Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-14 PH1 ARC Appeal Old Mission School FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A CLASSROOM BUILDING AND ACCESSORY STAFF OFFICE. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution (Attachment 1), denying the appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of the project. SITE DATA Applicant Tina Ballantyne, Old Mission School Principal Representative Jim Duffy, Architect Zoning R-4-H (High-Density Residential with Historical Preservation Overlay Zone) General Plan High-Density Residential Site Area 9,232 square feet (.21 acre) Environmental Status Exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332), Infill Development Projects REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant, Old Mission School, submitted an application to construct a classroom building and accessory staff office as a satellite location to their main campus on Broad Street. The applicant received administrative use permit approval in October of 2013. The project’s administrative use permit approval was appealed Mark Anderson, who owns the property directly adjacent to the site area. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn after the applicant and appellant reached an agreement. The project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee on October 28, 2013 and recommended for ARC final approval. The project was approved by the Meeting Date Item Number February 25, 2014 PH1 - 1 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 2 Architectural Review Commission on January 6, 2014, following a continuance from November 18th. The design approval of the Architectural Review Commission was appealed on January 15, 2014. The appeal of the ARC’s decision is limited to issues that were within the jurisdiction of and considered by the ARC, which are limited to evaluation of the project’s conformance with the Community Design Guidelines. The ARC’s Staff recommends denial of the appeal since the ARC unanimously voted to approve the project based on the applicant’s responses to directional items. Project Overview The applicant, Old Mission School (OMS), is proposing to construct satellite classroom facilities at 774 & 776 Palm Street (Annex) to accommodate 7th and 8th grade classes. Two single-story buildings with a Mission Revival architectural style are proposed. Proposed site development includes a classroom building (3,789 square feet) with three classrooms, and an accessory building to accommodate a staff office/lounge space for teachers (560 square feet). Two classrooms at the main OMS campus were recently converted into computer labs. Currently, the displaced classes are being held in overflow classrooms at Mission College Prep (MCP), which adjoins Old Mission School. The proposed classrooms on Palm Street (Annex) are only intended to be used for classroom instruction. Daily pickup/drop-off and the daily student body assembly and lunches would occur at the main Old Mission School campus similar to current operations. Students would be escorted by their teachers to and from the Annex property. Long term staff parking for the annex property would continue at the parking garage at Mission College Prep. All primary activities at the Annex campus would remain indoors with the exception of short breaks in the morning and afternoon when students would use the patio/yard areas. (Note: for a more detailed project and site description, see Attachments 3 & 6, applicant project statement and November 18, 2013, ARC Staff Report). Figure 1. Proposed Palm Street elevation PH1 - 2 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 3 Previous Review Administrative Use Permit On October 18, 2013, an administrative use permit was granted (Attachment 10), authorizing the proposed school use in the R-4 zone. The use permit review focused on evaluation of the compatibility of the proposed school use on Palm Street, and the proposed path of travel for students and teachers going to and from the main Old Mission School Campus. The classroom use was found compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which includes the Mission Parish Church directly across Palm Street. The building design is single-story and a modest scale that meets setbacks and coverage requirements for the R-4 zone. A noise study was also submitted, which confirmed sound levels will not exceed Municipal Code requirements for exterior noise limits. The path of travel from the OMS campus to the Annex property was found to be a safe with crosswalks, a four way stop at Palm and Broad Streets, and trips back and forth from the annex property would be supervised and controlled, with students escorted by teachers. There also is adequate sidewalk access along Palm Street to the Annex property. An appeal of the use permit was filed by the adjacent property owner at 798 Palm Street, Mark Anderson and subsequently withdrawn after the appellant and applicant agreed to clarification on minor operational questions (lighting, buzzers, etc.) and minor design modifications, which would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. No additional appeals were filed during the 10-day appeal period following use permit approval. The applicants have received a use permit entitlement to allow the school use and proposed off-site parking. The use permit entitlement approved the land use as a school facility with three classrooms for 7th and 8th grade classes with accessory staff office/lounge, and the proposed off-site parking. The findings and conditions of the use permit required design approval by the Architectural Review Commission for conformance with Community Design Guidelines. Additionally, the use permit required that all necessary encroachment and building permits be obtained prior to establishing the permitted use on the property. Cultural Heritage Committee On October 28, 2013, the Cultural Heritage Committee evaluated the proposed project’s conformance with Historic Preservation Guidelines for architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. The Cultural Heritage Committee found the Mission Revival architecture consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and recommended that the Architectural Review Commission approve the final design (Attachment 12, CHC Staff Report and resolution). Architectural Review Commission The Architectural Review Commission initially reviewed the project on November 18, 2013 (Attachment 6, ARC Staff Report). The Architectural Review Commission continued the item to PH1 - 3 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 4 a date uncertain with six directional items (Attachment 7, follow up letter and meeting minutes). On January 6, 2014, the ARC reviewed the applicant’s revised plans (Attachment 8, ARC Staff Report). The ARC found the applicant adequately responded to direction and unanimously voted to grant final design review approval to the project (Attachment 9, resolution and meeting minutes). EVALUATION Appeal On January 15, 2014, the appellant, Michele Gordon, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of the project design (Attachment 5). Appeals of the Architectural Review Commission are forwarded directly to the City Council for consideration. At both ARC hearings, it was noted to the public that the purview of the ARC was related to evaluating the project for conformance with Community Design Guidelines, and that many of the issue areas raised during public comment were not under the purview of the ARC (Attachment 7, ARC meeting minutes). As discussed above, the use permit approval granted approval of the land use entitlement for the school, finding the use compatible with the site. The review of the Architectural Review Commission consisted of evaluation for conformance of Community Design Guidelines and consideration of the Cultural Heritage Committee’s recommendation on Historic Preservation Guidelines. The establishment of the school use was approved with the administrative use permit approval and is not subject to appeal. In fact, an appeal of the use permit was timely filed and was then withdrawn (Attachment 11). In order to provide the Council with background information, staff will provide responses to each of the appeal issue areas. The appeal issues as stated in the letter and staff responses are provided below: 1. Appellant: “The residents in the Mission Orchard Neighborhood did not receive proper notification from the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department for the Administrative Use/ARC hearing for the proposed project. The proposed project is located at 774 & 776 Palm, however it is incidental to the primary use at Old Mission School (761 Broad Street). Per the project summary, the student drop-off/pick-up parking administration, recreation and dining will all take place at Old Mission School; therefore, the proposed project primarily impacts the families residing near Old Mission School. The families residing near Old Mission School should have received notice prior to the Administrative use hearing so that we could have voiced our significant concerns around parking, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation in our neighborhood.” Staff Response: The use permit notification procedure was not timely appealed and was not part of the ARC’s purview. Thus, any challenge to the use permit notice provided is untimely and is not subject to appeal of the ARC action. The administrative use permit review was required since the Annex project on Palm Street is located in the High-Density Residential Zone (R-4)1. 1 City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17.22, Use Regulation, Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone. PH1 - 4 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 5 The Old Mission School site at 761 Broad Street is a longstanding use with existing school operations and pick-up/drop off activities. Per the applicant’s project description, and statements in public hearings, the immediate need for the annex project is due to displacement of two existing classes, which are currently being held at the adjoining Mission Prep campus. The existing classes consist of approximately 58 students. The Annex project is anticipated to potentially accommodate three classrooms with an anticipated 75 students (90 maximum), which represents a minor increase in potential enrollment. No construction or significant modifications to Old Mission School’s operations have been proposed which would require the main OMS campus to obtain a use permit approval or other entitlements. The administrative use permit review was for the purpose of evaluating the proposed school use for compatibility at the Annex property on Palm Street, where the new land use was proposed to be established. Notification of the administrative use permit hearing was conducted in accordance with Municipal Code requirements for the property where the project is proposed (Annex project site on Palm). 2. Appellant-Parking: Given the proposed project plans to use Mission College Prep to accommodate their off-site parking requirements, we believe the parking requirements should have been reviewed globally to include Old Mission School, Mission College Prep, and the proposed Old Mission School Annex. The current parking situation in the MONA neighborhood is intolerable, as evidenced by the parking inundation on the streets surrounding Old Mission School. We are confident, upon further review, that there is not sufficient parking per code to accommodate all three campuses. In addition, the Applicant stated the Old Mission School Annex is within the required 300 feet of the existing Mission College Prep’s parking garage. However, the proposed Annex project is NOT within 300 pedestrian feet of the Mission College Prep parking structure. Staff Response: Parking requirements were evaluated as part of the use permit approval, on which a timely appeal was withdrawn and no other timely appeals filed. Parking requirements were not within the ARC’s purview, and thus, parking requirements are not within the scope of the current appeal. Evaluation of parking requirements is based on the proposed project at the Annex location on Palm Street. The current issues the appellant describes are due to a variety of circumstances including proximity to the downtown, residential parking demand, and existing operations of Old Mission School, and Mission College Prep. Public Works staff has been working with the MONA group to assess the parking situation and potentially explore the formation of a parking district. Use permit conditions required the applicant to provide parking calculations demonstrating the availability of parking. The Zoning Code requires a total of eight parking spaces for the proposed project (2 per classroom + 1/300 office space). The applicant has demonstrated there are an adequate number of on-site spaces to accommodate the eight required spaces for the Annex project within the Mission College Prep parking garage based on parking requirements for existing uses. Though Zoning requirements have been satisfied, staff anticipates no additional PH1 - 5 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 6 parking demand will actually be realized, since only staff parking is needed and there will be no students driving to school for the 7th and 8th grade levels. The applicant has stated that currently, no new teachers or staff will be hired for the annex project since the classes are being displaced from classes currently being held at Mission Prep. In the future, if occupancy does increase at the Annex site for up to 90 students, additional staff may be required, and some or all of the required spaces may need to be utilized. In regards to the proximity of the off-site parking, the Zoning Code does not specify whether the required 300 feet has to be in walking distance, or if the distance could be measured by radius. Upon close examination, the issues raised by the appellant regarding the 300 feet proximity to the annex site are not exactly on point considering the characteristics of the proposed use are different than the typical off-site parking scenario. Since students and teachers will be first meeting at the main OMS campus, the actual distance and path of travel for the eight required parking spaces, would be for OMS staff to walk to and from the parking garage at Mission College Prep to the adjoining main OMS campus approximately 100 feet away. Teachers would then escort students to the Annex to and from the main OMS campus for school activities. 3. Appellant-Pedestrian Circulation: The project summary states the students will assemble at Old Mission School at the beginning of each day and then be escorted 950 feet to and from the Annex project several+times a day, thereby crossing 2 traffic intersections multiple times each day. The City of San Luis Obispo’s Zoning Ordinance requires any off-site parking access to be convenient and safe. Escorting up to 90 active children over 950 feet while crossing 2 intersections multiple times each day would not only impact the neighborhood, it would also certainly qualify as inconvenient and hazardous access. Staff Response: The above issues were not within the ARC’s purview, and thus, are not subject to appeal. The ARC review and decision did not include pedestrian circulation. Furthermore, as discussed above, offsite parking requirements are not directly applicable to the teacher escorted student movement to the Annex property. The students would cross one driveway located between Old Mission School and Palm Street and one intersection at Broad and Palm Streets where there is a four-way stop and existing crosswalks frequented by existing student and parent pedestrian traffic (Figure 2, below). There is adequate sidewalk space along the north side of Palm Street and the distance from the Annex property to the northwest corner of Broad and Palm (Mission College Prep property) is approximately 255 feet. Staff evaluated the path of travel as part of the administrative use permit reviewand found no dangerous or hazardous features. As discussed above, the use permit was appealed and withdrawn, and is not subject to revocation or modification within the context of this appeal. PH1 - 6 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 7 4. Appellant-Potential increases in Enrollment: The ARC chose to ignore a critical “flaw” in the design of the Annex. The Annex is designed to accommodate 90 students, allowing 34 more students than are currently enrolled at OMS. Several public speakers expressed concern re: possible increases in enrollment and argued in vain that the square footage of the proposed Annex should be pared back. Both staff and the ARC were satisfied with the client’s “verbal assurances” that they will not increase their enrollment. The City has never trusted such verbal assurances” in the past regarding any project. This is because owners come and go and so goes the “verbal assurances.” Similarly, school administrators come and go and the current principal at any time in the future, could be replaced by a new principal interested in growing the school’s enrollment. Any increase in enrollment would further exacerbate the concerns mentioned above. Staff Response: The number of students approved for the Annex project was a part of the land use entitlement granted with the administrative use permit and was not under the purview of the Architectural Review Commission. The immediate need for the project is to accommodate the existing 7th and 8th grade classes with approximately 58 students which are being displaced from the current off-site location at Mission College Prep. The three classrooms are designed for an optimum of 25 students per classroom (75 total) and a maximum of 90 students would be allowed consistent with the applicant’s project description approved in the use permit. It can be anticipated there will be fluctuations in student enrollment at OMS including the 7th and 8th grade levels, which would likely vary from year to year regardless of whether the Annex project were constructed. Based on the applicant’s project description, if all three classes had a total of 75 Private driveway Path of Travel Figure 2. Path of travel to Annex property PH1 - 7 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 8 students, this would represent a minimal increase of 17 students from the existing 58 students which are being displaced from the current off-site location at Mission College Prep. 5. Appellant-Expedited Review: Staff denied the ARC and the neighborhood the opportunity to evaluate an initial environmental study that would assess archeological and traffic impacts because staff chose to expedite the review process. Staff justified this expedited review based on Senate Bill 226 which argues that infill projects create more sustainable and energy efficient economies. But significant under-parking as we know, is not sustainable as it results in idling cars and numerous circuitous loops around the neighborhood searching for any available parking spaces, if indeed, these parking spaces exist. Staff Response: The project is exempt from environmental review under the Infill Development Categorical Exemption (Class 32). The project complies with this exemption since it is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations, is on a site of less than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species and will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Since the classrooms consist of 7th and 8th graders which will not be driving to school, there will be minimal parking demand as a result of the Annex project. The project design already incorporates measures which will minimize the potential for adverse impacts to archaeological resources with the use of caissons which minimize the amount of site disturbance from traditional grading for a standard foundation. The applicant has retained a City qualified subsurface archaeologist and the project is implementing existing requirements of the Archaeological Preservation Guidelines which include monitoring during any ground disturbance activities, and protocols to stop work and recover any significant cultural resources which may be encountered. 6. Appellant: The resident of 873 Chorro Street is concerned about the proximity of the media/computer room to the rear of his house. The media/computer room should be recessed an additional 6 feet, or preferably, completely removed. Staff Response: The applicant responded to several directional items from the ARC relating to the east elevation of the classroom building adjacent to the property at 873 Chorro. The applicant lowered the height of the classroom building wall by two feet and added a 12-inch offset. The applicant also removed projecting parapet features designed to screen mechanical equipment and relocated the roof mounted equipment farther away from the edge of the building. The applicant noted that more significant revisions such as adding horizontal jogs in the wall line are not feasible due to limited site area, the expense of the caisson and grade beam foundation system, and the project’s goals to retain an approximately 100-year old olive tree at the rear of the property. The majority of the east wall will be screened by a six- foot privacy wall. The classroom building is single-story, requests no exceptions from Zoning Regulations setback standards, and the computer/media room will have a six-foot setback, which exceeds Zoning Regulations minimum setbacks (five feet required). The property is zoned R-4 which could allow a multi-story residential structure up to 35-feet in PH1 - 8 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 9 height. The height of the wall for the computer/media room is 13 feet and the remainder of the east elevation of the classroom building is 15-feet in height. At the January 6, 2014, ARC meeting, the ARC unanimously found the applicant adequately responded to previous direction. 7. Appellant: The residents of 756 Palm Street are concerned about the OMS Annexation setting a precedent in the neighborhood for “cherry picking” other R-4 lots to be used for non-residential structures/purposes. We ask OMS/MCP to honor their repeated promise that they will note expand any part of the schools on the property of 770 Palm Street. Staff Response: The potential development of the adjacent lot at 770 Palm Street, or any other residential lots for school uses would be subject to review as required by Zoning Regulations. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by the, Building, Fire, Public Works, Utilities, and Transportation Departments. Where applicable, recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the use permit and architectural review conditions of approval. 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. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or project modifications required. 2. Direct staff to return to the City Council with the necessary findings to uphold the appeal and deny the project design with prejudice. If the Council takes this alternative, the applicant would be precluded from submitting a substantially similar application for a one year period. Staff does not recommend this alternative. The appeal does not raise design issues that staff recommends would support denial of the project design. The land use issues raised by the appellant were the subject of review in the use permit process and the land use entitlement has been granted and the appeal period has expired. The appeal raises limited issues relating to the Community Design Guidelines, which were within the purview of the Architectural Review Commission; the ARC thoroughly reviewed those issues and found the project design in conformance with Design Guidelines. 3. Direct staff to return to the City Council with the necessary findings to uphold the appeal and PH1 - 9 Old Mission School Appeal (ARC 131-13: 774 & 776 Palm Street) Page 10 deny the project design without prejudice. If the Council chooses this alternative, the applicant could submit a similar application for consideration within a one year period. Staff does not recommend this alternative. Staff believes the appeal has not provided a basis to deny the project, and the appeal issues consist of limited items relating to the Community Design Guidelines which were under the purview of the Architectural Review Commission and were thoroughly reviewed and found in conformance with Design Guidelines. An action to deny the project without prejudice should include a list of additional information required or project design modifications desired. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Applicant project statement/narrative, January 6, 2014 4. Reduced scale project plans 5. Appeal to City Council, January 15, 2014 6. ARC Report, November 18, 2013 (without attachments) 7. ARC follow up letter and meeting minutes, November 18, 2013 8. ARC Report, January 6, 2014 (without attachments) 9. ARC Resolution No. ARC-1000-14 & meeting minutes, January 6, 2014 10. Administrative Use Permit approval #A 131-13 11. Appeal of Administrative Use Permit approval & withdrawal. 12. CHC Staff Report, October 28, 2013 (without attachments) & CHC Resolution No. CHC-1012-13 DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 11” x 17” plans in full color T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-02-25\ARC Appeal - Old Mission School (Johnson-Davidson-Leveille)\E-Council Agenda Report_(ARC 131-13, Appeal).docx PH1 - 10 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S ACTION TO APPROVE A CLASSROOM BUILDING AND ACCESSORY STAFF OFFICE (774 & 776 PALM STREET, ARC 131-13) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on January 6, 2014, approved the proposed redevelopment design of the property at 774 & 776 Palm Street, which includes construction of a classroom building and accessory staff office based on findings of consistency with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, Michelle Gordon, on behalf of the Mission Orchard Neighborhood Association (MONA), filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on January 15, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 25, 2014, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Planning Commission hearing and action, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. As determined by the Architectural Review Commission, the project design is appropriate and compatible with surrounding development consistent with Community Design Guidelines of the City of San Luis Obispo. 2. As determined by the Cultural Heritage Committee, the project is consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines since the project scale, massing, and architectural style is compatible with the Downtown Historic District. 3. 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 High-Density Residential Zoning designation, and the project is consistent with relevant Zoning and development regulations and will be subject to requirements to conform to all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 4. The project conforms to General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 2.2.1: Mixed Uses and Convenience, which encourages mixed uses in residential neighborhoods to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores; PH1 - 11 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 2 and the proposed use is a non-residential activity consistent with General Plan Policy 2.2.13 which states residential areas may accommodate limited non-residential activities which generally have been compatible such as elementary schools. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32 (Section 15332), Infill Development, of the CEQA Guidelines since the project is in compliance with City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines and will not result in significant impacts to cultural resources, and meets the following criteria: a. The project is consistent with its general plan designation and applicable general plan policies. b. The project site is within City limits on a project site of no more than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Section 3. Action. The City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Architectural Review Commission’s action to grant final project approval, with incorporation of the following conditions: Architectural Review Commission approval: The project shall comply with all conditions contained in Architectural Review Commission approval ARC 131-13 (Resolution No. ARC-1000- 14). Conditions: 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. Significant changes to the exterior building design to respond to potential structural and/or exiting issues shall return to the ARC for review and approval. Significant changes to the exterior building design to respond to potential structural and/or exiting issues shall return to the ARC for review and approval. 2. The color board for the project presented at the meeting was supported by the Architectural Review Commission. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth troweled finish. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Any modifications to the approved palette shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a PH1 - 12 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 3 building permit. Building colors, materials, and all exterior details shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working drawings. 3. The proposed use shall remain fully consistent with the project description and proposed daily operations described in application project submittals including the ages and grades of students and numbers of students and staff described in the proposal and approved in the associated Administrative Use Permit approval #A131-13. The operations shall also remain consistent with minor modifications to the use description which the applicant has agreed to in association with the withdrawal of appeal AP-PC 131-13. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, written Director approval of the proposed consolidated approach as described in Chapter 5 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines is required. The report shall contain all required information and required components of Chapter 5. 5. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include a line-of-sight diagram and sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. 6. The locations of all wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that “Lenses of exterior wall- mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare.” 7. The existing driveway approach shall be abandoned in favor of curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards. The building plan submittal shall show and label the adjoining metered parking spaces and shall show additional metered parking in the area of the abandoned approach. The plan may require the relocation of one or more spaces and meters to provide a complying parallel parking layout. 8. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Displaced sidewalk in the area of the street trees shall be replaced as necessary. A tree grate shall be included around the existing street trees to remain if a grate could reasonably fit around the existing tree and crown. Sidewalk area removed or replaced shall be constructed back in Mission Style Sidewalk per City Engineering Standards. PH1 - 13 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 4 9. The proposed landscape plan for the area in front of the Administration Building should consider at least one street tree per City Engineering Standard #8010 to provide additional street tree coverage in the gap between the existing sidewalk trees. Additional screening planting such as Cypress trees shall be planted along the west property line to provide for privacy of neighbors. 10. The building plan submittal for demolition, grading, and new construction shall include pertinent tree preservation notes for the existing on-site trees to remain. 11. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The drainage plan shall consider all existing historic upslope and off-site drainage that is tributary to this site. The proposed drainage plan shall show how any tributary drainage is collected and conveyed to an approved point of disposal. The drainage plan shall consider the historic runoff from this site for both quantity and point of discharge. Changes to the historic drainage may require additional drainage analysis from a licensed civil engineer. The drainage analysis, if additional runoff is directed off-site, may need to justify the capacity of the existing downstream drainage improvements. 12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed utilities along with all utility company meters. The plan shall show the location of the existing utilities located within the public right-of-way for reference. 13. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with submittal of working drawings for a building permit. 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 surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. The project’s landscape and irrigation plans need to be in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.87 and Engineering Standards. The requirements can be found online at: http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/engstandardsnewland.pdf . 14. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 15. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. The back flow preventer and double check assembly shall be screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping, and if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 16. The building plan submittal shall include a complete demolition and topographic survey plan. The plan shall show all existing trees to remain and trees to be removed. The trees in PH1 - 14 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 5 the area of the existing storage building shall remain unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. 17. The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property’s existing and proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of connection at the City water and sewer mains. The City’s Utility Billing records indicate that the site is served by two existing 5/8” water meters. Please verify whether one of these existing water meters is proposed for landscape irrigation at the site. 18. If the property’s existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused, submittal of a video inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during the Building Permit Review process. If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must be abandoned per City standards. 19. Address Numbers: Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background. 20. Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air-handling systems, automatic fire-protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the Fire Department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating “Fire Sprinkler Riser” and “Fire Alarm Control Panel”. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. Show Riser room on floor plans. 21. Knox Box: A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room. 22. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13 system will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. The fire main and all associated control valves shall be installed per NFPA 24 Standards and City Engineering standards. The Fire Department Connection shall be located along a fire apparatus access. 23. An approved fire alarm system is required for this project. The fire alarm system shall be interconnected to the main campus, unless an approved 2 way communication system, approved by the fire department, and manual pull stations are provided for both campus. 24. Emergency Planning: Outdoor assembly areas shall be designated and shall be located a safe distance (at least 50 feet) from the building being evacuated so as to avoid interference with fire department operations. The assembly areas shall be arranged to keep each class separate to provide accountability of all individuals. Please designate on plans. PH1 - 15 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 6 25. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2014. Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________ Anthony J. Mejia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _/s/ J.Christine Dietrick_____________________ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney PH1 - 16 Attachment 2 PH1 - 17 Attachment 3 PH1 - 18 Attachment 3 PH1 - 19 Attachment 3 PH1 - 20 Attachment 3 PH1 - 21 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 22 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 23 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 24 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 25 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 26 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 27 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 28 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 29 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 30 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 31 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 32 Attachment 4 PH 1 - 33 Attachment 5 PH1 - 34 Attachment 5 PH1 - 35 Attachment 5 PH1 - 36 Attachment 5 PH1 - 37 Attachment 5 PH1 - 38 Attachment 6 PH1 - 39 Attachment 6 PH1 - 40 Attachment 6 PH1 - 41 Attachment 6 PH1 - 42 Attachment 6 PH1 - 43 Attachment 7 PH1 - 44 Attachment 7 PH1 - 45 Attachment 7 PH1 - 46 Attachment 7 PH1 - 47 Attachment 7 PH1 - 48 Attachment 7 PH1 - 49 Attachment 7 PH1 - 50 Attachment 7 PH1 - 51 Attachment 8 PH1 - 52 Attachment 8 PH1 - 53 Attachment 8 PH1 - 54 Attachment 8 PH1 - 55 Attachment 8 PH1 - 56 Attachment 9 PH1 - 57 Attachment 9 PH1 - 58 Attachment 9 PH1 - 59 Attachment 9 PH1 - 60 Attachment 9 PH1 - 61 Attachment 9 PH1 - 62 Attachment 9 PH1 - 63 Attachment 9 PH1 - 64 Attachment 9 PH1 - 65 Attachment 9 PH1 - 66 Attachment 9 PH1 - 67 Attachment 9 PH1 - 68 Attachment 9 PH1 - 69 Attachment 9 PH1 - 70 Attachment 9 PH1 - 71 Attachment 10 PH1 - 72 Attachment 10 PH1 - 73 Attachment 10 PH1 - 74 Attachment 11 PH1 - 75 Attachment 11 PH1 - 76 Attachment 11 PH1 - 77 Attachment 11 PH1 - 78 Attachment 12 PH1 - 79 Attachment 12 PH1 - 80 Attachment 12 PH1 - 81 Attachment 12 PH1 - 82 Attachment 12 PH1 - 83 Attachment 12 PH1 - 84 Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:32 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: City Council Public Hearing 2 -25 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk (:lty Of S11) WIS 01;1S[)0 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93ito -1_ tel 1 805.781 102 RE CEI�.�FtiT FEB 24 2014 S1.0 CITY cl e AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date < / Item From: Marx, Jan Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:31 PM To: Michele Gordon; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: City Council Public Hearing 2 -25 Thanks for your message. I am including our city clerk in this response so your email is posted on the city website as agenda correspondence. Yours, Jan Marx Sent from my Veiixon Wndcss 4G LTF Smarnphonc -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Michele Gordon Date:02/22/2014 2:06 PM (GMT- 08:00) To: "Marx, Jan" , "Smith, Kathy" , "Christianson, Carlyn" , "Carpenter, Dan" , "Ashbaugh, John" Subject: City Council Public Hearing 2 -25 Hello City Council Members, I will be presenting at the City Council Public Hearing on February 25th. The attachment outlines my concerns regarding the expansion of Old Mission School (774 & 776 Palm Street). This project did not receive adequate review at the Administrative Use Hearing and the neighbors surrounding Old Mission School will request that the City Council redirect review of Old Mission School's Palm Street Annex to the Planning Commission in order to address the issues I have bulleted in the attachment. I hope that you will have a moment to read our concerns prior to the meeting. Respectfully, Michele Gordon 762 Broad Street, SLO Representative of the Mission Orchard Neighborhood Association 774 & 776 Palm Street, Old Mission School The Mission Orchard Neighborhood Association, comprised of the homes surrounding Old Mission School, is concerned that this project did not receive adequate review at the Administrative Use Hearing and we request that the City Council redirect review of Old Mission School's Palm Street Annex to the Planning Commission in order to address the following: Lack of notice to the neighbors in the drop off /pick up area for the annex: This proposed project is an expansion of OMS; therefore, per the zoning ordinance, the residents surrounding OMS should have been notified regarding the expansion of the school so that they would have had an opportunity to have their concerns addressed at the Administrative Use level. Unfortunately residents, living in the area where OMS main campus and annex students are dropped off and picked up, have had no voice in the process, which has led to an appeal. The City Council should return review of Old Mission School's Palm Street Annex to the Planning Commission and the effected neighborhood should be included in the process from the start. 2. Potential for increased enrollment: The application for the project states that OMS intends to use the annex property for "students who are attending classes in overflow classrooms at Mission College Prep ". This is accurate. However, what is important to note is what is NOT said in the application and consequently not addressed during the review process. The OMS annex project went through the Administrative Use Hearing under the assumption of no additional students. OMS has the opportunity with the addition of the Annex to increase enrollment (up to 90 additional students), further exacerbating traffic congestion at the main campus during drop -off and pick -up times. The neighborhood has reached out to OMS on several occasions regarding the potential for increased enrollment /traffic congestion, including a written request from Brian Leveille to OMS that has not received a response to -date. The request states: Old Mission School agrees that enrollment at the main Old Mission School campus and the Annex property combined will not exceed 17 additional students from current enrollment of (Occupancy of 75 at Annex - (minus) current 58 students displaced from off -site classrooms at Mission College Prep). OMS agrees that enrollment at the Annex property will not increase beyond 75 until it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Planner that mitigations /measures will be implemented which will mitigate impacts to the neighborhood in the vicinity of the main campus, from the additional pick- up /drop -off trips resulting from the increased student enrollment. Given that increased enrollment, and the impact on the area surrounding OMS main campus from the added drop- off /pick -up traffic, was not specifically addressed in the annex application or in the review process, and from all indications it appears that OMS will use the new annex to increase enrollment, the project should be returned to the Planning Commission for review. 3. A traffic /loading /parking mitigation study was not conducted: Currently all loading and unloading of students is done on the street. As the curb fills, parents double park along Broad Street to pick up and drop off. Vehicles that are not stopping at OMS travel around the double parked cars, into opposing traffic. This is a typical school day and occurs a minimum of twice daily Monday- Friday. The Principal of OMS has stated on several occasions that her attempts at controlling, alleviating or reducing traffic congestion have been unsuccessful, including staggering start and end times. Due to traffic congestion as well as safety concerns, the project should be returned to the Planning Commission so that a study can be conducted and analyzed. What other schools in our community has designated on- street student drop -off? OMS should use their resources to provide on -site drop -off, to minimize morning and afternoon congestion. Our neighborhood has proposed some alternatives for OMS to consider; however, they have not responded to our ideas. 4. Off -site parking distance is in excess of regulation: The City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations state that off -site parking "shall be within 300 feet of the use and shall NOT be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous ". The measurement of 300 feet from the OMS annex to the Mission College Prep parking structure, as provided by OMS and accepted by the Administrative Hearing Officer, is "as the crow flies" (over houses and through fenced private property); the actual pedestrian access is approximately twice that (500 -600' vs 300'). The Administrative Hearing Officer does not have the authority to make exceptions to the off -site parking regulations (per the zoning ordinance) therefore the project should be returned to the Planning Commission for further review. 5. The proposed parking for the off -site use is not in compliance with the ordinance: Old Mission School, Mission College Prep and the OMS annex are currently using the parking structure at MCP and the adjacent cul -de -sac for parking. No additional parking is available or is being created with the addition of the annex. When reviewed globally, per city parking regulations, there is a significant shortage of parking. OMS provided, and the Administrative Hearing Officer accepted, an antiquated legal non - conforming parking allocation to support the shortfall of parking. OMS's expansion should trigger a review of non - conforming status and the Planning Commission should review ALL parking for ALL THREE SITES, rather than allowing a staff exception. yGoodwin, Heather FEB 18 2014 From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:27 AM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Public comment in support of APARC 131 -13 ( 774 & 775 Palm, SLO) approval. Agenda Correspondence for Mission School. Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk of : Nn Luis omspo 990 Palm street San I uis Obispo, CA 93401 tel I 80S 781.7102 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date a 5 I Item# . From: vendors @adriaticisland.orq [ mailto :vendors(&adriaticisland.org] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 8:11 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Public comment in support of APARC 131 -13 ( 774 & 775 Palm, SLO) approval. The Bobics P.O. Box 15537 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 February 15, 2014 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept. 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To the San Luis Obispo City Council, As the property owners of 675 Brizzolara, we have reviewed the application # APARC 131 -13, located at 774 and 776 Palm in San Luis Obispo and support and agree with the Architectural Review Commission's Design Review approval of the classroom building and accessory staff office for Old Mission School. We hope the council upholds the approval of this project. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Kim and Gino Bobic. g ^BPS_.. Vk,' Goodwin, Heather ! FEB 18 2014 Subject: FW: Public comment in support of APARC 131 -13 ( 774 & 775 Pa5i,--5L0) approval: AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE - - - -- Original Message - - - -- #e `' � Item #LL/41_ From: vendorskadriaticisland.org [vendorsgadriaticisland.org] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 08:09 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Public comment in support of APARC 131 -13 ( 774 & 775 Palm, SLO) approval. The Bobics P.O. Box 15537 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 February 15, 2014 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept. 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To the San Luis Obispo City Council, As the property owners of 675 Brizzolara, we have reviewed the application # APARC 131 -13, located at 774 and 776 Palm in San Luis Obispo and support and agree with the Architectural Review Commission's Design Review approval of the classroom building and accessory staff office for Old Mission School. We hope the council upholds the approval of this project. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Kim and Gino Bobic. • FEB 2 4 2014 ission San Luis 06 5po de Tolosa Pro Cathedral fad, 751 Falm Street • 3an Luis 0hispo, California 93401 • Phone (805) 78 1 -8220 Fax(805)781-8211 e -mail: ofFice@oldmissionslo.org • We address: www.missionsanIuiso6isPo.org February 24, 2014 AGENDA Mayor Jan Marx and Members of the City Council CORRESPONDENCE 990 Palm Street Det LS Item# L - I San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Dear Madame Mayor and Council Members: I appreciate the opportunity to provide some background and context in advance of the pending appeal of the approval recently granted by the Architectural Review Commission to the Old Mission School classroom project on Palm Street. In 1999 Old Mission Parish was given the opportunity to acquire this parcel, and agreed to purchase it under a ten -year mortgage through the Monterey Diocese. For most of that time the house at the back of the property served as residence for Fr. Tilley, principal of Mission College Prep and also, briefly, for the current principal and his family. The front building was shared by Mission College Prep and Old Mission Elementary as office and meeting space. Since 2009 the Palm Street house has served as a rental on the open market. My concern, as pastor, has been for the use and maintenance of these buildings and their long -term occupancy. All buildings, now demolished, were of modest value, and nearing the end of their useful life. For some years we have considered the best use and ultimate purpose of the Palm Street property. I believe, at the time of the acquisition, some parish members intended the near location to become the site of a new parish hall, but with the renovation of the existing hall in 2012 that proposed use became unnecessary. Concurrently, Old Mission Elementary School (OMS) has been actively seeking available classroom space to replace two classrooms presently used on the Mission College Prep campus. Due to renovation plans of the neighboring high school, OMS will no longer have these nearby facilities available. With their loss, and the conversion of one classroom within the small OMS campus to a computer - technology lab, OMS faces an impending net loss of classroom space. Without replacement facilities, current students might be denied continuing enrollment during their middle school years, losing the investment made by them and their families at an important time in their lives. Both the school and the parish have made the replacement of classroom space a highest priority. After exploring numerous options to build or lease additional space within the city, it became clear that a simple satellite unit on Palm Street would be the best answer. We first considered simply re- purposing the existing structures, or at least using their footprint. The solution that evolved was to remove the increasingly derelict facilities entirely, and create a new attractive school site that would not only meet our needs but bring value to the neighborhood. As its structures declined, the most likely future of the parcel would have been to place it on the market for commercial or residential development. The idea to use it as a small campus annex immediately appealed to both the school and parish as a way to preserve this property from over - development, which would add to traffic and parking concerns. Our intention was, and remains, to give the community a low impact development. As a not - for - profit institution, Old Mission Church does not have to seek top dollar return for its investment, but can and should look to other values. The classroom project as proposed leaves a relatively light imprint on this historic Palm Street site. The commercial alternative of a multi- unit dwelling would add significantly more parking and traffic congestion. From my perspective as pastor, this is a win -win for all parties concerned. It also preserves whatever artifacts that may remain beneath this historic site. From the beginning, Old Mission Church and Old Mission Elementary School have been diligent in attempting to comply fully with City Planning and the various commissions which govern building and development in the downtown area. We have asked for no special consideration and have had this project unanimously approved at each level of civic review. It has had the strong endorsement of City Planning since it was proposed. We request a final approval from the City Council when the appeal is heard. I know that I share the concern of others that we are responding to an appeal from the Architectural Review Commission that has nothing apparent to do with architecture, but rather long- standing parking and traffic concerns in the surrounding neighborhood. It is my understanding that the City is addressing these issues with members of the Mission Orchard Neighbors Association. When it is finally complete I believe that the project will grace the neighborhood and serve the community for many decades to come, as do its sister campuses built in the 1920s and 1950s. Please keep in mind that if we are to have classrooms available for all our present students by Fall of 2014 we must begin construction very soon, pending final permitting by the City. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Fr. Russell Brown Pastor, Old Mission San Luis Obispo RECV- -Y\ /1EED Goodwin, Heather FEB 2 5 2014 SLO ULL-K From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 4:10 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Fwd: Council Correspondence: Request to Deny Appeal of OMS Satellite Classroom Project AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Dated 5 )JJtem# j l Begin forwarded message: From: Deborah Stanwyck <dstanwyck @charter.net> Date: February 24, 2014 at 3:04:10 PM PST To: " Mejia, Anthony" <amelia @slocity.or > Cc: Gary Stanwyck <stanwvck @stanfordalumni.org> Subject: Council Correspondence: Request to Deny Appeal of OMS Satellite Classroom Project Council Correspondence: Request to Deny Appeal of Old Mission School Satellite Classroom Project Dear Council Members: This email shall serve as my public comment to your February 25, 2014 Special Meeting regarding the appeal of Old Mission School's proposed satellite classroom project on Palm Street across from the Old Mission. I have reviewed your staff report and support your staff's recommendation to deny the design appeal for this project. Given that the use permit for this project was approved in October 2013 and your Cultural Heritage Commission recommended final approval by your Architectural Review Commission and the project itself conforms with the City's community design guidelines there is no grounds to grant the appeal. The ARC's unanimous vote to approve the project should therefore be upheld and the project allowed to proceed immediately. The construction of four small classrooms at the Palm Street location to accommodate the changing nature of education (with focus on technology) at Old Mission School seems to be a very reasonable request. Old Mission School has been in existence almost as long as the Mission itself — since 1876. It's adjacency to Downtown and the Mission has allowed thousands of students to have a uniquely San Luis Obispo experience. This minor expansion will accommodate the school's growing needs in a minimally impactful way to the surrounding neighborhood. So why am I, a small business owner in the City, writing a letter in support of this technical issue that your staff and volunteer design professionals have so thoroughly examined for you? I am a graduate of Mission Schools. When I attended the schools (not quite at the beginning, but a long time ago) the brick building at Palm and Chorro, adjacent to this project, housed Chong's candy shop. My wife and I remember vividly saving up our pennies to be able to stop at Chong's and enjoy his delicious treats. In life however, things change and evolve, and the Chong's building now houses a realty business, a minor change that continues to fit into the fabric of this neighborhood. The change from offices in support of the school to four small classrooms is also minor compared to some of the other changes Downtown has seen since the school has started. While change is hard, it is inevitable and when that physical change is done in a manner that addresses all City requirements and is compatible with neighborhood uses — it should be supported. As a somewhat parentless youth, I owe much of my personal success to the education and support that I received from the teachers, the families, and the clergy of Mission Schools. Today, very few communities can say that they have a school founded in the 1800s that still exists to develop children not just into well- educated individuals but also caring members of their community who constantly give back and make San Luis Obispo a better place. Sincerely, Gary D. Stanwyck, M.D. ,avast!" This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. - 7� k "40 Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:32 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: City Council Public Hearing 2 -25 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk Of sAII lull cll itV 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 9340.1 tel 805.78z.71-0 ? FEB 24 2014 f SLO CITY Y C ..:.. I AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date.' a7i item# From: Marx, Jan Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:31 PM To: Michele Gordon; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: City Council Public Hearing 2 -25 Thanks for your message. I am including our city clerk in this response so your email is posted on the city website as agenda correspondence. Yours, Jan Marx Senl from my Variznn Wireless 4G I.TF Smanphone -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Michele Gordon Date:02/22/2014 2:06 PM (GMT- 08:00) To: "Marx, Jan" , "Smith, Kathy" , "Christianson, Carlyn" , "Carpenter, Dan" , "Ashbaugh, John" Subject: City Council Public Hearing 2 -25 Hello City Council Members, I will be presenting at the City Council Public Hearing on February 25th. The attachment outlines my concerns regarding the expansion of Old Mission School (774 & 776 Palm Street). This project did not receive adequate review at the Administrative Use Hearing and the neighbors surrounding Old Mission School will request that the City Council redirect review of Old Mission School's Palm Street Annex to the Planning Commission in order to address the issues I have bulleted in the attachment. I hope that you will have a moment to read our concerns prior to the meeting. Respectfully, Michele Gordon 762 Broad Street, SLO Representative of the Mission Orchard Neighborhood Association Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Begin forwarded message: FEB 2 5 2014 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:19 AM Goodwin, Heather Fwd: Public Comment on Appeal of The ARC Review commission's design review approval of a classroom building and accessory staff office - 744 and 776 palm street Mission Gardens Property Lines jpg AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date.--)/ _2­511't items r� 1 From: "Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristi gslocity.org> To: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia cr,slocity.org> Subject: FW: Public Comment on Appeal of The ARC Review commission's design review approval of a classroom building and accessory staff office - 744 and 776 palm street For public comment, thanks, C. Carlyn Christianson Vice Mayor, San Luis City Council 990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo 93408 cchristi a,slocity.org 805 -550 -9320 cell 805- 752 -1021 home (for city calls) From: MaryAnn Riley [maryann.rileyggmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:37 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Cc: Mary Ann Riley Subject: Public Comment on Appeal of The ARC Review commission's design review approval of a classroom building and accessory staff office - 744 and 776 palm street I, Mary Ann Riley served on Mission Garden Home Owners Association from 2001 -2013; which is comprised of 36 Condominiums on the corner of Peach and Nipomo Street. During my time on the Board Mission Gardens and Mission School have always had an amicable relationship as we share two property lines. Occasionally fencing or balls coming over the fence may arise, they have always been a good neighbor and responsive with our communication. We have been neighbors for almost 40 years and worked with the City in the 1980's when Mill Street was decommissioned between Chorro Street and Peach Street. I do not have a problem with Old Mission School building Additional classrooms. Mary Ann Riley Owner and Past President 570 Peach Street, Mission Gardens 805- 748 -4335 cell RECEIVED Goodwin, Heather FEB 2 6 2014 SLO CITY CLERK From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:07 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Fwd: Old Mission School Appeal Hearing - Errors and Omissions Agenda Correspondence. AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Begin forwarded message: b dio l kiitem# From: James Lopes <jameslopes(a�charter.net> Date: February 25, 2014 at 10:44:32 PM PST To: "Ashbaugh, John" <'as� hbauggslocity.org >, "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpent ,slocit y�o , "Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristi(a,slocity.org >, "Codron, Michael" <mcodrongslocity.org >, "Dietrick, Christine" <cdietrickga slocity.org >, "Lichtig, Katie" <klichtigga,slocity.org >, "Marx, Jan" <marxgslocity .or g >, "Smith, Kathy" <ksmith(2slocit�org >, "Mejia, Anthony" <amej iakslocity.org> Subject: Old Mission School Appeal Hearing - Errors and Omissions February 25, 2014 TO: City Council of San Luis Obispo I attended and spoke at the City Council's hearing concerning an appeal by the Mission Orchards Neighborhood Association of the Architectural Review Commission's approval of the Old Mission School classrooms proposed at 774 and 776 Palm Street. My comments were to the effect that the project was fully constituted at the location on 774 and 776 Palm Street and at Old Mission School along Broad Street in the parking and loading /unloading areas. Staff had disregarded the Broad Street location in the public hearing noticing and the environmental determination. I think it important for you to understand the facts in support of my arguments: The staff allowed the parking that is required for the new classrooms at 774 and 776 Palm Street to be located at the Old Mission School, which incidentally is located further than the maximum allowed distance of 200 feet for off -site parking. The staff recognized by this allowance that the Old Mission School was part of the project. It was also recognized that loading and unloading of students would occur in front of the Old Mission School rather than at 774 and 776 Palm Street. However, staff did not include the Old Mission School as part of the project in its noticing and its environmental determination. In distributing the mailed notice for all of the public hearings to property owners within the minimum distances required by ordinance, and in the mapped legal hearing notice, staff did not include those properties along the Old Mission School frontage on Broad Street, even though staff had acknowledged that this location was part of the project proposal. The public hearing notice was therefore invalid under the California Government Code; new hearings should have been required with proper notice being given to all parties within the required distances from the project boundaries. In preparing its environmental determination, staff did not acknowledge that parking, loading and unloading activity is a significant problem at the Old Mission School frontage on Broad Street. The environmental determination did not address this location, which is part of the project. • Testimony at the appeal hearing indicated that traffic conflicts and hazards occur along the Old Mission School frontage; it is a controversial location with nearby residents. • The environmental determination by staff was that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 15332 - Infill Development Project, and that it met all of the listed conditions for this exemption. • However, the environmental determination did not address traffic impacts on Broad Street to any degree which would assure that the project would meet condition 15332 (d): "Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,..." No traffic study was performed nor were any existing traffic impacts recognized by staff or the City Council. • The project as fully constituted does not qualify for a Class 32 categorical exemption because existing traffic impacts are occurring from the project at Old Mission School on Broad Street. There is controversy and factual evidence that these traffic impacts are occurring at a "significant" level. • The environmental determination should be revised to include the fully constituted project sites, and a traffic study should be done to determine the level of traffic impacts at Old Mission School on Broad Street. • If the traffic study indicates that existing conditions are causing "significant effects relating to traffic" (Section 15332(d)) then the proper course is to prepare an initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration. CEQA case law requires that where significant impacts related to the project are already occurring, then those impacts should be addressed and mitigated to insignificance as part of a project proposal. Staff did not indicate to the City Council that this course of action should be taken. In fact, they did not address it in their response to testimony. This course of action would apply to all of the hearings, starting with the Administrative Use Permit hearing, which should be re- noticed and informed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Traffic Impacts. Given the controversy and errors in the Administrative Use Permit hearing process, the City Council should have assigned this appeal of the project to the Planning Commission, with the minimum noticing requirement of adjacent properties expanded to at least 500 feet from both locations of the project. The Cultural Heritage Commission and the Architectural Review Commission hearings also should be properly noticed and re -held. I would be glad to discuss this matter with you and your staff to determine the best interpretation of the facts and law as possible. Sincerely, Jamie Lopes James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805 - 781 -8960