City Council to address concerns relating to housing for students by working with constituents. Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the health and safety of the community, relating to traffic congestion and efforts of enforcement for various bicyclist violations. Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with transportation challenges for the homeless people in the City. Cory Jones, San Luis Obispo, urged the City Council to consider an ordinance, concerning the ban of single use plastic water bottles. Steve Barach, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a handout submitted to the City Council, concerning the maintenance of the creek by property owners and other related responsibilities. Carolyji Smith, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the petition and comments provided by Ms. Odile related to Cal Poly and student housing. Steve Hansen, Citizens' Climate Lobby, spoke on the present climate changes and urged support from the City Council to consider a Resolution urging Congress to Levy a Revenue -Neutral Fee on Carbon in Fossil Fuels. Chris Gilbert. Arroyo Grande, urged the City Council to oppose any conversions of tennis courts to pickleball courts. Peggy Koteen, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the limited availability of tennis courts that are in the City. 12.e Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19 2016 Page 4 Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, expressed support to the petition and comments provided by Ms. Odile, relating to Cal Poly and student housing. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 13, with removal of Item 8 for separate consideration at the request of Council Member Ashbaugh. Council Ashbaugh noted that due to a potential conflict of interest he would recuse himself from Items 11 and 12. 4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 5. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17 AND DECEMBER 1 2015 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of November 17 and December 1, 2015. 6. AUTHORIZE A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE HOUSING RELATED PARKS PROGRAM MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10685 (2016 Series) entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing an application in the amount of $288,650 to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for Housing Related Parks Program funds to provide financial assistance to the Public Works department for park upgrades at Sinsheimer Park." 7. LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT, SPECIFICATION 91392, CONTRACT AWARD AND BUDGET AMENDMENT Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, Mila Vujovich-LaBarre San Luis Obispo, and Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo provided comments concerning the Laguna Lake Dredging. Natural Resources Manager Hill addressed inquiries provided by the City Council. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Award and approve a consultant services agreement with the firm MNS Engineers, Inc. MNS") in an amount not -to -exceed $445,000 for Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management pursuant to Request for Proposals Specification No. 91392; and 12.e Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Page 5 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request to move funds between phases within the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management CIP. 8. WELL SITERELINQUISHMENT A"I" 1460 CALLE JOAQUIN (QUIKV CAR WASH) Wendy Brown, San Luis Obispo, and Brian Engleton, San Luis Obispo, provided comments concerning the Well Site Relinquishment. Hamish Marshall, Quiky Car Wash, responded to correspondences and public comments related to the Well Site on the property. Utilities Deputy Director Floyd addressed inquiries provided by the City Council. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH VOTING NO), to continue the item to a date uncertain allowing counsel to explore the legal ramifications of the proposed relinquishment. 9. APPROVAL OF FINAL 2015 POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS MASTER PLAN MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10686 (2016 Series) entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan." 10. APPROVAL OF FINAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL STRATEGY MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10687 (2016 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy." 11. AMENDMENT OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT OF THE PALM DEVELOPMENT SITE Vice Mayor Ashbaugh recused himself from this item, as there may be a potential conflict of interest. 12.e Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Paae 6 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-0 (COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH RECUSED), to adopt Resolution No. 10688 (2016 Series) as amended, entitled a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a First Amendment of Purchase and Sale -Palm Development Site, authorizing the sale of City property and authorizing the Mayor or City Manager to execute closing documents," the Mayor to execute the grant deed, and to allow the City Attorney to approve non substantive changes to the transactional documents. 12. MARGARITA & FOOTHILL. LIFT STATION REPLACEMENTS, SPEC. NO. 91214 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 Vice Mayor Ashbaugh recused himself from this item, as there may be a potential conflict of interest. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-0 (COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH RECUSED), to: 1. Approve a contract amendment of $104,854 for the design services for the Margarita and Foothill Lift Station Replacements, Spec. No. 91214. 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request of $104,854 from Sewer Fund Working Capital to the project's design phase to support this request. 3. Approve increases in the 2016-17 construction budget from $1,100,000 to $1,600,000 and the construction management budget from $125,000 to $155,000 for the Foothill Lift Station Replacement. 13. FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 GRANT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Office of Traffic Safety for a Fiscal Year 2016-17 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) not to excccd $250,000. 2. If the grant is awarded, authorize the Chief of Police to execute all grant related documents and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the award of the grant. 12.e Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Par -e 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY JEFF KRAFTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S -OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES A HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTION Prior to the Public Hearing, Council Member Ashbaugh, Vice Mayor Carpenter, and Mayor Marx explained that they met with Naomi Hoffman, a member of the community who expresses support to denial of the appeal. Council Member Rivoire met with William Cochran and Pam Orth, members of the community who express support to denial of the appeal. Mayor Marx met with Ms. Hoffman, Vice Mayor Carpenter met with Ms. Hoffinan. Community Development Director Codron and Planning Technician Bell narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "48 Buena Vista Avenue Use 1520-2015 (PC Appeal)," reviewed the contents of the report, and responded to City Council inquiries. Mayor Marx recessed the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Mayor Marx called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Roger Frederickson, Attorney for Applicant, spoke about the appeal and directional items that were addressed by the Planning Commission. Angela Schmiede, Co -Applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation, reviewed the contents of the report and stated that the project meets all City guidelines. Jeff Kraft, Co -Applicant, spoke about the contents of the report and presented a timeline of events regarding the project. Following discussion, the following members of the public provided comments and feedback concerning the applicant's proposal: William Cochran San Luis Obispo, Amy fardel, San Luis Obispo, Bob Schragg, San Luis Obispo, Pam Orth, San Luis Obispo, Robert Karger, San Luis Obispo, Shirley Ready, San Luis Obispo, Naomi Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, Chris Stier, San Luis Obispo, Wilda Rosene, San Luis Obispo, Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, Carolyn Smith San Luis Obispo, Jamie Lopes, San Luis Obispo, Todd Smith, San Luis Obispo, Steve Delmartin, San Luis Obispo, Pat Dellario, San Luis Obispo, H. Mels Siverson, San Luis Obispo. Following discussion, the following members of the public provided comments expressing support to the applicant's proposal: Linda White, San Luis Obispo, Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, and Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo. 12.e Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Basi Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Page 8 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASIIBAUGII, SECOND BY MAYOR MARX, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON VOTING NO), to adopt Resolution No. 10689 2016 Series) as amended, entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the construction of a single-family residence with an attached cPenndary dWe.11ing unit in the C -Overlay zone With a eategnrieal exemption from environmental review as represented in the Planning Commission agenda report and attachments dated January 19, 2016 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue USE -1520-2015 & SDU-1521-215)," upholding the appeal of the planning Commission's action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final approval, but denying requested exceptions application USE -1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: A use permit for construction of a single family home with direction to the applicant to work with staff and ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and set back exceptions. Items 5-8 of Section 1 Findings are hereby deleted and Items 1-2 of Section 1 Findings of the proposed amended Resolution are hereby added in their place. LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Marx and Council Member Ashbaugh reported on City activities. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS By consensus, Council directed staff to agendize consideration of a resolution urging Congress to Levy a Revenue -Neutral Fee on Carbon in Fossil Fuels at a future Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Jo Paul Maier Assistant City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 03/15/2016 12.e Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes exceptions to the front yard building setback and height, with a categorical exemption from environmental review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 40 Buena Vista Avenue BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org VIA: Tyler Corey, Housing Programs Manager TAC FILE NUMBER: SDU-1521-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA SUMMARY The applicant has proposed to construct a single-family residence in the R-1-S zone that includes a height and setback exception on a sloping lot. On January 19, 2016, the City Council approved the construction of the home, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and ARC to redesign the project to conform to the Community Design Guidelines without the proposed height and setback exceptions. Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date January 31, 2016 Complete Date February 11, 2016 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines Meeting Date: March 7, 2016 Item Number: 2 ARC2-1 12.f Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 2 Admin Review August 27, 2015 PC Review September 23, 2015 PC Denial October 28, 2015 PC Appeal October 29, 2015 CC Approval January 19, 2016 Review elevated to PC Review continued with direction Use Permit Denied Use Permit Appealed Design ReviewUsePermitApproved ARC Review March 7, 2016 The proposed project is located on a “sensitive site” and requires architectural review by the Community Development Director. A project site is considered sensitive when it has been designated through an “S”, Special Considerations overlay zone. This project site has been designated with an “S” overlay through Ordinance 0755 to enable review of hillside development and adequacy of public utilities. Due to the amount of public input on the project as well as the Use Permit appeal to the City Council, the Director has forwarded the design review to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). 1.0 BACKGROUND For additional background information see Attachment 4, Project Background. 2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, Hillside Development Standards, the General Plan and applicable City standards. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, over 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with access from Buena Vista Avenue in the Monterey Heights neighborhood. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. 3.2 Project Description: The proposed project includes the following features (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage ARC2-2 12.f Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 a. Two stories with a proposed max height of 27.3 feet above average natural grade b. Attached 406 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (Note: not part of this application review) 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure 3.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback Buena Vista Avenue) 18.5 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 15 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure Average Natural Grade) 27.3 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces 3 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 4.0 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the use permit. The City Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission action to deny the proposed project thereby granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions. The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including, but not limited to: a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood, b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure, c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck, d. Visual appearance of the support columns, e. Landscaping plans, f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project site is located within one of the City’s Hillside Planning Areas known as the Cal Poly- Cuesta Park Area. The applicant has designed the project in accordance with the Community ARC2-3 12.f Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development Standards and the Land Use Element 6.4 Hillside Policies. The Community Design Guidelines are intended to implement General Plan Hillside Policies by minimizing the visibility and other impacts of allowable hillside development. 4.1 Site Plan: The project has been designed on a legal residential property entirely within the Urban Reserve Line. The proposed residence is located as close as possible to Buena Vista Avenue in order to design a driveway that minimizes the amount of grading to access the site LUE 6.4.3.E). The garage has been designed to accommodate the minimum street yard setback of 18.5 feet with a 14% sloped driveway which complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access 1. As discussed at the Planning Commission/City Council hearings, access from Loomis Street has been determined infeasible due to the 60% slope along Loomis Street and all utility connections have been provided for the site from Buena Vista Avenue. Height and Street Setback Exceptions: The City Council denied the originally proposed exceptions and directed the applicant to redesign the project to comply with property development standards and the Hillside Development Standards. The applicant has worked with staff to determine the impacts of full compliance with property development standards verses full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards. Full compliance with the Property Development Standards requires several exceptions from the Hillside Development Standards, and similarly full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards requires exceptions from the Property Development Standards. Therefore, development of the site without some type of exception does not appear feasible. The applicant has eliminated the side yard setback exception and redesigned the project to request the least impactful exceptions. A street yard setback of 18.5 feet, when 20 feet is normally required, provides for a slight decrease in the overall building height. Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020E.2a states that reductions in street yards may be approved for garages when the driveway is long enough to accommodate a parked car that doesn’t overhang the sidewalk (18.5 feet min.). If the building were to be located any closer to the street, the driveway would not comply with street yard requirements. Likewise, if the residence was located further down the hillside a steeper driveway grade would be required that would be out of compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and potentially create an unsafe driveway approach. Maximum building heights per zoning district have been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed 2.3 foot height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than one story as viewed from the public right-of- way on Buena Vista Avenue. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in 1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Site Access. Each driveway shall follow natural terrain contours to the maximum extent feasible to minimize both the extent of grading and the visibility of the driveway… (c) A driveway shall not have a grade steeper than five percent within 10 feet of a garage or carport entry. Driveway finished grade shall not exceed an average of 15 percent. ARC2-4 12.f Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 size. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. 4.2 Building Design: The Community Design Guidelines state that the building design of an infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood. The Land Use Element Hillside Development Policies state that development of structures on hillsides shall keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes, avoid large continuous walls, and use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape (LUE 6.4.3). Hillside Integration: The residence has been designed and located on a site that does not block views from adjacent properties. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101 and Cuesta Park. There are two existing residences located approximately 30 feet higher on the ridge above the subject property directly on the ridgeline 2. All hillside vegetation will be retained to the maximum extent feasible, so as not to destroy the natural character of the site. Directional Item A (Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood): The proposed residence is located within an eclectically designed neighborhood with varying architectural styles, with residences range in size from 4,230 square feet to 1,500 square feet. The average home size in the neighborhood is approximately 2,633 square feet excluding garages and secondary units). The residence has been designed well below the average at 1,921 square feet and is compatible with the neighborhood’s architectural characteristics. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets, recessed windows and entries, balconies, and the slope of the lot to relieve the form and mass of the building. The contemporary design of the residence includes exterior colors that emphasize dark earth tones that blend the structure with the natural appearance of the hillside and emphasizes wood as the primary natural-appearing material. The structure demonstrates consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. All elevations include interesting architectural treatments. Directional Item B (Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure): The residence is located 150 feet above and over 1,000 feet from Highway 101. At this distance the reflectivity of the proposed windows will have insignificant impact on Highway 101. The proposed windows reduce the mass and the prominence of the structure as viewed from Highway 101. The project also includes cantilevered decks that create shading from the sun, which reduce glare from the exterior windows. The proposed colors and materials are consistent with the Hillside Development standards for building design. 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Placement of Structure: Each proposed structure shall be located so that: (c) The silhouetting of a structure against the sky above the nearest ridge or knoll when viewed from a public street is minimized. ARC2-5 12.f Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 Directional Item C (Appropriateness of the roof top deck): Per the City’s grading standards MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence, providing usable outdoor space on the project site is limited due to slope and grading requirements. The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.21.D.1(g)) allow provision of outdoor space within above ground decks or balconies as long as minimum space requirements are met, including a minimum dimension of 6-feet in every direction. The project provides usable outdoor space in the form of balconies and a roof deck consistent with this requirement. There are no privacy concerns from the roof deck as the adjacent property to the north is zoned Conservation Open Space and is vacant. The property to the south is zoned R-1-S and is also vacant. Directional Item D (Visual appearance of the support columns): The applicant’s original design of the residence included a third level that was proposed in order to maintain compliance with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development 3. In order to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2015, the applicant met with city staff and evaluated removing the third level from the residence and alternatively cantilevering the main floor over the natural grade of the site to exceed a height of six feet on the north-east corner of the residence, see Figure 2. The removal of the third level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. The columns below the lowest floor on the downhill side exceed six feet; however, the proposed unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design that reduces the mass of the structure. Directional Item E (Landscaping plans): Landscape plans show eight new oak trees proposed on the site surrounding the home. The applicant has proposed these trees to integrate the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Over time the proposed oak trees will provide additional screening of the property and soften the appearance of the building when viewed from Highway 101, similarly to the adjacent residences at the top of the ridgeline. 3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Height of Lowest Floor Level. The vertical distance between the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure should not exceed six feet. Figure 2: (top) Original three level design bottom) Revised two level design. ARC2-6 12.f Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 7 Directional Item F (Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101): The property can be viewed from Highway 101 Southbound. The project site is located within city limits and is therefore outside of the State eligible scenic corridor, which generally runs from Los Angeles County to Paso Robles. The residence is visible from Highway 101 southbound for approximately 18 seconds (when traveling at posted speed limits) from a distance of 3,000 feet. During this view shed the site is partially obstructed from view by several freeway billboards. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Continue action on the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant regarding additional information needed to make a decision. 6.2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines, General Plan, Zoning Regulations or other policy document. The ARC should specify findings. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced Project Plans 4. Project Background 5. PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report & Meeting Minutes) 6. City Council Hearing January 19, 2016 (Staff Report & Resolution) Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board ARC2-7 12.f Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1003-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTION, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 7, 2016 (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, R-1-S ZONE; SDU-1521-2015) WHEREAS, on March 7, 2016, 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, for the purpose of reviewing the design of a single-family residence on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521- 2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; 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 January 19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby approves the design of the single-family residence on a sloping site, including a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521-2015) based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 12.f Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 2 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and housing production (HE 6). Hillside Development 3. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 755 because of concerns relating to hillside development and public utility services. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status because the building design minimizes the need for grading activities through the use of stepped foundation with piers; is compatible with surrounding developments; and the conceptual landscape plan provides for native, drought tolerant plantings visible from the public right-of-way that provide a transition from developed to open space areas and softens the appearance of the home. 4. Consistent with Planning Commission direction, the structural support piers below the lowest floor are appropriate for the building design because the property that is adjacent to the piers is designated as Conservation Open Space. The unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design that will have no visual impact toward any adjacent property. 5. Consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines, the project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101 and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with Hillside Development Standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. As conditioned, landscaping of the project site further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Front Yard Setback and Height Exceptions 6. The additional 2.3 foot building height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. The proposed maximum building height exception is warranted due to the existing site slope and Engineering Standard requirement for maximum driveway slope. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood, and is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. 8. A reduced street yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar access. 12.f Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 3 9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. 10. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. 11. The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission does hereby grant final approval of application SDU-1521-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC and the City Council. 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 (SDU-1521-2015 & USE-1520-2015). 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. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. Alternative colors that include lighter neutral tones and a physical sample of the proposed glass shall be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the ARC Chair. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit review shall include lighting fixture details. The locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as 12.f Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 4 part of working drawings. 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 Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. 5. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 6. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The landscaping plans shall address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the residence and the street, and shall consider alternative materials beneath the cantilevered portion of the structure to minimize glare. 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 final landscape plan shall be in full conformance with landscaping standards established in the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 7. The project shall be constructed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Noise Element Table 1 (60 dB for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor spaces). 8. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 9. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 10. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 11. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along 12.f Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 5 both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 12. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 13. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off- set angle. 14. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 15. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 16. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. 12.f Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 6 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on- site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 20. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 21. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 23. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 12.f Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1003-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 7 26. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 27. 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. Utilities Department 28. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 29. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 30. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 31. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. On motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Curtis and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, Soll, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn NOES: None. REFRAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Root The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of March, 2016. _____________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Architectural Review Commission 12.f Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Architectural Review Commission Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 7, 2016 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn Absent: Commissioner Allen Root Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad CALL TO ORDER Chair Wynn called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. and proposed the following changes to the agenda: 1) Consideration of Minutes to follow Public Hearings; and 2) reversed the order of Public Hearing Items 2 and 3. There were no objections. Commissioner Andreen announced she would step down from Item 2 due to a potential conflict of interest. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Higuera Street Right of Way. Review of wireless telecommunication facility proposal to place antennas and associated equipment on existing or replaced traffic signal poles (total of 6) within the public right-of-way along Higuera Street between Carmel Street and Osos Street; C-D-H zone; Crown Castle Communication Inc., applicant. Chair Wynn announced that the Applicant was requesting a continuance. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ACTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Soll, the Commission unanimously continued Item 1 by roll call vote: 12.f Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 2 AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Soll, Root, Wynn NOES: None REFRAIN: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None ACTION: Upon a motion made by Commissioner Andreen seconded by Commissioner Soll to made motion to continue Item 1 to a date uncertain passed unanimously. 2. 128 Chorro Street. APPL-1974-2015; Continued review of an appeal of the Director’s approval of a Guest Quarters permit. Revised project includes the requested approval of a side yard setback of four feet where five feet is normally required for an addition along the north property line. (GUST-1645-2015); Holly & Tony Garcia, applicant. Commissioner Andreen recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest (resides in the neighborhood). Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen provided the Staff report. He noted that the requested setback is minor in nature and consistent with the development pattern of neighborhood, and clarified that Finding #5 in Section 1 of the draft resolution should read “guest quarters have been moved to the western portion.” Architect Frances Gibbs, on behalf of the Applicant, offered to respond to questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS Patricia Andreen, representing the neighborhood, reported that she had not had any discussions about this project with any of the Commissioners. She spoke in favor of the revised design and indicated that she had no objections to the setback reduction. She asked that if the Commission finds it appropriate, she would ask that it invoke tree protection measures and require the Applicant to protect vegetation and its roots during construction. COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to questions from the Commission, Architect Gibbs indicated she had discussed vegetation-protection measures with the Applicant and noted they have no objections. She also confirmed that the skylight over the existing garage is operable. Commissioner Curtis indicated he saw no need for an exception to the setback and expressed objections to creating an additional non-conforming condition. He added that he thought it possible to design an addition that could conform to all the standards. 12.f Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 3 Staff responded that the request for the exception to the setback was not an unusual request for that neighborhood. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOLL , the Commission adopted a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Community Development Director’s action to approve a guest quarters in the low- density residential zone, as amended (Condition #10: add protection of fence and vegetation during construction). Motion passed 4:1:1:1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn NOES: Curtis RECUSED: Andreen ABSENT: Root 3. 40 Buena Vista Avenue. SDU-1521-2015; Review of a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes a front yard setback and height exception, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; R-1-S zone; Lee J. Kraft, ETUX, applicant. Commissioner Andreen returned to the dais. Deputy Director Davidson introduced Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, who provided the in- depth Staff report. He emphasized that architectural review is required due to the Special Considerations Overlay (S-Overlay), which designates the location as a sensitive site due to the hillside development and announced that there are eight (8) vacant properties within vicinity that will undergo same process. Assistant Planner Bell informed the ARC that the City Council approved the Use Permit while denying proposed exceptions and has asked that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review the project and address the following issues: 1) traditional characteristics of neighborhood; 2) reflectivity of amount of glass; 3) appropriateness of rooftop deck; 4) visual appearance of support columns; 5) landscaping plans; and 6) prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. Assistant Planner Bell displayed Applicant-provided renderings to demonstrate the project design and responded to numerous Commission questions regarding exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards (HDS), street yard setback exceptions, landscaping plans, and the proposed rooftop deck and balconies. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere pointed out the Applicant had made revisions to the project based on City Council direction, which resulted in the current proposed height and setback exceptions. Staff concluded that it is not unusual to request a height exception on a sloping lot as it is a significant constraint. 12.f Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 4 Todd Smith, Canon, representing the Applicant, explained the nature and need for the height and setback exceptions. Applicant Jeff Kraft argued in favor of approving the project with the requested exceptions. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Wynn reported that numerous correspondences have been received by Staff and Commission on this item and they are posted on the City’s website. The following residents of San Luis Obispo voiced objections to the proposed project and urged denial, citing concerns about the size of the building footprint, issues with neighborhood compatibility, height and setback exceptions, landscaping plan, traffic and emergency access, impacts to the Highway 101 view shed, the rooftop deck and potential for noise: Naomi Hoffman Shirley Ready Robert Karger James Lopes Bill Cochran Pat Dellario Sandra Rowley, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) Mila Vujovich-La Barre John Rogers, Canon, spoke in favor of the project. Applicant Jeff Kraft provided rebuttal arguments to community concerns. COMMISSION COMMENT Staff responded to additional questions from the Commission. Commission discussion followed specifically to address each of the six concerns the City Council directed the ARC to review and consider: 1. Traditional architecture characteristics of neighborhood: Commissioner Andreen commented that although the style may not be what the neighbors would have selected, the contemporary style suitable for the hillside and not a basis for denial. Commissioner Ehdaie recommended a more subdued, neutral color scheme that would blend better with the nature of the hillsides. Commissioner Curtis indicated the modern approach is suitable for the particular site and added that the flat roof works fine whereas a gabled roof would accentuate mass and visibility. Commissioner Nemcik reiterated the community’s desire for a smaller mass and noted that the clean lines of style contribute to that. Chair Wynn had no issues with the design’s modernist box style. 12.f Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 5 2. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure. Staff reported that the design guidelines stress minimizing the glazing to the furthest extent possible but because there is not a specific threshold, it comes down to compatibility and appropriateness more than percentage. Commissioner Andreen recognized that residences are built on such sites for views and unless there are safety concerns, the amount of glazing is suitable. Vice-Chair Ehdaie concurred. Commissioner Curtis observed that the residence will be an illuminated box on the hillside at night as seen from the scenic corridor freeway. Chair Wynn commented that this particular concern is similar to the issue of prominence and suggested binding them together in discussion. Commissioner Andreen indicated that prominence concerns are also tied to landscaping, having thought strongly about reducing prominence with trees. Vice-Chair Ehdaie wondered what reducing prominence on this project communicates about other prominent residences in the vicinity. Commissioner Curtis suggested the only feasible way to reduce prominence at night is to break up the continuous expanse of glass. Commissioner Nemcik shared she had no issue with glazing and that the rhythm and look are appropriate. Chair Wynn agreed that this structure is an illuminated box that will most certainly be seen from Highway 101 but concurs with Vice- Chair Ehdaie that there are already 5-6 other prominently-scaled homes on the hillside. 3. Appropriateness of rooftop deck: Commissioner Andreen stated she’s conflicted between the concerns of neighbors and its proposed use for a play area for children. Commissioner Nemcik observed that the rooftop deck is the same as a yard. Commissioner Soll reiterated Staff’s commentary that side and front decks already meet minimum outdoor area requirements. Commissioner Curtis offered that the distance from other residences will provide minimal noise. Chair Wynn, in support, stated that existent freeway noise outweighs potential cocktail party noise and a well-maintained deck can be a visually appealing improvement. Commissioner Andreen, citing Commissioner Nemcik’s comments, indicated support to achieve quorum. Vice-Chair Ehdaie inquired whether it is in Commission purview to discuss use. Chair Wynn responded by indicating that the Council requested reviewing appropriateness, which is understood to include use. Commissioner Soll indicated she was unsupportive. 4. Visual appearance of support columns. Commissioner Andreen considered columns to be an improvement from the original conception. Commissioner Curtis stated that while it is generally unsightly to have houses up on stilts, enclosing the area below makes the structure appear more massive. A more appropriate option, he added, would to have it open. Commissioner Nemcik remarked piers are more appropriate and recommended the Commission address materials and mitigation improvements in the open area underneath the residence as part of motion. Commissioners Soll, Andreen Vice-Chair Ehdaie concurred. 12.f Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 6 5. Landscaping plans: In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiry, Deputy Director Davidson affirmed that Condition #6 is a reasonably comprehensive condition but if the Commission wishes to add language, Staff would accommodate it. Chair Wynn pointed out that the Condition itself is the appropriate place for three additional landscape plans: underneath the house, between the street and house, and the rooftop deck. Commission confirmed support by consensus. 6. Height exception: Chair Wynn shared that he would have used the same arguments and applied the same methodologies had he been working on this difficult site, reasoning that the lot was made a legal lot long ago and the rules changed later. He stated that he is inclined to move with Staff’s direction in consideration of the give-and-take needed to make the project work on the hillside and commented that if no exception were granted, the City would end up with more destruction on the hillside. Commissioner Andreen agreed that her analysis would be the same. Commissioner Curtis voiced his opinion that it is not feasible to develop much differently on this lot than what is proposed without violating some other principles of hillside development. Commissioner Soll differentiated between the project on paper, which she would have difficulty approving, and the project as she views it situated on a legal lot. Vice-Chair Ehdaie commended the solutions in design and supported the exceptions. Commissioner Nemcik agreed with Staff’s recommendations. Commission discussion followed regarding the color scheme. Commissioner Andreen requested a modification of the color palette to lighter earth tones. Other members of the Commission agreed. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS to adopt a Resolution approving a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes a front yard setback and height exception with a categorical exemption from environmental review (40 Buena Vista Avenue), as amended (modify Condition #6 to stipulate that the landscaping plans shall address landscaping in front of the rooftop deck, between the residence and the street, and shall consider alternative materials beneath the cantilevered portion of the structure to minimize glare; add a new condition requiring the Applicant to submit a revised color/materials board that includes lighter neutral tones and a physical sample of the proposed glass subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the ARC Chair; and to add a new Finding, as follows: “The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site.”). Motion passed on the following 6:0 roll call vote: AYES: Andreen, Curtis, Nemcik, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn NOES: None REFRAIN: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Root 12.f Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 7, 2016 Page 7 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Commissioner Curtis proposed the following amendments to the Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2016: 1) Insertion on Page 3, third paragraph: “provided to the ARC and the Airport…” 2) Correction on Page 5, second paragraph: strike “specific”, change to “the proposed” 3) Insertion and Correction on Page 5, second paragraph, first sentence: “were truly representative of” ; strike “a general” and change to “stated styles”; and strike “representation” and “historically”. 4) Correction on Page 5, second paragraph, second sentence: strike “commented”, change to “opined” ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS to approve the Minutes, as amended, passed unanimously 6:0. AGENDA FORECAST Deputy Director Davidson announced agenda items for the next two ARC Meetings, as follows: March 21: Motel Inn project; conceptual review of affordable housing component of Via Tuscano in Margarita Area. April 4: BMW relocation from LOVR to Calle Joaquin auto lot; 323 Grand Avenue previously ARC-reviewed, appealed to City Council and re-submitted; deck improvement project at relocated SLO Brew’s 736 Higuera site; POSSIBLE: neighborhood signage with Public Works Wayfinding Program. ADJOURNMENT MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CURTIS, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIR EHDAIE, and carried 6:0 to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Brad T. Opstad Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on April 18, 2016. 12.f Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Cover SheetCS.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKINGARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION March 7, 2016 40 & 42 Buena Vista Formerly known as 48 Buena VistaAttachment 312.g Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863NO. 65328JOHN C. ROGERS IV REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL EN G IN EER STATE OF CALIFORNIAEXP.CIVIL9-30-17 LIMIT OF GRADINGBALANCE REMAINS PERMIABLEAttachment 312.g Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) 1050 Southwood DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863474.02 TOW -456 EG= 18.02 =8' UPPER LEVEL464.02 TOW-455.5 EG=8.52' LOWER LEVEL462.02 TOW-441 EG=21.02=9' LOWER LEVEL2 TOW -456 EG= 18 02 ==(8' MIN. SETBACK)(13'6"' MIN. SETBACK)TOW 474.02-EG 443=31.02=13'6" UPPER LEVEL462.02 TOW-437 EG=25.02'=11' LOWER LEVELTOW 474.02'-EG 439.3'=34.72= 15'(15' MIN. SETBACK)TOW 473.4'-EG 444'=29.4'= 12.5'UPPER LEVEL(12' 6" MIN. SETBACK)STAIR TOWERTOW 477.27' -449 EG =28.27 = 12'OW 477 27' 449 EG(12' MIN. SETBACK)TOW 474.02-454.3 EG =19.73= 8.5'10'1. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT2. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 450' SW ON BUENA VISTA3. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 850' SW ON BUENA VISTAFIRE SPRINKLER RISER1,706 sf463 sfNON PERMIABLENON PERMIABLEDECKSEE DRIVEWAY UTILITIES EXISTINGTREES ANDDRAINAGE PLANFOR DETAILSDETAILED SET BACKSAVERAGE GRADE CALCULATIONSMAXIMUM HEIGHT CALCULATIONSSET BACK AND MAXIMUM HEIGHTCALCULATIONSREQUESTED EXCEPTIONS LAYOUT GRADING LIMITS PERMIABLE CALCULATIONS007APN 052-271-007(ZONING C/OS)APN 052-271-007(ZONING C/OS)460.14 FLOW457.44 FLOW458.79 FLOW12'-6"464.02AVERAGE GRADE456+437=893/2=446.48474.02-446.48= 27.504.7(10' 6"' MIN. SETBACK)8' 6"18' 6" SETBACKHEIGHT ABOVE STREET28' HEIGHT EXCEPTION 473.40-467= 6' 4"27' HEIGHT EXCEPTION 474.02-467= 7'25' HEIGHT NO EXCEPTION 474.91-466= 8' 11"MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY DESENTUPPER LEVELSTAIR TOWERSTAIR TOWERUPPER LEVELCLOSEST POSSIBLE HOUSE 300 FEETSTAIRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTOWEROO14'-2"11'-0"10'-9"5'-5"10'-9"13'-1"15'13'-5"24'-1"Attachment 312.g Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) SITE PLANSCALE: 1:10EX. 16" PINETREERUNOFF DISSIPATIONSWALE (12" DEEP W/LEVEL TOP)20' SETBACK5.86'(5' MIN. SETBACK)9.17'(9' MIN. SETBACK)12.04'(12' MIN. SETBACK)13.18'(13' MIN. SETBACK)Site PlanA1.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKINGSEE CIVIL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING:1. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS2. UTILITY SERVICES (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)3. SITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS4. EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADES5. CONTOURS & SPOT ELEVATIONS6. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS7. RETAINING WALLS8. PUBLIC WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAINSLANDSCAPE NOTES1. NO ADDITIONAL SPECIES WILL BE PLANTED.2. THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IS TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.1, SEE SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS2. ALL PLANTS ARE NATIVE DROUGHT TOLLERANT SPEICES TO BE IRRAGATED BY RAINWATER/GRAY-WATER SYSTEM3. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN9. DETAILED SET BACK AND ELEVATIONS FRONT YARDKIDS PLAY AREAUNOFF DISSUPPER DECKADU DECK MAIN LEVEL DECK 110'TO CLOSEST NEIGHBOR'SWHICH IS 15-20 HIGHER200'TO CLOSEST NEIGHBOR'SWHICH IS 40-50' LOWER300'TO CLOSEST NEIGHBOR'S18' 6"Attachment 312.g Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) ABCD1FLOOR PLAN: ROOF LEVELSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4A4.11A3.02A3.03A3.04A3.02X WOOD DECKING2X WOOD SLEEPERTPO ROOF MEMBRANEROOF DETAILSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"2Floor PlansRoof LevelA2.0SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING1. ALL WALL LAYOUT DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, UNO.2. WHERE INDICATED, REQUIRED MINIMUM CLEARANCES ARE MEASURED TO FACE OFFINISH MATERIAL AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE WALLS ARE FRAMED.3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE WALL DEPTH WHERE ANY EQUIPMENT IS TO BE RECESSED INWALL.4. WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT FULL HEIGHT TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAMING,TYPICAL U.N.O.5. VERIFY ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES WITH OWNER ORARCHITECT, PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER.6. ALL NEW EXTERIOR GRADE, CONC. PATIOS, DECKS, WALKWAYS SHALL SLOPE 14 INCHPER FOOT MIN. AWAY FROM BUILDING, TYPICAL.7. SEE MEP FOR GENERAL ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING NOTES ANDMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS.ROOM REQUIREMENTS8. CEILING HEIGHT AT ALL HABITABLE ROOMS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7'-6" (REFERTO PLANS FOR ACTUAL CEILING HEIGHTS).9. GLAZING IN NEW DOORS AND NEW WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING (FULLYTEMPERED GLASS), PER CBC 2406.3, SEE WINDOW AND DOOR NOTES FOR SPECIFICREQUIREMENTS, AND ELEVATIONS AND DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR TEMPEREDGLASS LOCATIONS.10. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AT ALL BEDROOMS, HALLS LEADING TO BEDROOMSAND ONE AT EACH FLOOR PER 2013 CBC SECTION 907.1PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 1-1/2-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR SWINGS OVER LANDING.2PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 7-3/4-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER LANDING, FRONT YARDKIDS PLAY AREAFRONT PORCH UPPER DECKNO SIDE YARD SETBACKIMPACTS DECKAttachment 312.g Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) 6543212111314FEA10Kitchen12'-0"x11'-0"140 FT²Living12'-0"x16'-0"200 FT²Bedroom 19'-0"x13'-0"125 FT²Garage20'-0"x20'-0"400 FT²EntryADUSLOPE TO DRAINSLOPE TO DRAINSLOPE TO DRAINFUTURE STAIRFUTURE ROLLINGBARN DOORFLOOR PLAN: TOP LEVELSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4A4.11A3.02A3.03A3.04A3.0Floor PlansTop LevelA2.1SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING1. ALL WALL LAYOUT DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, UNO.2. WHERE INDICATED, REQUIRED MINIMUM CLEARANCES ARE MEASURED TO FACEOF FINISH MATERIAL AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE WALLS ARE FRAMED.3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE WALL DEPTH WHERE ANY EQUIPMENT IS TO BERECESSED IN WALL.4. WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT FULL HEIGHT TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAMING,TYPICAL U.N.O.5. VERIFY ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES WITH OWNER ORARCHITECT, PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER.6. ALL NEW EXTERIOR GRADE, CONC. PATIOS, DECKS, WALKWAYS SHALL SLOPE 14INCH PER FOOT MIN. AWAY FROM BUILDING, TYPICAL.7. SEE MEP FOR GENERAL ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING NOTES ANDMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS.ROOM REQUIREMENTS8. CEILING HEIGHT AT ALL HABITABLE ROOMS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7'-6"(REFER TO PLANS FOR ACTUAL CEILING HEIGHTS).9. GLAZING IN NEW DOORS AND NEW WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING (FULLYTEMPERED GLASS), PER CBC 2406.3, SEE WINDOW AND DOOR NOTES FOR SPECIFICREQUIREMENTS, AND ELEVATIONS AND DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE FORTEMPERED GLASS LOCATIONS.10. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AT ALL BEDROOMS, HALLS LEADING TOBEDROOMS AND ONE AT EACH FLOOR PER 2013 CBC SECTION 907.11. ALL APPLIANCES TO BE BY OWNER AND ENERGY STAR RATED.1PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 1-1/2-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR SWINGS OVER LANDING.2PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 7-3/4-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER LANDING,34'-10" X 4'-4" ELEVATOR. MODEL TBD442 SQUAREFOOT ADUADU DECK ADU ACCESS24'-11"LINE OF BUILDING WITH SIDEYARD SETBACK EXCEPTIONIMPACTS NO ONE CLOSEST POSSIBLE NIEGHBOR 300'1'-3"3'-0"Attachment 312.g Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Living18'-0"x16'-0"288 FT²Kitchen18'-0"x15'-0"260 FT²Master Bedroom12'-0"x14'-0"168 FT²Guest Bedroom11'-2"x13'-3"148 FT²Guest Bedroom11'-5"x13'-3"151 FT²FLOOR PLAN: MAIN LEVELSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"789151617181920212223GHiJKLMN4A4.11A3.02A3.03A3.04A3.0XXFloor PlansMain LevelA2.2SHEET No. 109No. Date Issue121 Prefontaine Pl. S.Seattle, WA 98104[206] 329-1654© Chris Pardo Design, LLC 2015These drawings were prepared for"Kraft House" project in San LuisObispo, CA. They are not intended foruse on any other project.elementalarchitecture.comStated drawing scale is based on 36x24 sheet.Kraft HouseSan Luis Obisbo, CA1556 N. Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, CA1 09.02.15 WORKING1. ALL WALL LAYOUT DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, UNO.2. WHERE INDICATED, REQUIRED MINIMUM CLEARANCES ARE MEASURED TO FACEOF FINISH MATERIAL AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE WALLS ARE FRAMED.3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE WALL DEPTH WHERE ANY EQUIPMENT IS TO BERECESSED IN WALL.4. WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT FULL HEIGHT TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAMING,TYPICAL U.N.O.5. VERIFY ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES WITH OWNER ORARCHITECT, PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER.6. ALL NEW EXTERIOR GRADE, CONC. PATIOS, DECKS, WALKWAYS SHALL SLOPE 14INCH PER FOOT MIN. AWAY FROM BUILDING, TYPICAL.7. SEE MEP FOR GENERAL ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING NOTES ANDMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS.ROOM REQUIREMENTS8. CEILING HEIGHT AT ALL HABITABLE ROOMS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7'-6"(REFER TO PLANS FOR ACTUAL CEILING HEIGHTS).9. GLAZING IN NEW DOORS AND NEW WINDOWS SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING (FULLYTEMPERED GLASS), PER CBC 2406.3, SEE WINDOW AND DOOR NOTES FOR SPECIFICREQUIREMENTS, AND ELEVATIONS AND DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE FORTEMPERED GLASS LOCATIONS.10. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AT ALL BEDROOMS, HALLS LEADING TOBEDROOMS AND ONE AT EACH FLOOR PER 2013 CBC SECTION 907.11. ALL APPLIANCES TO BE BY OWNER AND ENERGY STAR RATED1PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 1-1/2-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR SWINGS OVER LANDING.2PROVIDE LEVEL LANDING AT MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 7-3/4-INCHES LOWER THANTOP OF DOOR THRESHOLD WHEN DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER LANDING,34'-10" X 4'-4" ELEVATOR. MODEL TBDMAIN LEVEL DECK ADUDECKABOVEFAttachment 312.g Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Attachment 312.g Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Attachment 312.g Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) STEPPED BACK 3' FOR SIDEYARD SETBACKCLOSEST POSSIBLE NIEGHBOR 300'7.06 ftSTREET LEVELBELOW STREET LEVEL9.65 ftSTREET LEVEL BEYONDORIGINAL SUBMITAL MEETS HILLSIDEDESIGN GUIDELINES LOWEST FLOORWITHIN 6' OF GRADE PLANNINGCOMMISSION DID NOT LIKE THE BULKELIMINATED LOWER LEVEL. THIS ELEVATION WILL ONLY BESEEN FROM US 101 4,000'- 1,000' AWAY 150' BELOW FORSECONDS WHILE TRAVELING 55 MPH. THE COLUMNS ARE INTHE SHADOW OF THE DECK AND LANDSCAPING GOES UNDERTHE HOUSE. THE COLUMNS WILL NOT BE PERCEPTIBLE, THISCOULD BE A 6' FOUNDATION WALL AND MEET THE GUIDELINES.Attachment 312.g Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) 12.13 ft7.60 ft new rolled curband gutterSTEPPED BACK 3' FORREQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK MOVES BACK OFBUILDING OUT BY 1' 3"27' 4"27' 4"12.13 ft27' 4"BELOW STREET LEVELBELOW STREET LEVEL27' HEIGHT EXCEPTION 7' ABOVESTREET 30' 6" FROM THE STREET28' HEIGHT EXCEPTION 6' 4" ABOVESTREET 32' FROM THE STREET25' HEIGHT NO EXCEPTION 8'11" ABOVETHE STREET 22' FROM THE STREET(LOOSE 2 PARKING SPACES REQUIRES10' FRONTYARD EXCEPTION)6' 4"TOP OF WALL8' 11"7'STREET LEVELSTREET LEVELSTREET LEVELEXCEPTION COMPARISION1' 3"INCREASES DUE TO NO SIDEYARD SETBACK1' 3"Attachment 312.g Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Attachment 312.g Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: g - Reduced Project Plans (1308 : 40 Buena Vista (SDU-1521-2015) Appeal) Page intentionally left blank. Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Lee Price, Interim City Clerk SUBJECT: AMERICA IN BLOOM RECOMMENDATION Consider the City’s participation in the America in Bloom National Awards Program. DISCUSSION Background At the March 1, 2016 Council meeting, the City Council gave staff direction to agendize consideration of membership in the America in Bloom National Awards Program. America in Bloom (AIB) promotes civic beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements. Currently, there are 235 cities in 40 states participating in the program. In most of those cities, AIB is a volunteer driven community effort led by citizen volunteers and/or civic organizations. There are two categories for membership: contestant or participant only. The deadline for contestants was February 28th. While it is too late to become contestants for this year’s awards program, the City is still eligible for membership as a participant only for 2016. The cost to become a participant is $1,099. Benefits of Participation Professional written evaluation: If membership is approved, two specially trained, experienced judges will visit the City for two days this summer. The judges will provide on -site, one-on-one mentoring and coaching and they will prepare a professional written evaluation that includes observations and suggestions in the following areas: 1. Overall impressions 2. Environmental efforts 3. Heritage preservation 4. Urban forestry 5. Landscaped areas 6. Floral displays 13 Packet Pg. 286 The judges’ report can be used as a roadmap for future beautification planning efforts and a tool for identifying improvement projects. Other benefits include: 1. Increased civic pride – creating attractive landscapes with community involvement increases civic pride. The program changes lives, helps improve the community, and makes a visible difference. People notice the little things, cared-for-buildings and properties, colorful plants, and a clean environment are a reflection of a thriving, caring municipality. 2. Decreased vandalism and crime – studies show that quality landscapes can lower crime rates and well-tended communities are safer. 3. Economic benefits – beautification projects that help save water, reduce heating and cooling costs, improve privacy and property values, have the potential for deriving new economic benefits and increased tourism. The national attention cities receive from participation in AIB brings tourism, increases tax revenue, and benefits local businesses. Arroyo Grande in Bloom was formed approximately 10 years ago. Morro Bay in Bloom was formed just two years ago. In both communities, a member of the public h as taken on the role of “champion” and has enlisted volunteers to participate in beautification projects and fundraising. Both cities have been America in Bloom award recipients. Bob Lund of Arroyo Grande and Warren Heath of Morro Bay have agreed to attend the Council meeting on May 3rd to share their insights and support for participation and to offer their guidance in the organizing process. 2016 Participation Registration: The deadline to register as contestants was February 28, 2016, but there is still an opportunity to participate by inviting two judges to spend two days in San Luis Obispo this summer to tour the City and prepare an evaluation. The judges’ report would likely identify potential beautification projects. Essential to the City’s participation is enlisting a “champion”; a citizen or citizens or a civic group in San Luis Obispo who is willing to commit to launching and leading a volunteer effort. Annual Symposium: America in Bloom holds an annual Symposium which brings together mayors and city officials from around the country together with international experts in public gardens, heritage preservation, beautification and green infrastructure projects. This year the Arroyo Grande in Bloom is hosting the 2016 America in Bloom Symposium October 5-8. Because Arroyo Grande does not have suitable conference and hotel space, they have booked the Embassy Suites as the host hotel. The City received a request to provide financial funding in the form of a sponsorship for this year’s Symposium. The Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) approved a one -time grant to support the Symposium in the amount of $1,000 on April 13th. In addition, the PCC unanimously endorsed the concept of forming a local chapter of America in Bloom because it aligns with the Committee’s beautification goals. In return for the sponsorship, the City will be 13 Packet Pg. 287 mentioned in the Symposium materials and will be provided with the opportunity of including City marketing materials for the registration gift bags to given to approximately 180 participants anticipated to attend the Symposium this year. The City could also decide to send a delegate to the Symposium to attend the panel discussions and Showcase of Innovation and to learn more about America in Bloom by networking with other participants. Next Steps If the Council desires to participate in 2016 and directs staff to register, the formation of a local committee of volunteers is the recommended and critical next step. CONCURRENCES The Promotional Coordinating Committee unanimously endorsed the concept of the City’s participation in America in Bloom at their regular meeting on April 13, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated costs to participate in the program. Registration fees are set on a sliding scale based on population. The total annual costs are estimated at approximately $3,250 per year. 1. The City’s cost to join is $1,099 annually. 2. Costs associated with hosting two judges for two nights and dedicating staff resources to provide the judges a tour of the City while they are in San Luis Obispo. a. These costs are estimated at approximately $1,750. 3. Symposium registration in the amount of $295 per participant, if the City choses to send a delegate. There is no budgeted funding for this purpose in the 2015-16 budget. Should Council elect to participate in the program, these costs would be incorporated into the 2016-2017 budget. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may choose to limit participation to the Symposium only this year. 2. The Council may defer making a decision to participate in the America in Bloom National Awards Program to the next budget planning cycle. 3. The Council may elect to not participate in the America in Bloom National Awards Program. 13 Packet Pg. 288 Page intentionally left blank. Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Mayor Jan Howell Marx Prepared By: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: APPOINTED OFFICIALS’ COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving a lump-sum incentive payment to the City Manager and to the City Attorney. DISCUSSION Background In 1999 Council began following a structured process to annually evaluate the job performance of its two appointed officials, the City Manager and City Attorney. The process is facilitated by an independent consultant who collects input on the appointed officials’ performance in the areas of Council–City Manager or Council-City Attorney relationship, legal advocacy (City Attorney only), leadership, community relations, financial management (City Manager only), and progress to major goals. The consultant summarizes input for Council from the appointed officials’ direct reports. The consultant then interviews each Council member and drafts the performance evaluation documents prior to meeting with Council as a whole to finalize. Council also reviews and approves goals for each appointed official during this annual process. Appointed Officials’ goals are linked to Major City Goals established by Council as part of the City’s comprehensive financial planning process. The overall process takes approximately eight to twelve weeks to complete and provides appointed officials with constructive feedback. At the same time as they are conducting the performance evaluations Council considers appropriate compensation for the appointed officials. In 2013, Council amended the contracts of the City Manager and City Attorney, removing emphasis from the Management Pay for Performance System used with unrepresented management and department head employees and placing emphasis on market comparisons for Council’s consideration of compensation. This change recognizes that the appointed officials differ from other management employees in that they are hired by, and serve at the will of, the City Council. City Manager and Ci ty Attorney compensation is negotiated and agreed upon in Employment Contracts between the City and each appointed official. In determining the appropriate compensation, Council considers a variety of factors that include performance, market compensation data, recruitment and retention challenges, workload, accomplishments, etc. 14 Packet Pg. 289 2016 Compensation Considerations Council met with the consultant in closed session on March 23, 2016 to discuss the appointed officials’ performance and compensation. Council concluded that the appointed officials had performed admirably and accomplished the 2015-16 goals provided by Council. A review of market comparisons indicated the appointed officials are paid within five percent of the market median and therefore, Council is not adjusting the base compensation of either appointed official. The market data also reinforces the cost of turnover, as it increases more significantly when cities are faced with replacing difficult to find, city manager and city attorney skill sets. Accordingly, Council concluded a $5,000 lump-sum (subject to applicable payroll taxes) retention incentive was appropriate for both the City Manager and City Attorney. No other changes to the appointed officials’ compensation are recommended and thus, no changes to the employment contracts are necessary at this time. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed compensation adjustments can be absorbed in the City’s current budget and are accommodated in the 2015-17 financial plan. Attachments: a - Resolution Authorizing Lump-Sum Payment to City Manager and City Attorney 14 Packet Pg. 290 RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING A LUMP-SUM RETENTION INCENTIVE TO THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, on January 1, 2010 the City Council approved a contract of employment appointing Katie Lichtig to the position of City Manager and a contract of employment appointing Christine Dietrick to the position of City Attorney; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted performance evaluations of these appointed officials on March 23, 2016, in accordance with the Appointed Officials’ Performance Process as modified in December of 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Payable on the first regular payroll following adoption of this Resolution the City Manager and City Attorney shall each receive a lump-sum retention incentive of $5,000 (subject to applicable payroll taxes). SECTION 2. All other compensation and benefits afforded the City Manager and City Attorney under Management Compensation Resolution No. 10650 (2015 Series) and the City Manager Employment Agreement and the City Attorney Employment Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the City Manager and City Attorney annually. Upon motion of ______________________, seconded by ________________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 14.a Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: a - Resolution Authorizing Lump-Sum Payment to City Manager and City Attorney (1318 : Appointed Officials' Compensation) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2 R ______ The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of May, 2016. ___________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: __________________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________________ Jon Ansolabehere Assistant City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk 14.a Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: a - Resolution Authorizing Lump-Sum Payment to City Manager and City Attorney (1318 : Appointed Officials' Compensation)